THE PROTESTANT Religion TRUELY STATED AND JUSTIFIED: By the late Reverend Mr. RICHARD BAXTER, Prepared for the Press some time before his Death.

Whereunto is added, By way of Preface, some Account of the Learned Author: By Mr. Danel Williams, and Mr. Matthew Sylvester.

LONDON, Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1692.


THE Author of the following Tract is the Reverend Mr. Baxter, now enjoying that Glory he so conversed with in his mortal state. Among his many Excellencies, his Love to God, to Peace, and Truth, was not the least eminent. The last rendred him averse to Logomachies and con­fusion; well knowing, How vain all eristick debates be, if the Question be not truly and plainly stated. This Book will give thee a Spe­cimen of that peculiar accuracy in this kind, as even determineth the Controversie before an Argument be produced.

It is not to be concealed, that some complain of the multitude of his distinctions; but such may consider, that the Comprehensiveness of his Mind accommodated things to the most subtil, as well as the less intelligent Reader▪ and provided against future Errours, as well as the mistakes he attends to in the particu­lar points before him.

Indeed he was a man born for more lasting [Page] service than one Age; yea, his Name will be greatest, when impartial inquisitiveness after Truth shall render men painful; and sad ex­perience of the mischief of narrow and divi­ding Principles hath forced the confident to mutual allowances, and well studied deter­minations. But how unhappy was he (or ra­ther such as mistake him) that he is oft charged with deserting this or that Truth, be­cause he understood it in a consistency with it self, and such other truths wherewith it was connected. As if Ort hodoxie must be sacrificed when-ever a Doctrine is made in­telligible; or the choice of terms more apt to confute the erroneous, less obnoxious to mistakes, and most expressive of digested thoughts, ought to alarm all such, who seem capable to know little more of Truth than the sound of oft repeated Phrases.

Nay, as more convincing what treatment any man must expect, who sets himself to heal a blind depraved World; The clearest representation of his mind will not silence the ignorant from charging him with those Er­rours which he most expresly disowns. Three of the most material are denied and confuted by Mr. Baxter in this very Treatise, viz. the moral freedom of the Will of an unregenerate man, conditional Election, and the merit of good Works as opposed to, or coordinate [Page] with the Righteousness of Christ. Neither must it be over-look'd, that it was his Con­cern in this Book above any other, to speak as near to these points as his Judgment could admit; and in other Treatises he more large­ly declares against them.

1. Of Free-Will, p. 87. he tells us, he denies that mans Will in his unregenerate state is free from vitious inclination, or from the conduct of an erring Intellect, or from the Biass of Sensuality, &c. 2. He denies that the Will thus vitiated, will ever deliver it self without Gods Spirit and Grace, it being rather inclined to grow worse. 3 As that degree of common Grace, which is in the unregenerate, is but such as consisteth with the predominant Reign of Sin; so the Will of every unregenerate man in that pravity, is as a Slave to its own vitious dispositions, errour, and temptations. Who can say more against Free-Will? Obj. But he affirms the natural freedom of the Will. Answ. He doth so, and explains it, p. 84, 85, 86, 91. and it is no more than that a Sinner is a man still, tho' he be depraved; and he is a liberal, and not a forced Agent in what he acteth.

Obj. But he saith, p. 88. That by common Grace a man may do more good and less evil than he doth. Answ. It's true, he saith so. But, p. 85. he distinguisheth between [Page] common and special Grace, and denies that we can do that by common Grace, which is proper to special Grace: and saith, men have but just so much, and no more moral Liberty, and power, as they have of Gods Grace to relieve their vitiated Wills. See p. 91.

2. Of Conditional Election, p. 99. He condemns the Notion called Scientia Media: p. 100. he saith, God decreeth not mens Salva­tion, or Sanctification, meerly on Foresight of our Faith: but decreeth our Faith it self. Sin he permitteth, but Faith he effecteth, and decreeth to effect: and p. 101. he shews, how God decreeth both the means and end. And tho' God justly denieth his Grace to many that forfeit it by wilful resistance and contempt; yet he takes not the Forfeiture of the Elect. Yea he adds, That he is deceived, and wrong­eth God, that feigneth him to send his Son to redeem the World, and his Word to call them, and his Spirit to renew them; and all this at random, not knowing whether it may not all be lost; or leaving it chiefly to the Free-Will of them, whose Wills are contrarily in­clined and vitiated; whether Christ and all his preparations shall be lost: p. 102. he ap­proveth the plain Christian who holds that our destruction is of our selves, but our help and Salvation of God; and God is the first and chief Cause of all good, and men and Devils of all evil.

[Page] Obj. But he will not say, that God hath by his Will and Decree ordained from Eterni­ty that men shall sin, or will and chuse evil, p. 100, & 101. God doth not decree that men shall sin, that they may be damned; for sin is no work of God, &c.

Answ. But yet he saith, p. 100. that,

1. God decreeth who shall de damned for sin.

2. That he foresaw mens sins, not as an idle Spectator, but a willing Suspender of his own Acts, so far as to leave Sinners to their self-determining Wills. Reader, if thou art a man of thought, thou seest Mr. Baxter is clear for absolute Election, tho' he did not think it necessary for the vindication thereof to judge, that God absolutely decreed men to sin, that he might damn them: it's enough, that it is from Gods Sovereign Will, that ma­ny are not elected; it would be an ease to the damned, that they could justly say, God de­creed us to all our sins, that he might bring us under all this punishment, a Non-election to Efficacious Grace, and a positive Decree to damn such for sin, which themselves would choose, best suited with his Conceptions of Gods Goodness, Truth, and Purity.

3. Of the Merit of good Works: Note, Reader, that he is not fond of the word Me­rit, but his Adversary leads him to the use of it, as thou mayst see p. 96. But let us hear [Page] what his sence is of this point: p. 119. All Saints are saved by the full sufficient Merits of Christ, and have none at all of their own, unless the amiableness of Grace freely given them, be called their Merit; and, p. 95. we do with Paul renounce all Works of our own, that are thought to make the reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace; and that are set in the least opposition, or competition with Christs Merits, or in any place, save com­manded subordination to him: nay, he says he firmly holds, That Works done with a con­ceit of obliging God by Merit in commutative Justice, or as conceited sufficient without a Saviour, and the pardon of their failings, do more further their Damnation, than Salva­tion. Yea, p. 97. none but Christ merited of strict distributive Justice, according to the Law of Innocency, nor by any Works that will save from the charge of sin, and desert of death. And that thou mayest know what he ascribes to our Graces, Holiness, or Works: He tells us, p. 119. we mean by Merit but the moral aptitude for the reward of a free Benefactor, who also is Rector, when the or­dering of a free gift suspended on official con­ditions, is sapientially made a means of pro­curing obedience. This one Clause, if under­stood (and he is a bold Traducer of so great a Man, that cannot understand words so [Page] plain) will acquit Mr. B. and inform thee of the place of all Gospel-Conditions. 1. All Gospel-blessings are the free gifts of Christ as Benefactor, they have their being without any regard to what we do, therefore nothing in man is a jot of the righteousness or merit for which they are bestowed. 2. Christ is our Rector or Governor, he will rule us as well as be beneficent to us. 3. As a means to incline us to comply with him as Rector, he suspends these blessings on terms of what he makes our Duty; and wisely orders them as Motives to our Obedience. 4. Any Act of our Obedi­ence is no more than a conformity to that Or­der of his, and doth not hinder all we receive from him to be of free gift.

Obj. But he saith, that good Works are necessary to Salvation.

Answ. He doth so, and how few deny it? But, 1. Not if a man dye as soon as he be con­verted; but if he have time, p. 94. 2. Their rewardableness is by Gods free Grace, and Promise, for the sake of Christs meritori­ous Righteousness, Sacrifice, and Intercessi­on; their imperfection being pardoned, and their holiness amiable through him: These are his words, p. 76. 3. He saith; Not with­out or as a supplement to the Sacrifice, Me­rits, and free Grace of Christ our Saviour, and Faith in him, p. 93, 75. And we give [Page] our selves to Christ, as our Prophet, Priest, and King, to be saved by his Merits, p. 94.4. He saith, our best Works will not save a man from the charge of sin, and desert of death, p. 97. 5. He denies that external Obedience is necessary to our admission into a justified state, as he shews in the Thief on the Cross. And when he saith, we are justifi­ed by our Faith, Godliness, and Works; Ju­stification is not taken by him for the pardon of sin, which he ascribes wholly to the Merits of Christ; but he takes Justification there for our acquittance against the accusation that we are Infidels, Ungodly, and Hypocrites. And saith, that against the charge, that we are Sinners, deserving Hell, we are justified by Christ believed in, p. 94. His meaning is plainly this, Christ alone by his Merits forgives our sins, and purchased eternal Life for us. But seeing that Christ hath promised to forgive none but the penitent Believer, and declared he will destroy all impenitent, unbe­lieving, ungodly sinners: Now he thinks, that we must be truly acquitted, that we are not such, or we shall not be saved by Christ: Yea, he thinks, that when God justifies a man for Christs Merits, he doth also declare a man to be a true Believer; because he will justifie no other, and will justifie all such; and when God ad­mits a man into Glory, he doth even thereby [Page] adjudge him a believing, penitent, holy, and upright man; and free from the charge of being an infidel, hypocritical, unholy Enemy; against whom the Gospel denounceth Venge­ance and bars relief. Let these things be weighed, and none will wonder that he should say on his sick bed, No works, I will leave out works, if he grant me the other: And truly, in health none spake more humbly of his own Works than he used to do. But be­cause some confident weak persons have infer­red from that passage, that he changed his Principles when he came to dye; we shall in­form thee, that after that passage was ut­ter'd by him, even the night before his death, Mr. Baxter was asked, whether he was of the same sentiments, as formerly, about Ju­stification? He answered, That he had told the World sufficiently his thoughts about it by several Writings, and otherwise; and thi­ther he referr'd them. And after a little pause, with his Eyes lifted up to Heaven, he cryed, Lord, pity, pity, pity the Igno­rance of this poor City. And in the time of his sickness he declared to us and others, that his thoughts in these things were the same as formerly.

Our regards to Mr. B. force the Publica­tion of what we here insert; tho' we would not be judged so happy, as to arrive at his [Page] Light, to lead us to a full Agreement with all his Sentiments. As to this Book, we wish there be not still great need of such helps a­gainst Popery; and we are assured it will give more light than some greater Volumes on this Subject: That God may render it useful, shall be the Prayer of

Thy Servants in the Gospel, Daniel Williams. Matthew Sylvester.

Protestant Religion Truly Stated, and Justified, &c.

THE Deceiver calleth his Book The Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, as if he owned a Go­spel distinct from that of the Reformed Church. And he undertakes to name fifty two points, which the Pro­testants affirm, but tells you not where, nor proveth his affirmation, but you must believe him as a Touchstone of Truth.

Dec. The first Protestant affirmation feigned, is, That there is not in the Church One, and that an infallible Rule for under­standing the Holy Scripture, and conserving of Ʋnity in matters of Faith.

Answ. A meer Lye, if he mean that this is any part of Protestant Doctrine; but [Page 2] he may find as crude confused words, in some ignorant person that is called a Pro­testant.

The Reformed Catholicks hold, that there is in the Church one, and that an infallible Rule for understanding the holy Scripture, and conserving of Ʋnity in matters of Faith.] And that Rule is, [The Evidence of its own meaning as inherent in its self, discernible or intelligible by men prepared and instructed, by competent Teaching and Study, and the ne­cessary help of Gods Grace and Spirit.] This is that Rule.

But the Reformed believe not 1. That there is any Rule by which ignorant, preju­diced, heretical, wilfully blind, wicked, uncapable men can understand such Scrip­ture, as they are hereby undisposed to understand, unless by a great change made on themselves. Nor that any Prince can make a Statute, which on Man can mis­understand, abuse or violate.

2. Nor that Men can understand it without teaching, and that sound teaching, nor by hearkening to Erroneous Decei­vers.

3. Nor that the Slothfull, that will not meditate on it, can understand it, tho' they have the soundest teachers.

[Page 3]4. Nor that Novices can understand as much in a short time and small Study, as aged long exercised Students.

5. Nor that wicked proud men, that forfeit Gods help, can savingly under­stand it without his Grace and Spirit.

6. Nor that any man, how holy soe­ver, perfectly understandeth every word in the Scriptures.

7. Nor that a person may not be fal­lible, and deceived, that yet knoweth which is the Infallible Rule: It maketh not all Infallible that know it.

8. Nor that any Church, or any Num­ber of Christians on Earth have such a Ʋnity as consisteth in perfect knowledge and agreement in all matters of Faith, that is, of Scripture-record from God.

9. Nor that God hath tyed this Infallible Regulation to the Bishop of Rome, or made him this Rule; seeing no such word of God is extant, and Gene­ral Councils have condemned Popes of Heresie, Infidelity, Ignorance, and most brutish lust and wickedness.

10. Nor that the Judgment of the ma­jor part of Christians or Bishops is the In­fallible Rule; for 1. The Papal part are but a third part: And they will hard­ly believe that the other two or three [Page 4] parts (Abissines, Egyptians, Syrians, Ar­menians, Georgians, Circassians, Greeks, Mus­covites, Protestants) are the Infallible rule. 2. And if they met in an equal Council, they that are most out of the Council, would be the most in it. And Ephes. 2. and many others now condemned, have had the Major part. And Chrysostom that thought that [few Bishops or Priests were saved,] thought not the greater num­ber to be the infallible Rule.

11. And Pope and Councils agreeing are not that Infallible rule; for two falli­bles makes not one infallible, nor two Knaves one honest Man. Popes and Coun­cils have oft condemned one another; yea, they have oft agreed in evil, as did that at Laterane the 4th. under Innocent the 3d. that decreed the deposition of Prin­ces, that exterminate not all that renounce not all Senses and Humanity; for those that have led into the Churches of the West all the horrid Errors of Rome, to pretend yet that they are the Infallible rule of understanding Scripture, is Impu­dency quite beyond that of Satan him­self.

12. If this Deceiver hold what is con­trary to his accused Protestant Opinion, he must condemn the Church of Rome, [Page 5] that agreeth not of the sense of a thou­sand Texts of Scripture, Horseloads of Commentators, and Cartloads of School-contenders, contradicting one another: And he that will say that all revealed in Scripture is not matter of Faith, re­proacheth God, as revealing that which is not to be believed. All matters of Faith are not essential to Christianity, but some are only for the perfection of it: All is matter of Faith that we are bound to believe as Divine Revelation. All the Scripture is such, thô the ignorant must have time and help to understand it, and explicitely receive it. The Popes them­selves (e. g. Sixtus Quintus, and Clem. 8.) have differed in many hundred Texts a­bout the very Latine Translation. Ma­ny hundred Volumes of Controversies among them, tell us how far they are from ending Controversies, and agreeing in all matters of Faith: But in so much as is ne­cessary to Salvation, all serious believing Protestants, or Reformed Catholicks, are agreed.

Now, to trouble the Reader with the proof of any of these twelve particulars, would be but to abuse Time and him; as to prove that no Man is perfect, and he that saith he hath no sin, is a Lyar: and [Page 6] to prove that the grand Deceivers of the Church are not Infallible, and that Gods Word is not unevident and unintelligi­ble, and that such Villains as their own Councils and Historians say many Popes were, speaks not more intelligibly and wisely than God; and that the Volumes of Canons and Priests Writings are not of more evident meaning than Gods Word; these need proof to none but those that are uncapable of it.

What Rule is there for the Infallible understanding the sence of all our Sta­tute Laws? none but what I mentioned. The intelligible evidence in the words, (what else are words used for) to men duely instructed and studyed. The Judg­es govern by deciding particular causes by the Law, but are not an Infallible Rule for all Men to understand the true sence of the Law by, (while Judges and Par­liaments differ from each other, as Popes and Councils did.)

The Texts cited by the Deceiver, are so vilely abused, as if he purposed but to make sport by taking Gods Word in vain.

Point 2. Accused, [That in matters of Faith we must not rely on the Judg­ment of the Church, and of her Pastors, but only on the written word.

[Page 7] Ans. The Deceiver would Cheat the Ignorant by Confusion; and belying the Reformed Catholicks: for,

1. It's false, that the Reformed hold any of this undistinguishing Assertion. They distinguish between humane Faith and Divine. (And I hope, God and Man may be distinguished.) They say that it must be a Divine Faith (that is, The Belief of Gods word for the Infallible Ve­racity of God) that must save us, and not the belief of Man alone: But that a humane Faith is needful in Subserviency to a Divine. God hath appointed humane Teachers to the Flocks, and Oportet discentem Credere; He will never learn, that will believe no­thing on his Teachers Credit. But he must believe Man but as Man, an imper­fect, fallible Creature, yet as like to know more than he that chooseth him for his Teacher; And that which Man is to teach us, is to see the Evidence of Gods own Word, that we may believe it for that Evidence, as our Teachers themselves must do. For if the Teachers do but believe one another, and not God, (or God only for Man's Authority,) this is not Religion, nor Divne Faith, but humane, such as they had that believed Pythagoras, Plato, Mahomet, &c. If Boys learn of [Page 8] their School-Master to understand the Greek or Latin Testament, and believe them as to Sence, this is not Divine Faith, but a help towards it. The word of God is Infallible: And by the help of fallible Men, (such as disagreeing Com­mentators be,) we are furthered for un­derstanding it. But false bloody Usur­pers are not the likest to teach us the Truth, nor fittest to be trusted.

His Citations of Scriptures, (to mista­ted Controversies,) are so putidly imper­tinent, that I am ashamed to detect them by words, which every Man may do.

The Third accused Point.

That the Scriptures are easy to be under­stood, and therefore none are to be restrained from Reading them.

Ans. Meer Cheat to the Ignorant, by confusion and falshood.

1. We and all Papists with us agree, (the more is the Guilt of the Deceivers Fraud,) that some of the Scripture is easy to be understood, and is actually understood by all true Christians, even all that is essentsal to Christianity, and ne­cessary to Salvation. Bellarmine, Castrus, and many others, tell us, that for all that, [Page 9] the Scripture is plain and sufficient: Yea, so it is, in many Thousand particu­lar Texts: If this be not so, let this Man tell us if he can, how it cometh to pass, that Papists, Greeks, and Prote­stant Commentators agree of the meaning of most of the Scripture, (perhaps of Nineteen Texts in Twenty,) if it be not plain.

But do Protestants say, that there is no­thing in the Scripture hard to be under­stood? the Father of Lyes will scarce affirm this of them, lest their Commen­taries and Controversies shame him.

2. But what? Must the people be for­bidden to Read Gods Word, because some passages are dark? Why not also forbidden to Read Statutes, Canons, Fa­thers, Jesuits, Fryars, and the Loads of Papists Controversies? Is there nothing hard in all these Volumes? what not in all the Canons? In all Chrysostom, Austin, Cyril, &c? In all Lombard, Aquinas, Bo­naventure, Scotus, Ockam, Cajetane, and all the Tribe? In all Suarez, Vasquez, Huctado, Albictine, &c? In all Cajacius, and his Tribe? Why are not these for­bidden? Do but rub your Foreheads, and tell me,

[Page 10]1. Whether the Law was not darker than the Gospel? and yet God charged them, Deut. 6. and 11. To teach the words to their Children, and that lying down, and rising up, at home and abroad; and to write them on▪ the posts of their Houses, and their Gates: And every blessed Man, (Psal. 1.) was to delight in the Law of the Lord, and meditate in it Day and Night? Read Psal. 119.

2. Whether Christ did not Preach the words Recorded in the Gospel to the unlearned common people; and Peter and Paul, and all the Apostles, to all the vul­gar Jews and Gentiles?

3. Whether they writ not their Re­corded Epistles to the Vulgar, even to all the Churches?

4. Whether it is not Gods Word that we must all be Ruled and Judged by, and is the Charter of our right to Heaven? and should we be forbid to read it?

5. Whether Hierom, Chrysostom, Au­stin, and all the Fathers, do not press Men and Women of all Ranks, to read or learn, and study the Scriptures?

6. Whether he be not like Antichrist, that will forbid Men to read that, which God sent his Son from Heaven to Preach, [Page 11] and Christ appointed Apostles, Pastors, and Teachers, to communicate to all the World?

7. Whether the Prince of Darkness and Pride himself, would not be ashamed openly to say, I have so much skill to speak Intelligibly, and God so little, that you must read my Books, and not read his? And whether Popes and Priests Volumes are not as unskilfully written, as Gods, and as like to draw Men to Heresie and Sin?

8. Whether he that thus Condemneth God and his Law, and extolleth Man's, be like to make good his accusation at God's Barr? Alas! must such things as these be disputed by Men that would be our Infallible Rule?

9. Either the knowledge of God's Word is needful, or not. If not, why did God write part of it himself? And send his Son to Preach it? And his Spirit in his Prophets and Apostles to write and Record it? Are blind Worms fit to ac­cuse God of Folly, and needless Work? Can Men obey God's Law that know it not? But if the knowledge of it be need­ful to our Obedience and Salvation, ask common Reason, whether the Difficulties should not rather oblige us to read and [Page 12] study it so much the more, [...]till we under­stand it, rather than not to read it at all? Do their ductile Followers that read it not, understand it better than those that study it Day and Night? The less we know of needless things, the better and quieter we are: If God's Law and Gos­pel be such, what a God and Governour have we! Can Heathens and Turks Blas­pheme him more, than to take him for so foolish a Governour of the World, as to make a stir by his Son from Heaven, and by Angels and Prophets, to give them so needless, yea, pernicious a Law and Gospel, as that Men must be kept from reading it, lest it Poyson them with He­resie?

10. Is it not essential to him that rela­tively we take for our God, to be the Go­vernour of the World, and to be our Savi­our, and the Holy Ghost to deliver and Seal the Gospel as glad Tidings to all Nations? And is it not by his Law that God Governeth, and by his Gospel that Christ Saveth, and the Holy Ghost doth illuminate and Sanctifie? And doth not that Man or Clergy then put down God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and set up themselves in the stead, who for­bid the reading of God's Law and Gos­pel, [Page 13] and Command the knowledge and observance of their own, Canons and Dictates instead of them, as more Intel­ligible and safe? And is not this (as Ro­bert Grosthead told Innocent 4.) next the Sin of Lucifer and Antichrist, or rather plain Antichristianism it self?

11. Is the Stage manner of Massing liker to make the people understand God's Law and Gospel, (by multitudes of Ge­stures, Motions, Crossings, Ceremonies, that need long Expositions, that over­whelm the strongest Memories,) than the reading and study of the plain and full words of God in Scripture?

12. Did this Deceiver ever hear Pro­testants say, that the Apocalypse, and Da­niel, and Ezekiel, and the Canticles, and the Chronologies of Scripture, are all easy to be understood? For if he have heard such a Fool, did he ever read this in the Confessions of any Church? Do not their Commentaries tell the difficulty? And ask this Man or his fellow Creature, whether the Infallible Pope, or Councils, have overcome all these difficulties to the Papists, and made all this easy to them? Or do not their Valuminous dis­agreeing Commentaries, and Controver­sies, shew that they are still as hard to them as to us.

[Page 14]13. And ask them whether Pope, or Council, have ever yet written an Infalli­ble Commentary on the Bible, or all such difficult Texts? If not, is it be­cause they cannot, or because they will not? And what the better then is their Church for their feigned skill and power, infallibly to decide difficult Scripture Controver­sies? What can be more shameless than this pretence, in Men that will not do it, nor ever did?

14. And if still they tell you; that the people were always bound to believe and obey the Churches Rites, without dispute or Contradiction; ask them whether it was not the Church Rulers that killed Christ, and called him a Blasphemer and Deceiv­er, and that Persecuted and accused the Apostles? And whether the People were bound to believe them, (as Jewish Pa­pists,) and whether all the Apostles and Christians were Rebels and Hereticks, for not believing them? And whether it was not for the Sins of Priests and Princes, and the peoples complying with them, that God by his Prophets reproved the Israelites, and at last forsook them to Captivity, 2 Chron. last. Jer. 5 last.

15. And if they tell you of the Peo­ples need of Teachers, tell them that [Page 15] that is none of the Controversie. But whether their Teachers must teach them to understand God's Book, or to throw it away? May not the Teacher and the Book, consist together? Must School-Boys be forbid to Learn their Grammar, because they must have a Teacher? Must he teach them the Book, or teach them without Book? But all the Craft is, to get all the World to take only such Cheaters as this for their Masters, and then Bible or no Bible may serve turn.

16. Is it not the Office of Teachers to Translate God's Word into known Tongues, that the People may under­stand it? This is the first part of Preach­ing it: If not, why do they use Tran­slations in the Church of Rome, the Sep­tuagint▪ and the Vulgar Latin? And why did Sixtus 5th. and Clem. 8. make such a stir to Correct the Latin? And why do so many Comment on them? And the Rhemists turn it into English? But what is all this for, but to help Men to understand the Book?

17. Doth not all the Word of God cry down Ignorance, and cry up Knowledge, from End to End? And what Knowledge is it, but Divine, of the Word and Law of God? What else is the scope of all [Page 16] the first Nine Chapters of Solomons Pro­verbs, and of Psal. 1. 19. and 119, &c. God saith, Hos. 4. 6. My People perish for lack of knowledge: And Isa. 27. 11. It is a people of no understanding, therefore he that made them will not save them. Ig­norance and Blindness are made the common cause of Errour, Sin and Mi­sery.

But we are so far from taking all parts of Scripture to be equally necessary to be understood, that we are more than the Papists for first and most diligently teaching them the Essentials, the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Commandments, and Baptism, and Church Communion, and the Lord's Supper, and lesser parts as they grow up; what they must learn first their Teachers must instruct them.

18. If he say, as they still do, that the Ignorant will misunderstand the Scripture, and every one turn it to his own Fancy, and Heresie: I answer, The way to pre­vent this, is to teach it them diligently, (what else is the Ministry for?) and not to forbid it them. Every Knave may pervert the Law of the Land to maintain his own ill Cause; and must the Law therefore be forbidden them? Reason is far more commonly abused than Scrip­ture: [Page 17] There is no Heresie, or Error, no Villany, Perjury, Cruelty, Persecution, Oppression, or Injustice, but Reason is pleaded for it: Must Reason therefore be renounced? Heresies are for want of understanding God's word; and must be cured by understanding it.

19. And if all the World must take the Popes or Priests words, instead of Gods, or for their Rule, how shall those in Aethiopia, Syria, America, or here, know what the Popes Word is? That never see him, or any that hath seen him? And how shall we know, when above twenty times there have been two Popes at once, which of them is the Right? And when they contradict and Damn each other, which of them must we believe? And when General Councils accuse them of Errour, and Condemn them, which is to be trusted with our Souls? Or if it be Councils that must be to us instead of Scripture, when they Damn each other, which must we be­lieve? (And so abundance of them have done.) When the Pope and they agreed to depose Christian Princes, and give away their Dominions, and disoblige their Subjects from all their Oaths of Al­legiance, is it as true as the word of [Page 18] God, that all Subjects must believe and obey them?

But how shall all the poor People know what the Pope and Councils say and hold? They can neither read their Volumes, nor understand them, nor know which are authentick and true? Must they all believe their Parish Priest? What if he be as very a Deceiver as the writer of this Touchstone, that doth but Cheat from the beginning to the end? Yet must we take his word instead of Gods? Or when other Priests, or Fryars contradict him, which of them must we believe? What if his Parishoners know him to be ignorant, or a common Lyar? Yet must our Salvation rest on his word▪ and God's word be forbidden us. What if we obey him in Error, and Sin, will he undertake to be Damned for us? Or will his undertaking or Damnation save those whom he mislead, &c.?

As to his Citation of Scripture against Scripture, it is so palpable a perversion, that I will leave any Man that will but Read the Text, to his own ability, to an­swer him: Rev. 5.1. No Man in Hea­ven or Earth, was worthy to open the Sealed Books that John saw in his Vision: What then, must no Man therefore open the [Page 19] Bible? Or because the Revelation is hard, must therefore the People be for­bidden to Read it, and the rest of God's word, which was written for them, as sufficient to make them wise to Salvation, yea, to make the simple wise, Psal. 19.

And with as shameless a Face doth he cite the Fathers, against the drift of all their writings and Labours, and the Judgment of all the Churches of Christ, for many hundred years, of its purest foundest Primitive times.

The Fourth accused Point.

‘That Apostolical Traditions, and ancient Customs of the Church, (not Founded in the written word,) are not to be received, nor do oblige us.’

Ans. This is but more Deceit, by con­fusion and false report.

The Reformed Catholicks hold,

1. That Memory is not so sure a way to deliver any Laws and Doctrines to Po­sterity, through many hundred years, as writing is. For it must lie on the Memo­ries of so many Thousands, in so many Ages, and so many parts of the World; Of so many Languages, Kingdoms, and cross Interests and Opinions in their [Page 20] quarrels; and the things to be remem­bred are so many, that this needs no proof, with any but Fools or Mad-men: What a Religion should we have had, if instead of the Bible, it must have all been brought us down by the Memories of all the Rabble of ignorant and wicked Popes? yea, or of the best? and by the Memories of all the Prelates and Priests that have pretended to be the Church? Why do they themselves write their pre­tended Traditions, if writing them were not needful? And why have we all our Statutes, Records, and Law-Books, if the Lawyers and Peoples Memories would keep and deliver them without these? When Men's Memories, Wits, and Ho­nesty are so weak, that we can scarce get one Story carried without falsifying through many Hands.

2. We hold, that God in mercy hath therefore considered Man's Weakness, and Necessity, and before the Apostles died, inspired them to Record so much of his Law, and Gospel, and Will, as was universally necessary for all his Sub­jects to know, in order to Divine belief; Obedience, and Salvation: And hath left nothing of this importance and ne­cessity unrecorded in the Law of Nature, [Page 21] (God's Visible works,) and Scripture, knowing that after Ages were not to have new universal Legislators, to make such Laws for all the World; nor to have Men miraculously enabled to do it, and give proof that it is Divine.

3. We hold that God's written Word and Law, is perfect in its kind, Psal. 19. and sufficient to its proper use and end: Which Bellarmine, Cassinus, and the Council of Basil, and many School-men, in their Prologues on the Sentences, con­fess extendeth to all things commonly necessary to Salvation, yea, and to be the Divine Rule of Faith.

4. Yet we deny not, that if God had seen meet to deliver any necessary part of Law or Gospel, Faith or Practice, as his will, by bare word and Memory of Man; we had been bound to believe and obey it, when we had sound proof that it was indeed from God.

5. We hold, that for fullest certainty, we have possession of the Bible it self, and of the Essentials of Christianity brought us by two Means Conjunct, that is, The Scripture, and practical Custom of the Church. As the Scripture or written Word shineth to us by its own Light, so Tra­dition tells us which be the Canonical [Page 22] Books, and how the Church received them as Divine, and that there are no other such: And the practice, of Baptismal Profession and Covenanting, and of the Church Assemblies, and reading Scrip­ture, and Catechizing, and of Euchari­stical Communion, and Prayer, &c. tell us what in all Ages hath been taken for true Christianity. As we hold a hu­mane Belief, needful in Subserviency, as a means to Divine Belief, so we hold hu­mane Tradition needful to the conveyance of God's Word to us. But, by your leave, we will distinguish the Messenger from the Authour: If the King send me a Law or Mandate by a Messenger, or by the Pen­ny-Post, I will receive and obey it, and yet not take the Post or Messenger for King, or Legislator, or Infallible.

6. And the Reformed Catholicks do own all true Tradition, but are for a far surer Tradition than the Roman Sect. Our Tradition of Scripture, and the great points of Christianity, cometh to us by Evidence Infallible, that may be called Natural, with the greatest advan­tage of Moral Evidence also; and not on the boast and bare word of one proud Sect, that pretendeth to Fanatick Inspiration and Authority above all others.

[Page 23]I call that Natural Evidence, which a­riseth from such necessary Causes that can­not be otherwise, nor can deceive: And I call that the best Moral Evidence, which cometh from Mens testimony of greatest credit for skill and honesty, and we have both these.

Mans Soul hath some necessary acts that cannot but be, and cannot be otherwise: Such is sensation of sensible objects duely presented; Intellectual perception of things presented according to the evidence in which they appear: The Love of our selves and our own known welfare, and any thing that is known to be an only and necessary means thereto, and hath Omni­modam ratiomem boni: The Love of Truth as Truth, and Good as Good: The hatred of misery, &c. These all Men have as men, and that which dependeth on these dependeth not only on mens honesty. And our evidence of Tradition is such as this. It is from the Common Consent of all capable Witnesses, of various Opi­nions, Passions and Interests, Friends and Foes; whereas the Tradition of Sectari­an Papists, dependeth on the Credit of one Sect, that falsly pretend a peculiar trust with both Scripture and Traditi­on, tho' against the greater part of Chri­stians: [Page 24] And pretend Fanatically that even ignorant Popes and Prelates in Coun­cil, have a gift of infallible knowledge.

For Example: If there were a doubt raised, Whether there be any such City in the World as Rome, Paris, Vienna? or whether there was ever such persons as K. James, K. Charles, Ludovicus 14▪ of France, &c.? Or whether the Statutes in our Books were really made by the Kings and Parliaments named in them, and be the same unchanged, &c. There is Natural evidence of all this, because it ariseth from necessary acts: All sorts of men of contrary interests could never a­gree to lie and deceive men in such ca­ses, no more than they could all agree to kill themselves: And if some would be falsifyers, the rest would presently detect and shame them: If any Lawyers would falsyfie or change the Statutes, o­thers would presently manifest the de­ceit, they being commonly known, and the cross interests of so many depending on them; yea, I say not only that this is Natural Infallible Evidence, but that it is more than very much other Physical Evidence of many other things; because we have better means to know Mans Na­tural necessary acts, than we have to [Page 25] know most other Creatures of God.

And then for Moral Evidence, we have all the Godly's attestation of all Ages, and Nations, and Sects of Christians, and a­mong the rest the Papists also, agreeing that This Bible, and This Creed, and these Essentials of Christianity, were all cer­tainly transmitted to us from Christ and his Spirit, in his Apostles.

And what's the Tradition of the Papal Sect to all this, who tell us falsely, you cannot know the Scripture to be God's Word, but by taking it on the belief of the Pope and Church of Rome, as Endowed with the Pow­er of Judgment, and the gift of Infallibi­lity. Alas! what abundance of Impossi­bilities must be proved true, before any Man can by this method believe God's word!

1. Before they can believe the Gospel, and that Jesus is the true Christ, they must believe that he hath a Vicar.

2. And a Church.

3. And the Pope is this Vicar, and his Sect this Church. And

4. That he hath the Office, Power and Gift, of infallible Judging, which the Major number of Christians or Chur­ches have not.

[Page 26]5. And that Christ (not yet believed in,) gave him power and Infallibility.

6. And that he that now Reigneth, is the true Pope by due Election, Consecra­tion, Qualification, &c. With many more such Impossibilities: And what is it to give up the Cause to the Infidels, if this be not?

7. But we judge that God's Law in Scripture, secured from the charge of pre­tended Rememberers and Ʋsurpers, is so sufficient to its proper use, that there need­eth no Supplemental Tradition, as if it were but half God's Law; but only sub­servient historical Tradition. And we chal­lenge the Papists to prove de facto,

1. That any such supplemental Tradi­tion is Existent.

2. That they possess any other, but what the other Churches know.

3. That they are more than other Chur­ches, authorized to be the Keepers and Judges of that Tradition. And

4. We fully prove them Innovators, and that Popery is a meer Novelty: It is copiously proved by Peter Moulin, de no­vitate Papismi, David Blondel de Ecclesia, Andrew Rivet Defence of Morney against Coffetean, and against Silvester, and many others. Can they without the most pro­fligate [Page 27] Impudence pretend Apostolical Tra­dition, for denying the Laity the Cup in the Eucharist, and for their praying in an unknown Tongue, and forbidding the Scrip­ture, and deposing Princes, and dissolving Oaths of Allegiance, and for tormenting and killing all baptized persons that obey not the Pope, with many such?

8. If Tradition tell us of any Customs used in the Apostles, or Primitive times, that be not in Scripture, and so be not made matters of Necessity to all; yea, or of any occasion all mutable Customs that are mentioned in Scripture, (as washing the Saints Feet, the Holy Kiss, the Womans Vail, long or short Hair, Collections each Lords Day, Preachers Travelling on Foot, &c.) we quarrel not with the then use of such Traditions, when they were sea­sonable, no more than with forbearing things strangled and blood: Nor quarrel we with the Churches after, that setled Easter Day, and made the 20th. Canon of the Nicene Council, and used divers Ce­remonies at Baptism. But Traditions of things Indifferent and Mutable, we receive but as such, to be laid aside when the oc­casion ceaseth: And if any will turn them into a necessary common Law, we disclaim such Usurpers; for they cross that very [Page 28] Tradition. It was delivered as Indifferent, and you feign and make it a necessary Law, and so destroy it.

9. We maintain openly, that Tradition is against the Papacy and its Corruptions. They are but a third or fourth part of Christians: The other two or three parts of the Christian World, profess that the Tradition of their Churches is against the Popes universal Sovereignty, and against all the Corruptions of which they accuse him. None but the shameless will deny that the Abassians, Armenians, Greeks, and others, plead that this is their Tradition. And Reader, tell us, why the Tradition of two or three parts of the Church should not rather be believed against a third part, than that which the third part boast of against all the rest.

10. Ask them which way they know and keep their Traditions? Whether they have any History, Records, or any other way which we may not know as well as they? If they pretend that it is a Secret, kept by their Church, it's a strange Secret that so many Thousands know: But if it be a thing proveable, let them prove it.

11. Is it not unmercifulness, to tell all the Christian World, that as big and hard as the Bible is, if they knew and obeyed it [Page 29] all, they cannot be saved, unless they be­lieve and do more, kept by the Pope, and called Tradition? When yet these De­ceivers can dispense with the knowledge and practice of God's own word, and think the Bible a Book too big and hard, (and the Prophane say, too strict,) to be commonly understood and kept; And yet all the Bible is not Enough, but we must be bound to as much more as they will call Tradition, yea, Volumes also of Papal Canon Laws.

12. Did not Christ for this thing Con­demn the Old Pharisees, Mat. 15?

Prove your Traditions to be Apostoli­cal, and about things necessary, and not your Forgeries, or about things mutable and indifferent, and we will obey all such Apostolical Traditions. But your Novel­ties and Usupations shall not pass with us for Divine Laws, because you can call them such.

The Fifth accused Point.

‘That a Man by his own understand­ing and private Spirit, may rightly judge and interpret Scripture.

Ans. Can any Man unriddle what this Deceiver meaneth?

[Page 30]1. Can a Man judge without his own understanding?

2. What meaneth he by a private Spi­rit? Little know I. If he mean God's Spirit, it is no contemptible nor private Spirit, even in a private Man: If he mean a Man's own Spirit, Soul or Intellect, it is the same as [his own understanding.] If he mean any Evil Spirit, or fancy and Er­roneous self-conceit, we defie such Spirits, and Deceivers that use them.

To understand without our own under­standings, is a Mystery fit for Rome; Why may not a Dog, or a Sheep, be said so to understand the Scripture, if it may be un­derstood without our own understandings? What a Curse is on the ignorant Nations, that will be led by such words as these!

But if he will say that he meant, [By his own understanding alone without a Tea­cher,] why did he not say so, but say one thing and do another. But that had been too gross a Lye, to have been be­lieved, by them that see that we set up Teachers in all our Congregations.

3. Therefore I can imagine nothing but absurdity in his words, unless he mean, that we hold that a Man may rightly In­terpret Scripture by his own understand­ing immediately, instructed by his Teacher [Page 31] and God's Spirit, without taking the Sence only at the rebound, on the belief of the Pope and his Clergy. For we never thought that a Man's own natural Wit without a Teacher, and the help of God's Spirit, can savingly understand and apply the Scripture.

And yet we would fain tell Papists a better way to Convert a Philosopher, or a Turk, than to Preach to them thus: God hath written his Law and Gospel to the World, but you cannot tell what is the mean­ing of it, till you take that sence on trust from our Pope and Clergy, and know that Christ authorized him to be Judge; and that before you believe in Christ, or understand the word that so authorizeth him. Were not corrupted Nature very blind in things Spiritual, Plow-men, and Tinkers, and Coblers, would be able to confute such Fopperies, and much more Priests, and Popes, and Prelates.

4. But I pray you tell me, whether the Pope and his Prelates, do not interpret Scripture by their own understandings? Whose understandings else do they judge by, in Conclaves or Councils?

5. And tell me, whether he that judg­eth that the Pope is Christs Vice-Christ and Ruler, at the Antipodes, and is infallible, [Page 32] tho' he be by Councils condemned for a Si­monist, and Infidel, an Atheist, a Seducer, or an ignorant Sot? Doth not this Man judge all this by his own understanding? If a Man take an ignorant sottish Priest for the Mouth of the Catholick Church, tho' he know no more what he talks a­gainst, than this Roman Deceiver, doth he not judge this by his own understand­ing? If a Sot will believe you, that your Sect is the whole Church, and all are Dam­ned, tho' they love God, and believe in Christ, if they will not be ruled by the Pope and every Mass-Priest, doth he not judge thus by his own understanding? Do you Preach to Men, or Beasts, that have no un­derstanding of God's Law and Will? If a Man must believe all the Canons of Popes and Councils, in Baronius, Binnius, Suri­us, Nicolinus, Caranza, &c. doth he not do it by his own understanding?

6. Oh! But the meaning is, You are all private ignorant Men, and we are the Cler­gy; Kings choose some of us, and Popes choose others, and whether we are Wise or Fools, Learned or Ʋnlearned, Infidels or Christians, you are all Damned if you will not follow us, and if we be Damned, you must be content to be Damned with us. And is it so? Hath God made Man for no safer [Page 33] and better a Condition, than to be Dam­ned when ever Sottish Drunken Priests will tell him, [You must believe us that are the Mouth of the Pope, and the Pope, tho' you think that the Word of God is against it?] Speak out Deceiver; would you have all Men be of their Rulers Reli­gion, or not? Should the Jews have be­lieved the Church, that Christ was a Blas­phemer, Deceiver and Traytor, and the Apostles Seditious Fellows? Must we be Mahometans under Turks, Persians, and Indians, and Papists under Papists? And why not Lutherans under Lutherans also? And so our King shall be our God, and our Religion humane. Or must Men judge what is true or false, good or bad, by their own understandings? Do Kings and Prelates Rule Men, or Dogs, and Brutes? If Cromwell say, He is Supream, and King Charles say, He is Supream, tell us whether we must not use our own understandings, to know which of them to believe and obey? And must we not do so, if the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, say one thing, and Christ another?

And I pray you tell us, whether that be Religion that is not Divine, and whether it be not our own understanding, that must distinguish between God and Man? Did [Page 34] not Vulgar Folly fit slothful Fools for Hell, they would easily perceive that Po­pery engaging them to renounce their own understandings, maketh us all Voluntary Brutes, to gratify the ambition of Men, and puts down God from being our Gover­nour, and Man from being a Voluntary Subject, and turns the Kingdom of Christ into the Kingdom of Beasts.

The Sixth Point accused.

That St. Peters Faith hath failed.

Ans. Who could more ignorantly have stated a Controversie?

1. Protestants are further from the Opi­nion that Peters Faith failed, than the grea­test Papist Doctors: Some Protestants hold that no Man that hath true saving Faith, doth ever totally lose it; much less Peter. Others hold, that no Elect Person that hath true Faith, doth totally lose it: And so thought Augustine: Others add, that though some, as Calvin speaks, quale­cunque semen sidei perderint, having no more immutable Grace than Adam had in In­nocency, yet all that have a Confirmed Radicated Habit, persevere. And as to Peters Faith, all save those called Armini­ans agree, (as far as I know,) that his [Page 35] Faith was not totally lost, nor Peter re­lapsed into a State of Damnation: But will all the Jesuits say as much?

We commonly hold that the Habit of Peters Faith, must be distinguished from the Acts, and the Act of Assent from the Act that exciteth Confession and conquereth Opposition. And that Peters Faith did not totally fail as to the Habit, nor the Assent, that Christ was the Messiah: But that it actually failed as to the latter Act, that should conquer Fear: Christ said to him and the rest before that, Why are ye fear­ful, O ye of little Faith: Little Faith, is Faith failing in Degree. This is our Victo­ry over the World, even our Faith, saith St. John. And did not Peters Faith fail as to part of that Victory, when he Curst and Swore that he knew not the Man?

But by Peters Faith, this Deceiver mea­neth the Popes Faith: And he instanceth in the Scribes and Pharisees, that were to be heard because they Sate in Mose's Chair, and in Cajaphas the High-Priest. Reader, see what Christians these Slaves of Christs pretended Vicar are: Doth he not plainly infer, that the people did well that believed the Priests, and the Scribes, and Pharisees, that Christ was a Deceiver and workt Miracles by the Devil; and [Page 36] was a Blasphemer and a Traytor, and de­served Death; and that cryed Away with him: Crucifie him? And what wonder if they obey their High Priest, when he Commandeth them to Murther Thousands and Hundred Thousands Saints Nicknamed Hereticks, when they justifie them that killed Christ and the Apostles, because the Church Commanded it, (unless they will renounce their own plain Conse­quence?)

And must we indeed believe, that the Popes Faith never failed, because Peters did not? Then we must believe that Ge­neral Councils that are their Church, have been very false and slanderous. Reader, I will give thee but an Account of one or two, (when their own most flattering Hi­storians have written of many a long time, that they were rather Apostatict, than Apostolici, and named but to keep the Ac­count of time.)

The great General Council at Constance, (that Burnt John Hus and Jerome of Prague, for Truth and Honesty,) finding three Popes Heading three Churches called Ro­man Catholicks, had no way to return to Unity, but by putting down all three: With much adoe they got down two of them: But Pope John at Rome had the [Page 37] fastest hold, and they had more adoe to get him down; and had not the Emperour resolved to back them, they had been foiled. Hereupon he is accused in the Council, First, by Fifty Four Articles, of such Monstrous Villanies, as one would think humane Nature were uncapable of. Afterward many more are added, of Poy­soning Pope Alexander, of Incest with his Brothers Wife, and the Holy Nuns, and Ravishing Maids, and Adultery with Men's Wives, and much more; and of Simony, almost incredible: And amongst the rest, (which I forbear to recite, lest I tire the Reader,) they say and prove, that he was a notorious Simoniack, and a portinacious Heretick; That oft before di­vers Prelates, and other Honest Men, by the Devils perswasion he pertinaciously said, asserted, dogmatized, and maintained, that there is no Life Eternal, nor any after this: And he said and pertinaciously believed, that Man's Soul dieth with the Body, and is ex­tinct, as are the Bruits: And he said, that the Dead rise not, contrary to the Articles of the Resurrection, &c.

These Articles being shewed to the Pope, he confest his Sin, and consented to be Deposed, and begged Mercy, but all in Hypocrisie, while he sought to get out of their Hands and Power.

[Page 38]And now Reader, dost thou think that it is the mark of a Heretick, and deser­veth Burning and Damnation, for a Man to think that this Popes Faith failed? Were it not for tiring you, I would repeat such Articles against many others of them, as would make you think, that not only the Heathen Philosophers, but even Mahomet was a Saint in comparison of these Swinish and Diabolical Popes.

After this, the Great Council at Basil accused Eugenius the 4th. of Heresie and multitudes of horrid Crimes, and deposed him: But he outfaced them, and standing it out to the last, got the better, and the Succession is ever since continued from this Pope, that was deposed by a grand Gene­ral Council.

Before these, Pope John the 12th. was deposed by a Council at Rome, called by Otho the Emperour, for such horrid Vil­lanies, as no Pagans that we read of ever matcht. Read them but in Baronius, and Binnius: Drinking Healths in Wine to the Devil, and calling at Dice upon Jupiter and Venus, besides Murders, Simony, In­cest and all Wickedness, are all consistent with Papal Faith: And if this be no failing, I shall grant that the Popes Faith (nor the Devils,) can never fail.

The Seventh accused Point.

That the Church can Err, and hath Er­rors.

Ans. This is truly and honestly recited: All Protestants hold it, and marvel that all the Devils in Hell can so befool any as to deny it.

1. No Body can tell what it is that they call the Church, till they tell us: But what ever it is, except confirmed Angels and Souls in Heaven, if they cannot Err, God and our Saviour, and the Apostles have Erred. For they tell us that, [we know but in part,] and if any Man say that he hath no Sin, he is a Lyar, 1 Joh. 1. 1 Cor. 13.12. And in many things we offend all, Jam. 2.2. Psal. 19.12. Who can understand his Errours, cleanse thou me from secret faults. It was the Church of which God complaineth, that they alway Err in their Hearts, and have not known God's ways, Psal. 95.10. Heb. 3.10. unless Caleb and Joshua were all the Church, Isa. 53.6. All we like Sheep have gone a­stray, &c.

If by the Church they mean the Priests, how full of Complaints against their Er­rours are all the Prophets, and History [Page 40] of the Kings and Chronicles? Isa. 3.12. O my people, they that lead thee, cause thee to Err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isa, 9.15, 16. For the Leaders of this people cause them to Err, and they that are led of them are destroyed. Mal. 2. The Priests Lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his Mouth, for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts: But ye are departed out of the way, and ye have caused many to stumble at the Law: Ye have corrupted the Covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of Hosts: Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, &c. Hos. 4.6. My people are cut off for lack of knowledge: Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will olso reject thee, that thou shalt be no Priest to me. Jer. 53.31. The Prophets prophecy falsely, and the Priests bear Rule by their means, and my people love to have it so, and what will ye do in the end hereof? 2 Chron. 36.14, 16, 17. All the chief of the Priests and the people Transgressed very much after the abo­minations of the Heathen: But they mocked the Messengers of the Lord, and despised his words, and misused his Prophets, till the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, and there was no healing▪ so Isa. 1.2, 3, 4.

[Page 41]Reader, is it not worse than Infidelity that these Men teach, if they say that the Church hath not Erred? Was it no Er­ror when Aaron set them up the Golden-Calf? nor when they went after the Idols of the Heathen, and worshipped in the High places? Was it no Error to take Christ for a Deceiver and Blasphemer, worthy to be Crucified? Was it no Error to reject the Gospel, and persecute the Apostles?

And had the Apostles no Error, when they believed not that Christ must Die for our Sins, and rise again, and ascend to Heaven, but thought he must then set up an Earthly Kingdom? Was it no Error of Peter, Math. 16. to disswade Christ from Suffering, for which Christ said, Get thee behind me Sathan, thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of Men? And I think he Erred, when Paul openly rebuked his Separation, Gal. 2.

If all the Church on Earth consist only of persons that have many Errors, then the whole Church hath many Errors: But the Antecedent is so true, that I take him that denyeth it, to be so far from knowing what the Church is, or what a Christian is, that he knoweth not what a Man is, [Page 42] and a Church of such are so unfit to be trusted as infallible, with all Mens Salvation, that they have not the Wit of common il­literate Men, or Children: And if in all things else they were as mad as in these two Opinions. 1. That the Church never did nor can Err.

2. And that all Mens Senses must be de­nyed for Transubstantiation; doubtless they should be kept in Bedlam from humane Converse.

But for my part, I do not think that any Man of them not stark mad, doth believe himself that there are any men in the World that have no Error, (that have any use of Understanding.) He is far from knowing what Man is, that knoweth not that he swarmeth with Errours: I oftner doubt whether the greater number of most mens thoughts, are true or false.

But if by the Church they mean only the Pope, if he cannot Err, then it is no Errour to believe that there is no Life but this, and that Mans Soul dieth as the Beasts, and that it is lawful to Murther Gods Servants by Thousands, or hundred Thousands; if all the foresaid Popes in the ages 800, 900, 1000, 1100, Erred not, sure there is no such thing as Errour in the World.

[Page 43]But perhaps by the Church is meant Ge­neral Councils.

But 1. If they Erred not in their De­crees, doth it follow that therefore they had no Errour?

2. But did not the second Council at Ephesus Err? Where they tell us that Sola Petri Navicula, only the Popes Messen­gers escaped the Heresie? Did not the Council of Calcedon Err in their Opinion, when it determined that the Reason of Romes Primacy was because it was the Im­perial Seat, &c.? Were all the Councils free from Errour that were for the Arri­ans? And those that were against them? And all that were for the Monothelites? And those that were against them? And all that were for Images, and those that were against them, &c.?

But at last they come to this, that the Pope may Err, and Councils may Err, but when they agree, they cannot Err: A happy meeting of Erring persons, if they are both cured by it. But sure it is not the meeting: For the Pope is at Rome, when the Council is at Trent, Ephesus, Constan­tinople, &c. If a Council may Err, and the Pope Err, what proveth it impossible for them to agree in Errour? The Pope and Council at Lateran 4th. agreed for [Page 44] the Popes deposing Princes that Exter­minate not all out of their Dominions that deny Transubstantiation, &c. Was this no Errour?

Obj. But this was not a matter of Faith.

Ans. Is it no matter of Faith with them, Whether it be Lawful or not, according to Gods Law, to kill men that believe their Senses, and to depose Princes? And whe­ther Subjects may break their Oaths of Allegiance, and forsake their Prince if the Pope Command them, and all be­cause their Prince will not be a Murthe­rer or Persecutor? These are no matters of Faith with them? But sure they have made them Articles of their Religion. And either the Rebels, and Murtherers▪ and Pope and Council Err, or else Gods Law and Gospel Err.

The Judgment of the Reformed Catho­licks is this,

1. That there is no man living without Errour.

2. That the Apostles of Christ were Commissioned to deliver his Gospel to the World, by Word and Record, and had his promise of his Spirit to lead them into all Truth, and keep them from doing that Work Erroneously which they were com­missioned to do: (Tho' not to make them [Page 45] absolutely free from Sin or Errour in all other things.) And therefore the Scrip­ture written by them is free from Errour, by Virtue of the special promise and Spirit.

3. That all true Christians, (really re­generate,) are free from all Errour, in­consistent with true saving Faith, and Ti­tle to Salvation.

4. That therefore the Church as it signi­fieth only the said regenerate true Christi­ans, hath no Damning Errour, or none but what is pardoned, as consistent with saving Faith and Holiness.

5. That the Universal Visible Church, is the whole Company of men on Earth, that profess true saving Faith, and are by Covenant Vow Baptized into this Pro­fession: And that all this true Visible Church, professeth no Errour, inconsistent with their Profession of the foresaid saving Faith: Because the profession of saving Faith is essential to visible Christianity, and to the visible Church.

For mark, that I say not that they profess no Errour inconsistent with sincere Faith in themselves subjectively, nor yet that as to objective Faith, may not by un­seen consequence overthrow it: For there is such a concatenation of Divine revealed [Page 46] Truths, that it is a doubtful case, whether any one Errour (which all men have,) do not by remote Consequence subvert the very Foundations. But no true Visible Church or Christian, so professeth any one Errour, as not to profess the essential points of Faith and Godliness, tho' they may think falsely that both are true. There­fore Protestants teach, that unseen Con­sequences are not to be so charged on those that see them not, and hold fast the (injured) Truth, as if it were a known or direct denyal of the Truth.

6. But every Church, and every man, being imperfect both in knowledge, Faith and Holiness, have all some Errour: For to be objectively de fide, is to be of Divine Revelation: And all the Scripture is Di­vine Revelation. And if the question be, Whether any Pope, Council or Church, understand all the Scripture without any Errour? judge by Commentators, and common Experience.

And now what saith the Deceiver a­gainst all this?

1. He citeth Isa. 59.21. God hath promised to preserve his Word in the Church: Ergo, the Church cannot Err? A forged Consequence, no more follow­eth, but that the true Church shall not [Page 47] lose or forsake Gods Word: For then it would cease to be the Church:

But 1. Not that the best Churches un­derstand all that Word without any Er­rour.

2. Nor that any particular Church visi­ble may not apostatize, or turn Hereticks, or corrupt Gods Word, and forbid men to use it in a known Tongue, as the Pa­pists do.

Next he citeth Joh. 14.16. As if all the Church had the same promise of the Spirit of Infallibility, as the Apostles had: If so, then,

1. Papists are none of the true Church, because they have many Errours.

2. And if the major part be the Church, rather than a minor Sect, then all other Christians that are against Popery are free from Errour, for they are twice or thrice as many as the Papists.

3. And when the far greater part were Arrians, they were free from Errour: Yea, the Council of Sirmium, to which Pope Liberius professed full consent. Or did Christ break his promise to all these?

4. If the Pope or all his Prelates, have as full a promise of the Spirit as the Apo­stles, then they may write us a new Bible, and Word of God, as they did: No won­der [Page 48] then if the Canons and Decretals be as much Gods Word as the Bible? But why then do they not confirm their Canons by Miracles as the Apostles did? And why did so many Popes contradict each other? Had both Stephanus, Formosus, Nicholas, and the foresaid Johns that denyed the Life to come, &c. the same Gift as the Apo­stles? Surely we may well say to them as St. James, Shew me thy Faith by thy Works? They did shew it by most odious Simony, Gluttony, Drunkenness, Lying with Maids and Wives, even at the Apostolick Doors, Murdering Christs Members by Thousands, Silencing faithful Preachers, Deposing Emperours, Commanding Per­jury and Rebellion, even to Sons against their own Fathers: Forbidding all Church Worship of God to whole Kingdoms for many years, when a King will not obey the Pope: By such Works they shew their Faith! O the power of Satan, and the horrid pravity of man, when such things are not only Justified, but trusted to for Justification, and made consistent with a Church that never Erred.

Indeed these Errours crept in by De­grees, which maketh it difficult to Exposi­tors of Scripture Prophesie, to know just the year when the mischief became so [Page 49] ripe as to prove Rome to be Babylon Apo­state to Pagano-Christianity, and the Pope to be Antichrist. But if I see a man Ra­ging mad in Bedlam, I will not make it an Article of my Faith, that he is Sanae mentis, because I know not just when his amentia & deliratio, or Melancholly became a Mania, or Furor.

The Deceiver also citeth, Mat. 18.17. viz. Because men must hear the Church, where a Sinner dwelleth, that calleth him to Repentance after due Proof and Admo­nition, therefore the Pope and his Pre­lates cannot Err. An Argument liker a Derision, than a serious Proof: Did not the Pope then Err, when Bishops and Councils have in vain called him to Re­pent? Doth not the Church Err then most damnably, that commandeth Murder, Treason, and most heynous Sin, and is the Leader of the Impenitent? Must we take such then as Heathens and Publicans? But as the man thinketh, so the Bell tink­eth. Do but Fancy that by the [Church,] is meant only the Pope and his Clergy; and that all is such Sin which the Pope calleth so, tho' God command us, and then all such Texts will seem to them to say what they would have them say.

[Page 50]The man also citeth, Eph. 5.27. viz. Christ will present his Regenerate Church, perfect and spotless in Judgment. What then? Ergo, the Visible Church on Earth hath no Errour or Spot: And Ergo, the Pope and his Clergy are this Visible per­fect Church. And why not as well Con­stantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, or Je­rusalem, the Mother Church? Which part is it that is the whole, or indefectible? What is profaining Gods Word, if this be not? If any should be forbidden the Scripture, it is these prophaning Priests.

The Eighth accused Point.

That the Church hath been hidden and Invisible.

Ans. We do not think that the Pope and his Clergy-Church have been hidden and invisible. Their Wars, even in Italy and Rome, for many Ages made them Vi­sible: Yea, and palpable too: The Kings and Emperours that they Fought against or Deposed knew them; above 100000 Waldenses and Albigenses felt them to the Death: Quae Regio in terris talis non plena laboris. Whether this man knew not the Protestants Judgment herein , or whe­ther he would not have his Reader know [Page 51] it, I cannot tell; but I shall tell you what it is.

1. Protestants commonly hold, That as the Word [Church] signifieth the Com­pany of sincere Christians, and Heart-con­senters to the Baptismal Covenant, so it is invisible to Man that knoweth not the Heart. Inward Faith and Love which de­nominate them, are not seen by others, dare any deny this?

2. But as the Word [Church] signifieth the Ʋniversality of men baptized professing Christianity in publick Assemblies, so it was never invisible, since such publick profes­sion and Assemblies first began.

3. But when the Pagan Persecutors for­ced their meetings into Woods and Cells, and Pits, called Conventicles, and to Night-Meetings, they were hidden from the Per­secutors, as well as they could hide them­selves: And so they were, when they hid themselves from the Arrian Persecu­tion of Valens, Constantius, Gensericus, Hunnerichus, and from the Persians: And so were those of Tholouse, Piedmont, Bo­hemia, and others that hid themselves, and fled from the Crusado's, under Simon Mont­ford, and St. Domonick, and others that Murdered them. Christ himself fled to Egypt, and Galilee, from Persecutors. His [Page 52] Disciples were met secretly for fear of the Jews, when Christ appeared to them; when Peter was in Prison, many were as­sembled by Night in a Conventicle, at the House of Marks Mother, to pray for him. The Papists themselves keep hidden Meet­ings, where they cannot have more pub­lick.

4. God hath not promised his Church, such constant Prosperity, as that in every Age any Nation shall have publick Liberty without all Persecution; much less that they shall be still uppermost, and Masters of the World, and have Kings and Em­perours always for them.

5. But we cannot say, that yet the Church hath been so low since the days of Constantine, that all Princes have disowned the Essentials of Christianity, and we hope it never will be so.

6. But all Ages and parts of the Church, have not been equally pure and sound: In some Ages the Arrians were most: In the Reign of Theodosius Junior, Anastasius, &c. the Eutichians prevailed: In the days of Philippicus the Monothelites prevailed, so that at one of their Councils Binius saith, There were Innumerable Bishops: In one Emperours time those prevailed that were against Images; in Irene's and Theodora's [Page 53] times, those that were for them: Some­time the Bishop of Rome had most Power, and sometime the Bishop of Constantino­ple, and Alexandria: For an Hundred years, even much of Italy forsook him, and set up a Patriarch at Aquileia as their Head: Through many Ages the Citizens of Rome themselves expelled him or Fought against him.

Now in all these Cases, the Church, as professing Christinanity, was still Visible: But which of all the parts was the purest and soundest, was known to none but the sound parts themselves. And when and where the Errours became so great as re­ally to nullifie, or invalidate the Profession of Christianity this was known only to those near, that had opportunity to know the mind of the accused: For Noxa Ca­put sequitur: One man, tho' a Prince or Prelate, cannot make all his Subjects He­reticks by his Errour.

So that nothing hath been more Visible, than that there have still been professed Christians, and so an Universal visible Church on Earth. But which parts of this Church have de facto been Sound, and which Corrupt, and what Errours have nullified their Profession, and what only blemisht it, this hath never been vi­sible [Page 54] to the Erroneous; (For no man knoweth that he Erreth;) but it hath been visible to the Sound. And so, that the Church of Rome yet Professeth Christiani­ty, we know: But whether their Errours prove them Babylon, or nullifie their Christianity, must be known only by trying the guilty Individuals.

Here the Cheaters say to the Ignorant, If the Church hath been always Visible, where was your Church before Luther?

Ans. 1. Where-ever there were men professing Christianity and Baptized, and not Apostatizing. Were there none such in the World, must we be put to prove where there were any Christians before Luther? Were not the Hearers grosly Ignorant, the Cheaters would have no Confidence in such Fopperies as these.

Obj. But the Church of Rome profest Chri­stianity before Luther.

Ans. It did so, and as Christians we are of the same Church with them, we know no Universal Church, but the Chri­stian as such, that is, all Christians as only Headed by Christ If you cannot tell whe­ther before Luther there were any Chri­stians in the World, (in Abassia, Egypt, Syria, Armenia, the Greeks, Muscovites, &c.) it's your gross ignorance of History. [Page 55] But whether Papists, Arrians, Eutychians, Nestorians, Monothelites, Phantasians, Image-Worshippers, do invalidate their profession of Christianity, by their con­trary Errours and Crimes, it much more concerneth themselves, than us to enquire and judge.

But tho' those that nullify not their pro­fession of Christianity, are all of the same Church Universal that we are of, yet we pro­fess that their New humane Church, which is [only the Pope as Head, and all that adhere to him as such,] are no Church of Christ at all. All Christians as such are parts of the Christian Church: But a Policy con­sisting of a Vice-Christ and his Subjects, is a Rellellious Usurpation, and no Church, Forma denominat: As Christ is the Head, all are of the Church that truly cleave to him as Head: As the Pope is the pre­tended Head, they are all a pack of Rebels.

And now what an ignorant Cant is it to say, The Church cannot Apostatize; Ergo, it cannot Err; Ergo, the Pope of Rome, and his hireling Clergy cannot Apostatize; and Ergo, They cannot Err! Tell me, whether Rome be all the World? And whether the Church of Rome, and the Chri­stian World, be Words of the same sig­nification [Page 56] in any Dictionary? And whether an Alexandrian Catholick, or a C.P. are Catholick, be not as good Sence, as a Ro­man Catholick? And whether the Texts or Fathers, that you name prophanely, will prove that the Church of C.P. Alexan­dria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, can never Err, or Apostatize, or be Invisible? And whether your own Jesuits confess not that Rome shall do so too, in the Reign of Antichrist?

In the mean time take this answer.

1. The Church as intimately Sanctified, and sincere, was ever invisible.

2. The Church Universal, as professing Christianity, was ever Visible, tho' oft hid by Persecution.

3. Whether Rome, C.P. Jerusalem be a true Church or Apostate, is invisible to those that knew them not.

4. That the Papal Church, as informed by a Universal Vice-Christ, is a false Church, is Notorious. This is our Judg­ment.

The Ninth accused Point.

That the Church was not always to remain Catholick or Ʋniversal: And that the Church of Rome is not such a Church.

[Page 57] Ans. The first part is a meer flat Lye: We hold that the Church is always to re­main Universal, till it be presented perfect in Glory: If it remain not Universal, what becomes of it? Is it a part of some­thing else, or annihilated? If Christ have no Church, he is no Head of the Church, and so no Christ. What Protestant Church ever said any such thing, as you falsly charge them with?

That the Church of Rome is not such a Church, that is, Is not the Ʋniversal Church, indeed we not only say, but think the contrary, sitter for a man Drunk than Sober? What? is Rome all the World? Is Abassia, America, Mesopotamia, Musco­vy, Asia, Thrace, England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, no part of the World, yea, of the Christian World? And is not the Christian World, the Church Ʋniver­sal? Reader, here is a Controversy wor­thy the Wits, Learning and Honesty of all the Famous Fathers, and Doctors, and Juglers of the Roman Catholick Church. The Question is, Which of the Rooms in the House is the whole House? One saith that the Kitchin, or the Cole-House, or the House of Office, is the whole House. We Protestants say, that no one Room is the whole, but Hall, Parlors, Dining-Room, [Page 58] and all the Chambers, and Clo­sets, and Kitchin, are the whole; and if the Cole-House, and House of Office will needs be parts, we will not contend with them, but we will never grant that they are either the whole, or the best part: Tho' by Fire and Stink, they think to force us to it.

But the ancient Writers distinguish be­tween the Catholick Church, and a Ca­tholick Church: By the first is meant the whole Church: By the second is meant such a particular Church, as is not Schis­matical, but a true and sound part of the whole.

But what could these Self-Condemners say more against themselves, than thus openly to confess, that their Sect claimeth to be the whole Church, and so Trayte­rously unchurcheth two or three parts of the Church of Christ, and Damneth most Christians, for not being Traytors to Christ, as they?

To confute his base abuse of Scripture, is needless and irksome.

The Tenth point accused.

That the Churches Ʋnity, is not necessary in al [...] p [...]i [...]ts of Faith.

[Page 59] Ans. This we verily hold, for all that God hath revealed in Scripture to be be­lieved, are points of Faith, (if the Word be used intelligibly by these men:) But all the points of Genealogies, Topography, Chronology, Prophecy in Scripture, are revealed to be believed, therefore they are points of Faith; and if Unity in all these is necessary to the Unity of the Church, then no Church on Earth hath Unity: Certainly Rome hath not, whose Commentators and Doctors disagree a­bout many hundred Texts of Scripture, and Sixtus 5th. and Clemens 8th. Popes, about the very Translation of many hun­dred Texts.

These men must now say, that we are not bound to believe all Gods Word, or else they must confess that their Church hath not Unity.

That which Reformed Catholicks hold is, 1. First points of Faith, (or revealed to be believed,) are some of them Essen­tial to Christianity, and of necessity to Sal­vation, and some but Intergrals, if not some Accidents: The first all the True Church agreeth in: The second not: As who is Antichrist? or Babylon? or the Ten-Horned, or Two-Horned Beast in the Re­velations? What is the Time, Times, [Page 60] and half a Time, with an Hundred such? But in general, all believe that all Gods Word is true. It might convince these men, in that it was long before all the Churches received all the Canonical Books of Scripture, and yet all received not all their Apocryphal Books. And are these out of the Church? Or are none of these Books to be believed?

The Eleventh Point accused.

That St. Peter was not Ordained by Christ the first Head or Chief among the Apostles; and that among the Twelve, none was grea­ter or lesser than other.

Ans. Meer Falsehood, as undistinguisht. The word Head is ambiguous; this Wri­ter hath a Head, such as it is, that other Heads much differ from. Reformed Ca­tholicks hold, that Peter is called first in numbring them: That he was by Christ in many instances, preferred before others: That he was an Eminent Speaker, and worker of Miracles: That all the Apostles were not Equal in parts and worth; but some herein greater than other. What, was Judas no lesser than the rest, that was a Thief and Traytor? John was Eminent­ly the Disciple whom Jesus loved.

[Page 61]But we hold, 1. That as John was not made Lord or Ruler of the rest, by be­ing Loved more, so Peter's Preheminence made him no Master or Ruler of the rest: The twelve Apostles were chosen Relative­ly, to the twelve Tribes. Peter as Reuben was the first, and denyed Christ, and was called Satan, with a Get behind me, (Mat. 16.) as Reuben defiled his Fathers Bed. But as Levi was the third, so was James the first Sanctified Apostle: And as Juda the fourth, is called the Law-giver, from whom the Scepter should not depart, &c. so John the fourth is the Disciple of Eminent Love; and Love is the Everlasting Grace, when Faith and Prophesie cease. But Christ made no one of them Ruler of the rest.

Proved, 1. No Text speaketh any such thing: And the Headship of Governing Power, would have been of such grand necessity to be known, that Christ and his Apostles must needs have plainly and oft inculcated it.

2. Peter never Exercised any such Pow­er; what mention is there of any Laws or Mandates of his to the other Apo­stles?

3. The rest never sought to him for Laws or Orders.

[Page 62]4. The Schism and Controversies of Christians were never decided by appeal­ing to him as the Judge.

5. When some at Corinth would have made him their Head, and said, I am of Cephas, Paul reproveth them as carnal, saying of all, What are they but Ministers, by whom ye believed?

6. Paul reproveth him, Gal. 2.

7. The Jewish Christians contend a­gainst him, for Eating with Gentiles, Act. 11. whom he satisfieth by proof from God, and not by pleading his Supremacy.

8. He never once claimed any such Power.

9. Paul, 1 Cor. 12. tells us of none in the Church greater than Apostles. But the rest were Apostles as well as he.

10. No such Article was ever put into the Churches Creed.

We grant that Christ did in instituting the Apostles Office, institute a disparity of Ministers in his Church, and this to be con­tinued in the Ordinary continued part of their Works, but not in the Extraordi­nary. And we grant that in putting Peter first, Christ intimated, that among men of the same Office, there may for Order sake be a Priority; as the President of a Synod or Colledge, or the Fore-man of a [Page 63] Jury, or a Chief-Justice, or the Speaker of a Parliament: God is not the God of Confusion, but of Order, as in all the Churches: If a Parish or an Independant Church have one grave Pastor, with di­vers young Assistants, that were but his Scholars, nature will give him some awing Preheminence among them. We are not against such a Primacy among Bishops, or Arch-Bishops: But this is nothing to a Go­verning Office. And if Peter had had such, what's that to the Pope of Rome?

The Twelfth Point accused.

That a Woman may be Head, or Supreme Governess of the Church in all Causes, as the late Queen Elizabeth was.

Ans. A cheat by Confusion and Equivo­cation.

The Church hath two sorts of Govern­ment: One by the Word of God, and the Keys called Ecclesiastical. The other by the Sword, called Princely or Magistratical: We never had King or Queen that claimed the former, and none but Enemies of Go­vernment deny the latter: Queen Eliza­beth and all our Kings since have publickly disclaimed the Priest by Office of Words, Keys and Sacraments, which maketh the [Page 64] Clergy Tryers and Judges what to Preach, and whom to Baptize and receive to Church Communion, absolve or Excom­municate. But ask this Deceiver, Must the Church have none to Govern by the Sword? All Christians are the Church, and so all Christian Princes are deposed, be­cause they are Christians. Or must the Clergy have no such Government over them? Yes, the Pope, say the Papal Ca­nons; he is Sword-bearer over the Cler­gy: So you see what Church-power is come to. But I trow, few Papist Kings will grant that they have no Sword-Govern­ment over the Clergy, lest every Priest be Master of their Houses, Wives, and Lives. The King is no Physicain, or Philosopher, no Architect, Shipwright, Pilot, &c. but may he not be King and Ruler of all these? He is no Clergy-man or Priest, but the Ruler of the Clergy.

But they say, it must not be in Causes Ecclesiastical. Ans. Causes Ecclesiastical have two sorts of Government, in order to two Ends. As if one be accused for Preaching against God or Christ, or the Life to come; or for Perjury, Adultery, Murder, &c. Here the Bishops are Judges, (and the Church,) whether this man be Guilty in order to his Communion or Excom­munication, [Page 65] or admonition. But the King and his Judges are to Judge, whether he be Guilty, and so whether to be Imprisoned, Fined, Banished, &c. so far as Causes of Religion or Church, are to be punished by the Sword, the King is Head or Go­vernour, and Judge: who would think that a sort of men that deny this, should have the Face to say that they are Loyal to Kings, or any forcing Government: Must Kings Burn or Kill, as many Thou­sands at the Popes command as the Pope will call Hereticks, and yet never have power to judge whether they are such, and do deserve it? O! how much worse than Hangmen, would such men make all Kings and Magistrates!

Was not all the Christian World in a sad case then, when the Pope was under the Arrian Goths, and the Subject of a Foreign Arian must Rule all Kings and Kingdoms?

No man of Brains can be ignorant that Popedom or Prelacy, do not always make men mortified Saints, (that oft have been scarce Men, much less Christians;) nor that the Prince hath a great Power, both in Choosing and Ruling the Clergy that are his Subjects. It fell out happily, that Theodorick the Arian, (and divers Spanish [Page 66] Arian Kings,) were an honest sort of men; but sure they were very mighty Princes at Rome, when one Subject of an Arrian Goth, was Ruler of all the Kings and Souls on Earth, (de jure, say our Decei­vers.) And if the Turk should possess Rome, as he doth C.P. all Kings and Nations must be subject to his Subject? And what Power he hath over the four Patriarks of C.P. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, is too well known. And when Baronius, Binnius, &c. tell us of famous Whores, (Marozia, and Theodora,) that made, and Ruled and unmade Popes, how was the World Governed? As it was said by a Lord Mayors Child, that he Ruled all London, saying, my Father Ruleth London, and my Mother Ruleth my Father, and I Rule my Mother; so might it be said, these Whores Ruled all the Kings and Nations of Christians on Earth; (if the Roman claim be Currant, for they made and Ruled Popes that claim­ed the Rule of all the World.) O! how much greater was a Roman Whore, (Ma­rozia, Theodora, &c.) than Pallas, Venus, or the great Diana of the Ephesians! But the mischief was, that they were muta­ble, and could unmake a Pope, as well as make him, and set the City and Country [Page 67] by the Ears: as Aequa Venus Teucris; Pallas iuiqua fuit. And if all Kings must be Subjects to the Subject, (or Chaplains) of him that can win Rome, let us wish that he may not be a Mahometan, Pagan, or Arian: And why said I an Arian, when an Anti-arian Pope, can Murder Christians by Thousands, when a Theodo­rick would not have hurt them.

The Thirteenth Point accused.

That Antichrist shall not be a particular man, and the Pope is Antichrist.

Ans. This is Popish Stating Cases; Protestants find in the Creed, the Name of Christ, but not the Name of Antichrist; and therefore while they know and trust Christ, they think it not necessary to Sal­vation to know Antichrist: But they be­lieve Christ, who said, that many should come in his Name saying, I am Christ and deceive many, even before the Destruction of the Jews; and rhey believe St. John, that said, there are many Antichrists already: The Fathers and Papists say, there is some one Great Antichrist to come towards the end of the World: Most Protestants think it is Antichrist that is described, in 2 Thes. 2. and Rev. 12.13, 17. To con­fute [Page 68] King James, Bishop George Dow­name, Dr. Henry More, (above all) Mr. Mede, Cluverus, Grasserus, &c. will re­quire more than this Writers Impertinen­cies. There are many Protestants that think it a meer mistake, that there will be any one Antichrist so Eminent as to obscure all the rest: And they pretend not to judge, of Antichrist by the Apocalyps, but by the Ten Commandments, and all the Gospel: And they believe, that he is Antichrist that usurpeth Christs Prerogative, and yet op­poseth his Kingdom: And such they think the Eastern Antichrist Mahomet is the most notorious, and the Western Antichrist, the Pope is his Second; in that he claimeth Christs Prerogative of Governing all Nati­ons of the Earth as Vice-Christ, and yet by Lies, Malice and Blood, suppresseth his true Gospel, Grace and Kingdom; confute this if you can; Amending would be your best defence.

We doubt not but Antichrists past, have been Individual men, such was Barchoche­ba, and some say Herod, and some Diocle­sian, but undoubtedly Mahomet: And if the Pope be the Western Antichrist, it is the Individual Popes that are such; but many of those Individuals may make a Succession of Antichristian Policy. An­swer [Page 69] Dr. More, and Cluveru [...] of this, if you are able.

We lay not our opposition to Popery chiefly, on the dark Revelation, Prophe­cy, or on the question, Who is the Anti­christ: But on the plain Word of God: If we find a Succession of men, claiming Om­nipotency and Christs Prerogative, to Go­vern all Kings and Nations on Earth, and this by bare and base Ʋsurpation and Novel­ty; and find these men set up their numerous, false treasonable, inhumane Canons, and forbid and revile Gods Law and Word, and find them turning Gods Worship into unintel­ligible Mummery and Stage-Shows, and Ceremony, and find them living at Leeches on Blood, yea, on the Blood of Thousands of the best Christians, and damning and se­parating from the far greater part of the Christian World, because they refuse Sub­jection to this usurping Vice-Christ, and judging all to Fire and Ruine that renounce not all humane Senses, and worship not Bread pretended to be deifyed by daily nume­rous Miracles of the basest Priests, and deposing Kings that will not be such Execu­tioners, and justifying their Subjects in Per­jury and Rebellion: We will not differ with you for the Name, whether you will call those that are such, Antichrists, or [Page 70] Diabolists: Whether such a State be the Babylon, or far worse, as sinning against more Light, and by more horrid abuse of the Name of Christ against himself.

The Fourteenth accused Point.

That no man, nor any but God, can for­give or retain Sins.

Ans. False as undistinguished. We hold, 1. That to forgive Sin, being the forgiving of the Punishment of Sin, and the obligation thereto, 1. Parents may on just cause forgive Corrective punish­ment to their Children, and Masters to their Servants.

2. Magistrates may on just cause, for­give Corporal punishment to Subjects.

3. Equals may forgive Injuries to Friends and Enemies.

4. Pastors may on just cause, forgive the Church penalties, of Excommunica­tion, which they had power to inflict: And all the Flock must forgive and receive the penitent accordingly.

5. When a Sinner by Faith and Repen­tance, truly performeth the Condition of Gods pardon expressed in Scripture, the Ministers of Christ are by Office authori­zed to declare and pronounce him pardoned [Page 71] by God, and by the Sacraments of Bap­tism and the Lords Supper to Invest him in a pardoned State, by delivering him a Sealed pardon: But only Suppositively, If his Faith and Repentance be sincere, else he hath not Gods pardon of the Divine Punish­ment. This is all true and plain, and enough.

But we detest their Doctrine that say, 1. That men can pardon the Spiritual and Eternal Punishment, any otherwise than consequently declaring and delivering Gods pardon, which shall hold good, if the Priest refuse to declare or deliver it.

2. Or that Popes or Priests pardon, Purgatory pains, and Masses, and Money, and the Redundance of Saints Merits, and pleasing the Pope, conduce thereto.

But if you will Speak so absurdly, as to say, that if the King send a pardon to a Traytor or Murderer, the Messenger par­doned him; we leave you to your phrases.

None of the Texts or Fathers cited, speak for any more than what we hold. The Pastors are to declare men pardoned, that God pardoneth: And while they so judge according to Gods Word, it is par­doned in Heaven: But not if they pardon the wicked and impenitent.

The Fifteenth accused Point.

That we ought not to confess our Sins to any man but to God only.

Ans. This is a mere impudent Lie.

1. We ought to confess our Sin, to the Magistrate at his Judicature, when we are justly accused of it.

2. And to those that we have injured, when it is needful to repair the wrong, or to procure their forgiveness.

3. And to those that we have tempted in­to Sin, or encouraged in it, when it is need­ful to their Repentance.

4. And to some faithful bosome Friend, when it is needful that such know our Faults, that they may watch over us, or advise us, or pray for our pardon and de­liverance.

5. And when in Sickness, danger of Death, or other Affliction, we get the Pastors of the Church to pray for us; we should confess our Sin to them, that they may know on what cause they speak to God for our forgiveness.

6. And in any case of Guilt, Trouble, Fear, or Difficulty, in which we need the Pastors Counsel for our safety, ease and peace of Conscience, our selves and other [Page 73] Friends being insufficient hereto, we should confess our Sins to the Pastors, whose ad­vice we seek: As a Patient must truly open his Case to his Physician, and a Clyent to his Councellor, if he will not be deceived, by deceiving them. Is all this no Con­fession?

But Protestants believe not, 1. That we must go to a Physician for every Flea-bi­ting, or Scratch, or Cut-Finger, or to a Lawyer to give him an account of all our Actions, Money, ot Lands; nor to Priests in cases that our selves or ordinary Friends can safely and satisfactorily resolve.

2. Nor that our Confessor must needs be a Papist Priest, or one chosen by the Pope, or our Enemies; and not by our selves.

3. Nor that we must open all our Se­crets to him; or make any Confession, which will do more hurt than good; nor over far to trust the Fidelity of a Knave, nor a suspected or untryed person.

4. And we have reason to suspect them that are importunate to know our Secrets.

5. And when Confession is required, as in order to obtain a false forged pardon, and to set up the Domination of Usurpers over men's Consciences, and over the World, it's then unlawful: If Protestants [Page 74] would force Papists to confess all their secret Sins to them, would not this same Deceiver say, it were unlawful?

The Sixteenth accused Point.

That Pardons and Indulgences were not in the Apostles time.

Ans. Another meer Lie, as undistin­guished. Such Pardons as I before owned were in the Apostles times: But the Po­pish feigned pardons were not.

The Seventeenth accused Point.

That the actions and passions of the Saints do serve for nothing to the Church.

Ans. Most impudent calumny and false­hood. 1. We hold that the Prayers of all the Saints on Earth, are of great im­portance for the Churches welfare.

2. And that their Doctrine, Counsel, and Reproof is so too, they being the Lights of the World, and the Salt of the Earth.

3. And that their Example is of grea [...] benefit to the Church and World, whi [...] their Light so shineth before men, that the [...] may see their good works, and glorifie the [...] Father which is in Heaven.

[Page 75]4. And their Charitable Works of them­selves, sure are beneficial to the Church: And so is their Defence of the Truth.

5. And their Sufferings Glorifie Gods Power, and his promises of reward; and they encourage others to Victorious Constancy. Do all these serve for no­thing to the Church?

6. Yea, we are so far from holding what he feigneth, that it is not the least cause of our hatred of Popery, that it liveth by the Defamations, Slander, Per­secution, and cruel Murder of Saints.

7. Yea, as Abels Blood cryed against Cain, so the Blood of Martyrs, and dead Saints, cryeth for Vengeance against the Persecutors of the Church.

8. And seeing Christ saith, that the Chil­dren of the Resurrection are like or equal to the Angels, we have reason to believe that even now they are perfected Spirits, Heb. 12.24. And knowing that Angels are very serviceable and beneficial to the Church on Earth, we know not how far the Spirits of the just are so too.

But we have a sufficient Mediator and Advocate with the Father, whose Sacrifice, Merits, and Advocation are perfect, and need no supplement: And the Spirits of the just do praise him as saved by his Me­rits, [Page 76] and never boast that they have of their own a Redundancy to save others. But we all with thankfulness confess, that God useth to bless the Houses of the Faith­ful; the Children for the Parents sake, and hath exprest this in the Decalogue, and by many Promises: Yea, that he would have spared Sodom, had there been but Ten Righteous persons there: And a Po­tiphars House, and a Prison may be blest in part for Josephs sake. And when Pa­rents are Dead, this blessing may be on their Children, through many Generati­ons. And God remembred Abraham, when his Posterity provoked him. David had a special promise for his Seed. None of this is denyed by us.

But, 1. There is no Merit in any mans Works, but their Rewardableness by Gods free Grace and promise, for the sake of Christs meritorious Righteousness, Sacrifice, and Intercession, their Imperfection being pardoned through him, and their Holiness amiable to God.

2. No man shall be saved for anothers Merit, or Holiness, or Works, that is not truly Regenerate and Holy himself.

The Eighteenth accused Point.

That no man can do Works of Supererro­gation.

Ans. Supererrogation is a sustian word of your own, by which you may mean what you please.

1. No man can perform to God, more Duty than he oweth him: It's a Contra­diction; Duty is quod debetur.

2. No man can profit God by any thing that he doth.

3. No man, save Christ, lived wirhout all Sin: And he that sinneth doth not all his Duty, or keep all Gods Law perfectly. And he that doth not all, doth not all and more.

4. There is no Moral good done by any man, which was not his Duty, and Gods Law commanded not: For Gods Law is perfect, and therefore obligeth to all Moral good: And as Sin is the Trans­gression of the Law, so Moral good is the conform Obedience to the Law.

5. God hath not Counsels to Moral acti­on, which are not obliging Laws, and make not our Duty. For to keep them is Mo­ral good, and the Law were imperfect if it obliged not to all such good. If the [Page 78] Counsel oblige ut norma officii, it's a Law: If it oblige not, it's vain.

6. But there are many actions that are neither Commanded, nor Counselled, nor forbidden: But those are not Moral actions, as being no objects of our Choosing or Re­fusing by Reasons Conduct. The nictus oculorum, our Breathing, our Pulse, the Circulation of the Blood, &c. are no Moral acts, Commanded or forbidden, but necessitated: Man maketh it no act of de­liberation and choice, which Foot he shall set forward first, or just how many Steps he shall go in a Day; which of two equal Eggs he shall Eat, and an hundred such. These are neither Duty nor Sin, Com­manded, nor Counselled, nor forbidden; neither virtuous or vicious.

7. And there are innumerable actions, that are not the Matter of any Common-Law or Counsel, and so as such, are neither Sin nor Duty, which yet as Circumstanti­ated and Cloathed with Accidents, are to this or that man either Duty or Sin.

This not understood, maketh these Ig­norant Casuists abuse the words of Christ and Paul, about Chastity, and Marriage. And because Christ saith, every man can­not receive this Saying, and Paul, she hath not Sinned: He that Marrieth doth well, [Page 79] and he that doth not, doth better; they ga­ther that there are Moral actions which are not best, and yet no Sin.

The true plain solution is from the two last Considerations. 1. God hath made no Law commanding or forbidding Mar­riage, or Celibate as such, or in Common. To Marry is no Sin, considered meerly as Marriage. 2. But God hath made Laws against hurtful and injurious Mar­riages, and to guide men to know, when Marrying is a Duty or a Sin. 3. And if any ones case were so neutral, as that it could not be discerned, whether Marrying were a hurt or benefit, it would be no Mo­ral, eligible or refuseable action. 4. But to some it is a great Duty by accidents, and to some a great Sin. Therefore Paul never meant that it was no mans duty, and no mans sin, but only that simply as Mar­riage it was no mans duty or sin, or the matter of a commanding or forbidding Law, but only by accident, it may be such to one more than to another.

That this is Pauls meaning, the Papists must confess. For 1. Do not they say that the Marriage of Priests, Fryars and Nuns are Sin? 2. If any one Marry an Infidel, or utterly unsuitable Person, without necessity, against Parents wills, [Page 80] or one that is impotent, or hath the Pox, or that he cannot maintain, &c.? Is not this a hainous Sin? What else signifie Gods Law, and mans, against unlawful Marriages.

And if one cannot live chastly without Marriage, and Parents command it, it is not a Sin to refuse? The Law saith, Let all things be done to Edification, and whether ye Eat or Drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God. And is it only Coun­sel and no Command, to Marry or not Marry, as it makes to Gods Glory or a­gainst it? There are few actions of a mans Life, that make so much to his hurt, and utter misery, as unwise and unmeet Mar­rying. And is this on Sin? May they not see Pauls meaning then, if they were but willing? It is hard to imagine a case in which so important an action as Marriage, can be neither Sin nor Duty.

2. But sometime men use the word [Sin,] and [Sinners,] for meer Wick­edness, and such Sin as is inconsistent with a state of Salvation. And we easily grant, that all Sins are not such Sins as these; But Gods Law is perfect, tho' man be im­perfect, and forbiddeth all Sin, even the least.

[Page 81]3. But see the Heresies of Popery? This man here saith, [To do that which is Counselled, is not necessary, because one may nevertheless be saved: But he who omitteth what is commanded, (unless he do pennance,) cannot escape Eternal pains.]

1. See here what a frivolous Counseller they make Christ, when it's not necessary to follow his Counsel.

2. See here how they make Necessity to be only of that which a man cannot be sa­ved without: When Saul a Persecutor, and Blasphemer, an Infidel, Murderer, &c. may be saved, if he be truly Convicted: Obedience hath it's Necessity, tho' we knew that God would forgive Disobedience, to the Convicted.

3. See here how they damn themselves and all mankind, every man living omitteth what is commanded many hundred times, for which he doth not that which they call Pennance. He is a Lyar, that saith he hath no Sin, specially of Omission. Gods Law bindeth us all to Believe, to Hope, to desire Holiness and Heaven, to love God and our Neighbours, and our Ene­mies, with a stronger degree of Faith, Hope, Desire, and Love, than we do: Every Prayer, and Meditation is sinfully defective: Every hour hath some omission [Page 82] of improvement: And all this is not re­membred, nor all confest to a Priest, nor all known or observed by any Sinner: And some omission we are guilty of at our very Death, by gradual defect of Faith, Hope, Patience, Love, Content, and Joy. And must all these go to Hell?

4. Seeing by Penance they mean not bare Repentance, but making God satis­faction by a task, of Penalty laid on them by a Priest, ye see how they damn them­selves, would be the Masters of all others Salvation, by their Pennances.

5. But it's like that Purgatory is inclu­ded by them in Pennances; or else no man should go to Purgatory, but all to Hell: For all have many omissions of commanded Duty, which they did no Pennance for in this Life.

6. But you see of how little value they judge Christs Sacrifice and Merit, that pardoneth no omission of a duty without Pennance, and Satisfaction truly.

The Nineteenth accused Point.

That by the fall of Adam, we have all lest our Free-will, and that it is not in our power to choose good, but only Evil.

[Page 83] Ans. Reader, I must desire thee not to judge of all the Learned Papists, by this Deceiver: For if thou hast read the loads of Voluminous Controversies about Grace and Free-will among themselves, it will remain doubtful to thee, whether this mans stating the Protestants Doctrine, prove him ignorant of it, or a willing Cheater. He tells you not, that this is as much a Con­troversie among themselves, as with the Prorestants. He tells you not, how Augu­stine and Palagius managed it, and that their Pope Celestine took Augustines part: He tells you not, that the Thomists, Domi­nicans, Oratorians, and most Nominals, and Scotists, say as much against Free-will as we do, and we as much for it as they. He supposeth that you never read what Lombaerd, Aquinas, Bradwardine, Caje­tane, Ferrariensis, Zumel, Bannez, Al­varez, Aegedius Romi, Capreolus, and a Multitude more, say as much, and many more, against Free-will, than the Prote­stants: He tells you, not that even the Learned Jesuits, Suarez, Vasquez, Bel­larmine, with Penottus, and many such, are as much against Free-will, as most Learned Protestants. The man takes you for a Herd of silly Animals, that know not but that he saith true, what falshood [Page 84] soever he shall tell you: But the truth of the Controversie is this:

1. The Protestants loath so silly a sta­ting of Controversies, as this chat of Free-will without distinction: And so of Power.

2. They know that Physical, Moral, and Political Freedom of will, are not all one thing. Physical Freedom or Power, is that by which the natural faculty of the will, can determine it self to act, (not without a superiour Cause, but) without any extrinsick or intrinsick Coactor, or ne­cessitating cause of Evil.

Moral Freedom and Power, is that by which the will is from under the overstrong Byas of a vicious Disposition, or deceitful Argument.

3. Political Freedom is, when no Law of God or Man obligeth him to any Evil, but all to good.

Prothestants hold, 1. That Physical Li­berty and Power, is common to man, as man. That is, that he wants not natural faculties to choose aright, but a right Inclination: And that he sinneth not for want of such faculties, but for want of their right disposition and action.

2. That all men have just so much, and no more Moral Liberty and power, as they [Page 85] have of Gods Grace, to Relieve their viti­ated wills and dispositions, and to help them in the act. No man is freed from vitious Inclinations, further than Gods Grace freeth him, which is much more where there is special Grace and strong, than where there is but common Grace or weak. And that the Thraldom or Impotency of the Vitious, is but the disease of their wills, and aggra­vation of their Sin: e. g. Where the Drunkard or Fornicator saith, I cannot forbear my Sin: He is so much the worse and more unexcuseable.

3. Every man hath not only Political Li­berty to avoid Sin, but much more, even Gods urgent Precepts, Promises, and Threats: God doth not only give us Leave, but commandeth us not to Sin.

1. It is the very Essence of the will to be a natural power of faculty of willing good and nilling evil, as such, as so apprehended by the intellect, and commanding the infe­rior faculties, some politically, and some de­spotically, some difficultly, some easily, some perfectly, some imperfectly, according to it's resolution and their receptivity.

2. Libertas hominis, when a man may have what he chooseth, is more than Li­bertas Voluntatis, which is but the Mode of it's self determination; as without con­straint [Page 86] it is a self determining principle, of its own elicite acts, considered compari­tively.

Which is, 1. Liberty of contradiction, or Exercise, viz, to will or not will, nill or not nill. 2. Liberty of Contrariety, or Specification of the Act, viz. To will this or nill it. 3. Liberty of Competition, to will This object or That: To nill This or That, (of which see Robert Baronius his Metaphysicks.)

The will hath such various sorts of Li­berty, and the word [Free-will] is so ambiguous, that it is a shame, and irksome to read a pretended Teacher, state a case thus indistinctly, Whether we have Free-will or power to choose good and refuse evil: He is no man that hath no such Free-will and power. And no man hath all sorts of Free-will and power. Nay, as Liberty is opposed to Necessity▪ every man is necessi­tated to will Good as Good, and nill Evil as Evil, and can do no otherwise: And when­ever he willeth Evil, it is sub ratione bon [...], mistaking it for good: And who-ever nillleth good, doth it falsely, sub ratione malt. The will is free from Constraint to Sin: God will not so constrain it: Men, De­vils, Objects, cannot. He that had read but their Pennattus and Gibi [...]uf only, [Page 87] would see what a shame it is thus confu­sedly to talk for or against Free-will.

But that which Protestants deny, is this.

1. They deny that mans will in his unre­generate State, is free from a Vitious Incli­nation, or from the Conduct of an Erring Intellect, or from the Byass and Tempta­tion of Sensuality, or vitiated Senses and Imagination; or from the Temptations of Satan and the World.

2. They deny that the will thus Vitia­ted and Tempted, will ever deliver it self without Gods Spirit and Grace; being ra­ther inclined to grow worse.

3. They deny that this Grace is perfect in any in this Life, as without all defect in degree, or totally freeth any man from all Sin: and therefore they deny that any mans will is perfectly and incul­pably free from every degree of vice and danger.

4. And as that degree of common Grace which is in the unregenerate, is but such as consisteth with the predominance or Reign of Sin, so that will of every un­regenerate man in that pravity, is as a slave to it's own, vitious disposition, and to Er­rour, Objects, and Temptations; being not delivered as to the predominance.

[Page 88]5. Yet we believe that common Grace is such, that these men are not utterly void of all good Inclination, and knowledge; and therefore that in Moral Sence, every man can do more good, and less Evil than he doth: And that men perish, because not only they will not (by pravity) do what they have natural strength to do, but also because they will not choose and do what morally they might have chosen and done, as to the wills own power.

6. And we still say, that whenever a man sinneth, it was not because it was na­turally impossible to do otherwise, (as to touch the Moon, to see without Eyes, or through the Earth, &c.) nor for want of natural faculties, nor doth God by Grace, give man other natural faculties, making him an Animal of another Species: But men sin because they will sin, and they will because they are tempted and now viti­ously inclined; from which their wills are made free only in that measure, that Gods Grace doth sanctifie them.

If our Priest would have told us, what there is in all this Doctrine of Free-will, that he dare accuse, (and what dare he not cccuse,) we should have seen cause to consider of his Arguments: But now he citeth Scripture as in a Dream.

The Twentieth accused Point.

That it is impossible to keep the Command­ments of God, tho' assisted with all his Grace and the Holy Ghost.

Ans. Still meer Confusion. Protestants distinguish, 1. Impossibility as natural or Moral; 2. Of Grace as perfect or Imperfect, and as determitately Operative, or only Assisting and not Determining.

And they hold, 1. That no Duty is Im­possible, (or the performing of no Com­mandment,) by meer Physical Impossibility: The reason is, because God commandeth no Physical Impossibles: Such as before named, to speak without a Tongue, to see without Light or Object, to know things not knowable or revealed, to read without any Teaching or Learn­ing, &c.

If a man indeed disable himself, as put out his Eyes that he may not read, or cut out his Tongue that he may not Preach; the disabling act is vitiously aggravated, from all the good to which he disabled himself, as if it still had been his Duty: But we cannot say that God still command­eth him when Blind to Read, or when Dumb to Speak, &c. Indeed God chang­eth [Page 90] not his Law; but recipitur ad modum recipientis: The man hath changed his Capacity, and is now no Subject capable of such an Obligation or Command; tho' he be capable of punishment for disabling himself, and Non-performance: Sin is no further Sin than it is Voluntary, by the wills Omission or Act, immediately or me­diately.

2. But that it is Morally by our pravity now Impossible, for any man to keep all Gods Commandments and never Sin; what needs there more than sad experience of the mat­ter of Fact.

1. Did he ever know the man himself, that from his first use of reason to his Death, did spend every minute of his time as God commanded him, and did Believe, and Love God and Man, and all good, with as great Love as God commanded him? And was as free from every Fault, Thought, Passion, Desire, Fear, Care, Trouble, Pleasure, Word and Deed as God commanded? He would be no small Sinner that were so self ignorant, proud, unhumbled, as to say that he is no Sinner.

2. Why else do these Priests force all men to confess their Sins to them, if men be such as never sinned?

[Page 91]3. Why do they compose all their Li­turgies and Offices for their Churches, with Confessions of Sin; and Prayers for Forgiveness?

4. Why do they Baptize all, if they have no Sin? And in what Sence do they give them the Eucharist?

5. How little use do they feign such men to have of a pardoning Saviour?

6. In what Sence shall such say the Lords Prayer, Forgive us our Sins or Tres­passes?

7. Doth not the Text expresly call him a Lyar that saith he hath no Sin; as afore­said: And Christ condemn the Pharisee that justified himself, and justified the confessing Publican?

But it's like he will say that he did not mean, that any man doth keep all the Com­mands, but that he can do it, tho' he do not. Ans. I again say, 1. He can as to natural strength, if he were but perfectly and constantly willing: But it cannot be that he should be so willing without Grace, and Grace is not perfect in this Life. 2. The more he boasteth of his Power to keep all Gods Laws, the more he condemneth himself that can and will not. 3. And fru­stra fit potentia quae nunquam & a nemine reducitur in actum: If he confess that no [Page 92] man doth it, he must confess such a Moral impossibility as the Prophet meant, that said, Can the Leopard change his Spots, or the Blackmore his Skin? Then may they that are accustomed to do Evil, learn to do well.

But perhaps he meant not that it is possi­ble to keep all the Commands, for all our Lives, but for some short time? I answer, 1. While a man hath the use of his Rea­son, he doth not reach the commanded degree of Faith, Love, Joy, Heavenly­ness, one moment of time: But indeed, when a man is asleep, in a Swoun, an Apo­plexy, stark mad, &c. he may for that time break no Command, nor keep any.

But perhaps he speaketh but of sincere Obedience, and not of absolute sinless per­fection. Ans. If so, he is a deceiver to feign that we deny it: But their Doctrine of Perfection and Supererogation is con­trary.

Obj. But he speaketh not what man can do without Grace, but by it's assistance. Ans. Grace maketh no man absolutely sin­less, and perfect in this Life.

Let him know, that Protestants do not only say that man by Gods Grace may keep Gods Commandments sincerely, (tho' not sinlesly and perfectly,) but that no [Page 93] man of Age and Reason shall be saved that doth not so.

2. And that tho' all our Obedience be imperfect, the Imperfections are pardo­ned, and our Obedience accepted and re­warded, for the Merits of the perfect O­bedience, Sacrifice, and Intercession of our Saviour.

The One and Twentieth accused Point.

That Faith only Justifieth, and that good Works are not absolutely necessary to Sal­vation.

Ans. Many wordy Controversies are made about things, that in Sence men are commonly agreed in. 1. We all believe Gods Word, that they were deceived that thought they could be justified either by the Law of Innocency or Nature, or the Law of Moses, or any meritorious Works of their own, without, or as a supplement to the Sacrifice, Merits and free Grace of Christ our Saviour, and Faith in him.

2. By Faith is meant Christianity: In the Gospel it is all one to be a Believer, a Disciple of Christ, and to be a Christian. The Christian Faith is that which is ex­prest in the Baptismal Covenant, believing in and giving up our selves to, God the [Page 94] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: To Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, to be saved by his Merits and free Grace: And this is put in opposition to the Works of Adam's or Moses Law, or any other that are conceited to suffice and merit, without the foresaid Redemption by Christ. And is not this the true Doctrine of all true Christians?

2. These good Works that are our O­bedience to the Law of Christ, are but the performance of our Baptismal Covenant, and the Fruits of Faith, without which it is dead Hypocrisie, and are of absolute necessity to Salvation, to all that have time to do them.

Against the charge, That we are Sinners deserving Hell, we are justified by Christ believed in: Against the accusation, That we are Infidels, Ungodly, Hypocrites, we must be justified by our Faith, Godli­ness, and Works, or perish.

But we do also hold, 1. That if a man be convicted, as the Theif on the Cross, and should die suddenly, no outward good which he cannot do, is absolutely necessa­ry to his Salvation, but only his inward Faith, Love, and Repentance, and Con­fession if able.

[Page 95]2. We do firmly hold, that Works done with a conceit of obliging God by Merit, in commutative Justice, or as conceited sufficient without a Saviour, and the par­don of their failings, are such as more fur­ther Damnation than Salvation, at least in those that hear the Gospel.

3. And we are no Papists, and there­fore believe not that ignorant words of Prayer in a Tongue not understood, and wearing Reliques, and going on Pilgrima­ges, and needless confessing to Priests, and subjection to an universal Vice-Christ, and living upon the Blood of Saints, Murde­ring the Living, and praying to the Dead, and the Sons honouring their Days, Re­licks and Monuments, whom their Fathers Burnt or Persecuted; these are not Good Works necessary to Salvation, as is plain, Math. 23. and Revel. 14.17, 18, &c. We do, with Paul, renounce all Works of our own, that are thought to make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace, and that are set in the least opposition or competition with Christs Merits, or any place save commanded Subordination to him.

The Two and Twentieth accused Point.

That no Good Works are Meritorious.

Ans. The word Merit is ambiguous, and so abused by Papists, that indeed the Protestants are shyer of it than the Fathers were, lest the use of it should cherish the abuse.

1. There is Merit of man, and of God. 2. And this in Commutative Justice (con­ceited,) or only in Governing distributive Justice. 3. And this is either according to the Law of Innocency or Moses, or ac­cording to the Law of Christ.

Now Protestants hold, 1. As to the Name, that [...] and [...], worthy and worthiness, are Scripture words, and may be used; and Merit is but of the same sig­nification, and we condemn not the Anci­ents that so used it: But the worst Sence must not be cherished.

2. Do they hold, 1. That no Creature can merit of God in Commutative Justice, that giveth quid pro quo to his Benefit: God receiveth not from Man or Angels; unless he will call Acceptance and Com­placence Receiving.

3. None but Christ merited of strict Governing Justice, according to the Law [Page 97] of Senceless Innocence, nor by any Works that will save man from the charge of Sin and desert of Death.

3. All at Age that will be saved, must have good Works according to their Capa­city, for Christ is the Author of Salvation, to all those that obey him. Heb. 5.9▪ Tho' they obey not an unknown Priest at Rome.

But all these Works are our Obedience to Christs own healing Government, such as the Laws of a Physician to the Sick. And we all agree, that he will Judge (that is, Justifie or Condemn in Judgment) all men according to their Works, that is, ac­cording to the Law and it's promulgation, by which in their several Ages and Nati­ons he governed them.

4. Your own Doctors that know what they say, tell us, that by Merit, they mean nothing but the Rewardable quality of their acts, related to Gods promise through Christs Merits. And doth any Protestant Church deny this?

The Three and Twentieth accused Point.

That Faith once had, cannot possibly be lost.

[Page 98] Ans. Still confused slander and deceit.

Protestants hold, 1. That the Faith not rooted, prevalent and saving, is frequently lost, such as you call sides informis.

2. That even sincere Faith may be lost, as to the Act for some little time, that is, suspended in a deliquium, as Peters and theirs, Luk. 24. that said, We trusted this had been he, &c.

3. That many lose to the Death some degree of their habitual Faith.

4. But they differ in the rest, just as you do among your selves, Dominicans and Jesuits. 1. Some think that no one (at Age at least) in a State of such Faith as at present would have saved him, doth ever totally lose it. 2. Some think that many have but such loseable Grace as Adam had. 1. As being not Elect to Salvation, and therefore not in Gods decree of Preserva­tion and Perseverance, 2. As having a Faith not Rooted and Confirmed: And that these may fall from a justified State: But that, 1. The Elect. 2. Nor the Confirmed, never fall away. This was Austins Judgment, and his followers, of which see Vossii Theses. And is that Je­suit honest that feigneth this proper to the Protestants, where the Controversie is the same among themselves?

The Four and Twentieth accused Point.

That God by his will and inevitable de­cree, hath ordained from all Eternity, who shall be Damned and who Saved.

Ans. What a false Deceiver is this, that would make us believe, that this is proper to the Protestants, when it is the Common Doctrine not only of the Domi­nicans, but of the very Jesuits themselves, and all their Church.

1. None of them dare say, that men are Damned or Saved without Gods fore­knowledge, nor against his absolute will, by overcoming his Power.

2. None of them dare say, that this fore-knowledge of God was not from Eternity, but that he knew one day what he knew not before.

3. All that the Jesuits themselves say, is, that God decreed it upon this fore-knowledge, and that he hath a Scientia media, what will come to pass, positis qui­busdam, if such and such things be done by man; and that this fore-knowledge in order of Nature is before the Decree, but both from Eternity. But Cardin Came­racensis (Petrus de Aliaco,) hath irrefra­gably confuted this imposing Priority and [Page 100] Posteriority of act on God; tho' I think some Divine acts as denominated only Relatively from the order of Objects, may be so distinguished.

4. In all this, we say not, that God hath by his will and decree ordained from Eter­nity, (or in time) that men shall sin, or will and choose Evil, but only who shall be Damned for sin, which God never willed or caused, but foresaw; not as if he were an idle Spectator, but a willing suspender of his own acts, so far as to leave Sinners to their self-determining wills.

5. But God being the cause of Good, and Men and Devils of Evil, our Salvation is of him, and our Destruction of our selves; and therefore God decreeth not Men's Salvation or Sanctification, meerly on foresight of our Faith, but decreeth our Faith it self: Sin he permitteth, but Faith, he effecteth, and decreeth to Effect.

6. As for them that feign that we say, that God decreeth that some shall be Saved and others Damned however they Live; it is but the dictates of the Father of Lies: We say that God at once decreeth the End, and the Means; as he doth not de­cree that men shall live though they neither Eat nor Drink, nor that they shall have [Page 101] Corn, though they neither Plow nor Sow, but that they shall Eat and Drink, and live thereby; and that they shall Plow and Sow, and mannure the Soil, and so have Corn. ‘So God doth at once decree, [that this and that man shall have the means of Grace, (especially a Saviour and the Gospel,) and shall faithfully use them, and be Sanctified by them, and sincerely obey God, and overcome the World, the Flesh and the Devil, and persevere to the End, and that for Christs Merits he will give them the Grace of his Spirit, and pardon their Sins, and bring them to Glory.]’ All this is our Decree of God.

But he doth not decree that men shall sin, that they may be Damned: For sin is no Work of God, nor a means appointed by him for Men's Damnation, no more than a Righteous King doth make men Traytors or Murderers, that he may Hang them. But he justly denyeth his Grace to many that forfeit it by willful Resistance, Disobedience, and Contempt; though he take not the forfeiture of his Elect.

He is deceived and wrongeth God that maketh him the Author of Men's sin: And so doth he that feigneth God to send his Son to redeem the World, and his Word [Page 102] and Ministers to call them, and his Spirit to renew them, and all this at Random, not knowing whether it may not be all lost, or leaving it chiefly to the Free-will of them, whose wills are contrarily inclined and vitiated? Whether Christ and all his Preparations shall be lost?

The plain Christian that holdeth but to these two points, that our Destruction is of our selves, but our help and Salvation of God, and that God is the first and chief cause of all good, and Men and Devils of all Evil, is liker to be wise with Sobriety and Safety, than the Ignorant Intruders into Gods Secrets, and the prating Calumnia­tors that speak Evil of the things which they understand not; and reproach those that speak not as Rashly and Ignorantly as themselves, even in some equivocal unex­plained words

Methinks Papists should be so kind to God, as seeing the Pope can tell who is a Damned Heretick, and to be kill'd, (even all that believe not in the Pope, or are not his Subjects,) and who is in Purgatory, and how long he shall stay there: Or how many years Torment the Pope can shor­ten: They should allow God to know a little more, and that not as one whose Power and Grace is Conquered by im­potent [Page 103] Worms, against his absolute Will.

The Five and Twentieth accused Point.

That every one ought Infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation, and to believe that he is of the number of the Predestinate.

Ans. I would fain excuse the man as far as I can, and therefore I hope, that as the man was excusable that did eat Snakes for Snigs, (or Eels,) so he read some Pamph­let of an Antimonian, either Crisp or Salt­marsh, or some other such, or talkt with some of their silly Novices, and thought he had Convers'd with the Reformed Catho­licks, or read the Confessions of the Re­formed Churches.

The first Sentence is a Fundamental Truth, and a damnable Falshood, as the Equivocal words are variously understood. And is it not pity that the Priests of the Infallible Church, should put things so dif­ferent into the same words, and that in an accusation of so many Churches and Nati­ons; when yet God himself is feigned by them to write by his Spirit so Unintelli­gibly, that without these Doctors skilful Exposition, it is but like to make men He­reticks, (that is, Adversaries to the Pope and his Clergy.)

[Page 104] To assure our selves of our Salvation [may mean, to give all diligence to make our Sal­vation infallibly sure: This every one ought to do.]

Or it may mean, that every man ought to believe it as an infallible Truth, that he shall be saved.] The next Sentence seem­eth to make this his meaning in the first: Which if it be, he is a false Calumniator of the Reformed Churches.

But if the first be his meaning, and he deny it, he is an open Enemy to Man's Salvation.

What is all the Scripture for, and all our Religion, but to make sure of our Salva­tion? 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give all diligence to make your Calling and Election sure. And if no man can be sure, to what purpose hath God made so many promises of it, ex­pressing the Conditions, (to them that be­lieve, that love God, that forsake all for him,) if no man can know whether he perform the Condition, and that he is with­in this promise? Why doth God lay down so many signs to difference the Children of God from the Children of the Devil, if they cannot be discerned? Sure Heaven and Hell be not like; and yet are the Heirs of Heaven and Hell undistinguishable? Is the Image of God and the Devil so like [Page 105] that none can know them asunder? No, not the man that hath had them both? And why doth God so aften call on Believers to Rejoyce, if they cannot know whether they shall be in Heaven and Hell for ever? If you say, he is not sure to persevere, ma­ny Papists grant that the Confirmed may. And why may not Bradford, Hooper, San­ders, and Thousands else, that are Dying by the Sacred blood-thirsty Church, be as­sured when they are Dying, that they have forsaken Life and all for Christ.

But oportet mendacem esse memorem still: Why do you not tell men when the Pope is selling them Pardons, and saving them out of Purgatory, that when all's done they can have no assurance of Salvation? yea, that they ought not to endeavour to make it sure? And whose now is the safe Church and Religion, if a Papist can ne­ver be sure that he shall be saved in your Church and Religion; nor sure that he is in a State of Salvation? That is, that he is a true Christian, and hath Charity, and is an honest man?

2. A man that hath got true and clear Evidence that he hath a Confirmed Faith, and Hope , and loveth God, as God above all, ought consequently to take it for an infallible Truth, that so Dying, he shall [Page 106] be saved: Else he must either give God the Lie, that hath promised it, or he must be supposed to be deceived when he think­eth that he believeth and loveth God.

But that every man must believe that he is of the Number of the Predestinate to Salvation, is a damnable Doctrine, be­cause it requireth all the Millions of ungod­ly men to believe a Lie, yea to believe it as a Divine Truth, and to make God both the Author of the Lie, and of the deceit of our selves by this Command. And when Millions are not of the Number of Sanctified, and therefore not of the Pre­destinate, if they so continue, what can more harden them in their Impenitence, than to tell them that they must all believe that they shall be saved? How many hundred Protestant Books, and thousand Sermons tell the World that it is the Preachers earnest drift, to save Wicked men from such Presumption, which makes men call them terrible Preachers? Every man is bound to believe Gods promise to be true, and that he himself shall be saved if he be a true penitent sanctified Christian, and so continue, and that else he shall be Damned; and not to distrust God as un­willing to continue the Grace he hath gi­ven him.

The Six and Twentieth accused Point.

That every man hath not an Angel Guar­dian or Keeper.

Ans. 1. We hold that every true Chri­stian, even the least, hath his Angel who be­holdeth the Face of his Father in Heaven: And that Angels are Gods Ministring Spi­rits, for the good of his Elect; and that they guard us and pitch their Tents about us, and bear us up in their Hands, and keep us in and from Danger, and rejoyce at the Conversion of a Sinner, and that we live in invisible Communion with them, and shall be like them.

2. But whether every Christian have one Angel to himself alone, that guardeth no other, or one Angel guard Hundreds or Thousands: Or whether some (as Lower Officers are set over a few, and others as General Officers are over whole Kingdoms,) we leave to the determination of the Infallible Pope, who is bolder with Gods Secrets than we dare be.

3. But till now, I thought they had not been so presumptuous, as to assert that every man hath a Guardian Angel. Where is there one word of God for this? Is every man an Heir of Salvation, or one of [Page 108] Christs little ones, or under his promise? Had Cain and Judas such Angels, and all the Sodomites?

Christ made it an argument of Terrour to Persecutors, that they offend such as had such Angels with God: And dare you paint them as Devils, and Burn them, or Mur­der them by the Dragons Dragoons, if you believe that every man hath such a Guardian Angel? Surely Saints, tho' called Hereticks, have such.

The Seven and Twentieth accused Point.

That the Holy Angels pray not for us, nor know our Thoughts and desires on Earth.

Ans. A false accusation. We say not that they pray not for us, nor that they know not our desires, nor any of our Thoughts. We say that Angels are no such Strangers to Saints and sincere Godli­ness, as not to know that all Godly men de­sire the Hallowing of Gods Name, the coming of his Kingdom, and the doing of his Will on Earth as it is done in Heaven: They that know what Grace is, and what our Prayers are, know much of our de­sires: And we do not think that Angels know less of our Thoughts than Devils, who we feel to our Trouble are not alto­gether [Page 109] unacquainted with them. And those Angels that rejoyce at a Sinners Con­version, are not unacquainted with it.

And as to their Praying, we know not how it is that Angels express their desires to God; but we all agree that they desire our welfare, and therefore may be said to pray for it, if all notified Desire be Prayer. We suppose that they know and Love us, far better than we know and Love each other.

But we read that the Heretical Gnosticks, or their like, did deceive men, [by Volunta­ry Humility, and worshipping of Angels, in­truding into those things which they had not seen, vainly puft up by a fleshly mind,] Col. 2.18, 19. Therefore we dare not pretend to Papal Infallibility, nor boldly to con­jecture, how far it is that our Thoughts are known to Angels, nor how much they are ignorant of them; nor when, or how oft, or how far, or in what manner they pray for us: How far particularly, and how far only generally, &c. Had this knowledge been needful to us, God would have revealed it: Much less do we know what Angel of what departed Soul of a Saint hath the care or charge of our Sheep, and of our Cattel, and who of our Pigs and Geese, and who of our Fruits and [Page 110] Corn; abundance of these things we leave to the Infallible Church: As we do their acquaintance in Purgatory, while our ac­quaintance and Conversation in Heaven, can reach no higher than the prospect which we have in and by the Glass of Scrip­ture Revelation.

The Eight and Twentieth accused Point.

That we may not pray to them.

Ans. 1. We may desire Living Saints to pray for us, and this may be called Praying to them: So a Child prayeth to his Father or Master. But we pray not to dead Saints nor Angels: 1. Because we have an hundred Commands to pray to God, and not one to pray to them, and where there is no Law, there is no Trans­gression or Sin. Therefore while we are sure it is no Sin to forbear it, and know not but it is Sin to do it, we go the safe way: If they say, it is against the Popes Law or his Clergy's, we say with Paul, it is a small thing to us to be judged of man, (who can but kill our Bodies,) we have one that judgeth us, even the Lord. Let the Pope Damn us if he can.

2. As the first Commandment forbid­deth us to have any God but one, so the [Page 111] second forbiddeth us to worship so as the Heathens did their Idols, because it is Bo­dily interpretative Idolatry and Scandal: But the Heathens used to pray to their un­der Deities, whom they judged to be much like that which the Papists judge of Angels, and praying to Invisible Spirits is to imitate them as scandalously as praying toward Images: No wonder therefore that you so usually leave out the second Commandment.

3. Gods Word is the Rule of all accep­table Religious Worship, (tho' but a Ge­neral Rule in many Modes and Circum­stances,) and therefore we fear swerving from it.

4. Angels themselves never demanded it, nor Christ bespake it for them, yea, they twice forbad it John: See thou do it not.

5. Angels being more holy than we, are more for the Glory of God, and the hatred of Creature arrogance and Idolatry; and as God calleth himself specially Jea­lous against bodily Worship like the Idolaters, in the second Commandment, so Angels are more jealous against it than we are.

6. As Angels said, See thou do it not, so contrarily Satan tempted Christ, with the offer of the Kingdoms and glory of the World, [Page 112] to fall down and worship him. Therefore we had rather hearken to the Angels than to Devils: And fear, they that do other­wise, worship Devils for Angels, because only Devils have sought such Worship. And the Devil oft turneth himself as into an Angel of Light to deceive, as his Ministers do into Ministers of Righteous­ness.

7. We know not when Angels hear us, and when they do not: And therefore know not when and how to pray to them.

8. As we are sure that God would have bid us do it, if he would have us do it, so we know that he is all sufficient to tell them what and when to doe for us; and to pray to him is the way to secure their Service.

9. And we know that there is one Me­diator between God and Man, whose In­tercession is sufficient.

10. And we know that Christians pray­ing to Angels and separated Souls, greatly hardeneth the Heathen World that pray to separated Souls, and Daemons that are their Sub-deities.

11. And when these men say not, we must pray to Angels, but we may do it; what horrid Murderers are they, that will Burn, Kill, and Damn men, for not doing [Page 113] all that they think they may do, without any must or Divine Obligation? Why take they it not at best, as part of their Works of Supererrogation?

12. The Deceiver prophaning the Scrip­ture, 1. Puts Jacobs Benediction desiring the Angels guard on his Son, to be a prayer to Angels. Yea, when the Fa­thers say, that Angel was Christ him­self.

2. And Jacobs words to the Angel that appeared to him, to be a reason for our praying to unseen Spirits: If they appear to us, we shall the better know what and when to speak to them.

The Nine and Twentieth accused Point.

That the Angels cannot help us.

Ans. This is too gross stating of Con­troversies for a Collier or a Cobler, tho' not for a Doctor of Infallible Church.

1. We say, that not only an Angel, but a Man, an Ass, (as Balaams,) a blast of Wind, Flies, Frogs, Lice (as in Egypt,) can help us, when God sendeth them to help us.

2. We believe that Angels are specially Empowred and willing for it. So that [Page 114] they are Gods Eminent Ministring Spirits for the good of his Elect.

3. But we believe that they can do no­thing for us, but what God empowreth and Commissioneth them to do. He that Curseth those that trust in man, and make Flesh their Arm, instead of trusting God, will so Curse them that so trust in Angels. But yet we may and must trust man and Angels, according to their several mea­sures of Gods authorizing and enabling them. The great Mercies of Protection and assistance that God giveth us by Angels, is the matter of much of our daily thanks to God: And I am daily thankful to Angels themselves; and I think I love them bet­ter than any Friends on Earth, because they are better, and love God better: And I am the willinger to Die, because I shall go to the World of Love, where as God and Christ is Love, so Angels love God, and we for his sake, better than I love my self, while our Papists that pray to Angels, devour the blood of Saints.

The Thirtieth accused Point.

That no Saint Deceased, hath after ap­peared to any on Earth.

[Page 115] Ans. A meer false Calumny. What Protestant Confessions have any such Ar­ticle? How know we what hath been done of that kind in all the World to this day? Read but Dr. More, and Mr. Glan­vils Books of Apparitions, and Mr. Am­brose, and Mr. Lawrences Books of our Communion with Angels. Read Zan­chius, Luther, Melaucton, Manlius, Lavalu, &c. and you may see that this is no Protestant assertion. We know that Christ appeared to Saul, and that many Bodies of Saints arose at Christs Death, and appeared to many: And what the Witch of Endor showed as Samuel, we know not: We only say, 1. That it is much liker that Apparitions are oftest made by Devils or bad Spirits that dwell in the lower Regions, than that blessed Spirits come from Heaven. 2. But yet seeing Angels thence appear, we cannot say that Holy Souls never do. 3. But that God will not have it to be any ordina­ry or trusty means for Men's Salvation: For we cannot know when it is a Holy Soul, and when a Devil: And they that will not believe Moses and the Prophets, (and Christ,) neither will they believe tho' one rose from the Dead: It's no Article of our Faith, that they ever did appear or [Page 116] not. And if these men think otherwise, why must this Opinion more than Ten thousand such, be obtruded as necessary on all others?

The One and Thirtieth accused Point.

That the Saints Deceased, know not what passeth here on Earth.

Ans. Confusion and Calumny. There is knowledge Immediate by Intention, and Mediate by Notification from others. And there is knowledge perfect, and in part.

1. We take not on us to know the ex­tent of the knowledge of separated Souls. And these proud Infallible men know no more than we, but so much less, in that they know not their own Ignorance: Yet neither Lilly, nor any Astrologer, nor Conjurer, that ever I heard of, that pre­tendeth the greatest acquaintance with Spi­rits, did ever pretend to make their Opi­nions of them necessary to Salvation; nor to kill all Dissenters as Hereticks, but the Vice-Christ and his Church, we can­not know all that they pretend to know. And why must we needs know whether ever such Souls appeared? If they did, we will try what they are by the word of God, [Page 117] which is our Rule. And why must we know how much they know? We know that they are not Omniscient, nor Omni­present. And how much they know by present Intention, not one of these Pre­tenders know. That they know more than we, and know much by the notices of Angels or one another, and specially of the General State of Christs Kingdom on Earth, we make no doubt: And what Christ himself maketh known to them, we know not. O! what sort of men are these, that forbid us to Read the Word of God, and yet obtrude on us (on dismal Penalties,) so many things more than all the Bible doth contain!

The Two and Thirtieth accused Point.

That the Saints pray not for us.

Ans. Equivocal and false. 1. All Saints on Earth pray for us: It is part of the Communion of Saints.

2. We say of the Prayer of departed Souls, the same that we said before of the Prayer of Angels. Their General Re­quests for the Church and against Enemies, proveth not to us what extent their know­ledge of particulars hath, nor what parti­culars they ask, nor that every Christian [Page 118] can say that they pray for him, and that in his particular cases.

The Three and Thirtieth accused Point.

That we ought not to beseech God, to grant our prayers in favour of the Saints, or their Merits: Nor do we receive any benefit thereby.

Ans. This is before answered to the 17th. Accusation. I told you that we hold, that God blesseth Children for their Holy Parents sakes, their Relation making the welfare of the one to be the others: And God blessed others for Josephs sake, and sometimes preserveth whole Countries for the sake of the Godly there: And on what account, and how far, I will not a­gain repeat.

And the Union and Communion of Saints in Heaven and Earth are so near, that I dare not say that God doth any good to any one faithful Soul, that is not in some respect for the sake of all the rest; as the Cure of an aking Tooth is for the sake of all the Body: That is, 1. For the good of the whole. 2. And done out of love to the whole.

But this will not satisfie confounding De­ceivers. No doubt it is dead Saints that [Page 119] he meaneth: And what he meaneth by Merits, I suppose he knoweth not himself; or else he would have told us: How far we own, or abhor the pretence of Merits, I shewed before. All Saints are saved by the full sufficient Merits of Christ, and have none at all of their own, unless the amiableness of Grace freely given them be called their Merits, as a thankful Child more deserveth his Fathers Love, (that is, is more Lovely) than a Rebel that scorneth him; and a piece of Gold deserveth to be esteemed above Dirt; and a Nightin­gale above a Toad. Yea their own Je­suit Vasquez, not only denieth all Merit of God in Commutative Justice, (as all save Romans and a few such Sots do,) but also in point of distributive Justice, by which he seemeth to deny Merit more than Pro­testants do. For by Merit we mean but Moral aptitude, for the reward of a free Benefactor who is also Rector, when the or­dering of a free Gift suspended on official Conditions, is sapientially made a means of procuring Obedience.

Whatever God hath promised to give us for other Men's sake, that he will so give. But our Faith shall not go beyond his Promise: If God have told us any where, who Saint Nicolas, and St. Becket, [Page 120] and St. Christopher, and St. Joan, and St. Jane, and St. Winifrid are, and what they were to us more than others, and that they were real Saints, and that he hath promised us Mercy for their sakes, and bid us pray to him for their Meriting for us; let them shew us this in his Word. But if it be only the Popes Command and Pro­mise, let his Subjects obey and trust it.

We are certain that none but Saints are saved: And why then must I go to God, for the Merits of St.Nicholas, or St.Bridget, any more than for the Merits of all the rest, which are many Millions?

As God is jealous of his Honour against Idols, so is he of Christs Honour against Antichrists and false Mediators, and we must do nothing that seemeth to ascribe any part of Christs proper Office of Me­diation to any Creature: And doth it not seem so, if we pray, Lord hear, pardon and save me for the Merits of Becket or Bridget, &c. For what more can we say of the Merits of Christ?

But still mark, that these men say not that, we must pray thus for the Merit of Saints, but that we may: And must all be Burnt or Damned that will not do all that the Pope thinks they maey do?

[Page 121] That we receive no benefit by them, is a forged Calumny and not our Doctrine: We believe that the Jews had benefit by Abraham, Moses, David, when they were Dead: And that the Reformed Chur­ches have had benefit by the Blood of the Martyrs, shed by the Blood-thirsty Pa­pists to this day; and that the whole Church hath benefit by the Writings of Chrysostom, Nazianzene, Augustine, &c. Luther, Calvin, &c.

The Four and Thirtieth accused Point.

That we ought not expresly to pray them to pray or intercede to God for us.

Ans. There was enough said of this be­fore, about praying to Angels.

When God bids us pray to dead Men's Souls, we will do it. Till then your say­ing we may do it, proveth neither may nor must to us. Why then cannot you keep your [may] to your selves? Never a Con­jurer in England can tell us,how far Souls in Heaven can hear, nor where and when they are present or within hearing; nor which of them are so, whether all, or one, or which; No nor whether those Saints that under­stood not Latin on Earth, do understand Latin Prayers sent up from Earth, wh [...] [Page 122] the Speaker himself understandeth them not. Alas! Christian Reader, what a dark uncertain Worship, like Charming, would this Infallible Church compell men to offer the most Holy God, while they accuse his Word of ensnaring dangerous obscurity.

We will pray to those alive, that we know do hear us, to pray to God for us, for the sake of Christ: But it's but profa­nation of the Scripture, to say, that because Luke 16, a man in Hell supposed to see and hear Abraham, did pray him to send La­zarus on Earth; therefore we that nei­ther see nor hear the Dead, should pray to them. But Dives prayed in vain, and so may you. And what if those Souls should prove to be in Purgatory? Must we pray both to them that are in Purgatory, and for them also? And is it certain that the Pope and all his Church, are sure which Saint is not in Purgatory, when all are there or worse (say they,) that ever sinned and did not Pennance for it?

The Five and Thirtieth accused Point.

That the Bones or Relicks of the Saints are not to be kept or reserved; no Virtue proceed­ing from them after they be once dead.

[Page 123] Ans. 1. Where hath God Commanded us to keep them, for the Virtue that pro­ceedeth from them?

2. We deny not but a man may keep a Skeleton or Skull, and if it be his Fa­thers, we will accuse him no higher than of Imprudence and Passion. But what proof have you of Virtue proceeding from Bones, till you see it by experience? Is it any appointed means for God to work Miracles by? And how know you that all were Saints that the Pope calleth so? Had all the Debauched Popes of Anno 800, 900, 1000, skill Infallible to know Saints from Hypocrites? And hath God promised Virtue to all their Bones? And are you sure that they are their Bones? Alas! what numerous Tricks have men to trust to, to deceive themselves and others, that yet will not obey Christs plain Commands, and trust his promise!

The Six and Thirtieth accused Point.

That Creatures cannot be Sanctified, or made more holy than they are already of their own Nature.

Ans. A down-right slander. 1. We be­lieve that all men that shall be saved, are or [Page 124] shall be Sanctified, and made more holy than they are of their own Nature.

2. We believe that to the Pure, all things are Pure, and are Sanctified by the Word and Prayer: And that whatever we do, we should do it to the glory of God: And when a Christian devoteth and useth his Food, Estate, and all to Gods Service, it is Sanctified.

3. We believe that a Temple, a Font, a Table, and Utensils, may well be se­parated from common uses to Gods Wor­ship: And that Separation is a sanctifying of them.

To be Sanctified or Holy, is but to be separated from common use, to Gods special Service, according to the nature of the thing used.

1. Godly men are Sanctifyed and Saints, because by Soul-consent and Devotion, and Practice, they are sincerely separated to God, from the slavery of the World, the Flesh and the Devil; being Habitu­ally and Predominantly lovers of God and Holiness, by the grace of Christ and the Holy Ghost.

2. Professed Christians are Sacramen­tally Sanctifyed, when by outward Bap­tism, they are devoted to God in Christ.

[Page 125]3. Even bad Ministers are externally sanctifyed, as separated and consecrated to a Holy Office.

4. Temples, and Books, and Church Utensils are sanctifyed, when by men they are separated from common and unclean usage, to Gods Worship. So that tho' Holiness in all be this separation to God, yet, as the Persons and things are not the same, so neither is their Holiness in specie, but only in genere.

And there is a Superstitious and an Idola­trous Mock-Holiness, when men will de­vote that to God and Holy uses which he abhorreth, or accepteth not, nor ever re­quired of them: And say as the Hypo­crite Pharisees, it is Corban, who required this at their hands? The Hypocrites and Idolaters have always been forward for this unrequired Mock-Holiness, to quiet their Consciences, instead of real saving Holiness. It's Cheaper and Easier to have Holy-Water, Holy-Oil, Holy-Spittle, Holy-Images, Holy-Crosses, Holy-Vest­ments of many sorts, Holy-Altars, Holy-Shrines, and Pilgrimages, Holy-Bones, and Chips and Places, than to have Holy-Hearts and Lives, which love God, and Grace, and Heaven, above all this World and Life it self, and by the Spirit mortify all fleshly Lusts.

The Seven and Thirtieth accused Point.

That Children may be saved by their Pa­rents Faith, without the Sacrament of Ho­ly Baptism.

Ans. Can you unriddle this charge? Whether the man mean that they may be saved by Baptism without their Parents Faith? Or that both must be conjoyned as necessary to Salvation? He will not tell us that.

1. That God hath made abundance of promises to the Seed of the Faithful, and taketh them into the Covenant of Grace with their Parents, and saith that they are Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14; Protestants have co­piously proved against Anabaptists and Pa­pists. But it is Gods Mercy, and Christs Merit, Grace, and Covenant, that they are saved by: The Parents Faith is but that Qualification and Relation, which maketh them receptive and capable of this saving Grace. The Parenrs Faith saveth them­selves, but as the Moral▪qualifying dispo­sition and condition of Gods saving Gift: And to Infants it is required, not that they be Believers, but Believers Seed, devoted to God by Parents or Pro-Parents, whose they are.

[Page 127]2. We doubt not, but regularly, where it may be had, this Dedication should be solemnly made by Baptismal Covenanting: Ask the Anabaptists whether we hold not this. But we believe, that as private Mar­riage maketh Husband and Wife before God, but solemn Matrimony is necessary for publick Order, without which they may be punished as Fornicators: So if an In­fant be the Child of one believing Parent, dedicated to God, he is Holy and in the same Covenant with the Parent, (and were else unclean:) But that before the Church, he is not regularly to be judged in Cove­nant till it be solemnized in Christs appoin­ted way by Baptism.

Still excepting where Baptism cannot be had; and there even sober Papists say, that the Votum, the Vow, or desire, will serve.

And this necessity is manifold: 1. When the Child dieth, before Baptism could be had.

2. Where there is no capable Person to do it, or that will not utterly deprave it.

3. When the Parent is an Antipoedo-Bap­tist, and omitteth it, thinking it a Sin. If they think that the Infant is not saved by the Parents Faith, why should they think, that believing Parents Children are dam­ned [Page 128] because the Parent Erreth in such an external thing?

But Papists, that turn other parts of Ho­liness into Form and Ceremony, and make a Religion of the Carkass mortifyed, would here also perswade People that the very outward act of Washing, is of so great moment with God, that though it were the holyest Persons or their Seed, a mistake, or a delay, or surprize of Death, will damn them if they be not Baptized, (or Martyred.) This tendeth to Subject all to the Mercy and Dominion of the Priests, that they may seem more necessa­ry to Salvation than they are, or at least their external Forms, by Lay-men or Women Baptizers administred.

Constantine himself, the Churches great Deliverer, was not Baptized till near his Death: Are they sure that he was till then in a state of Damnation, and had been Damned if he had so Died? Methinks in gratitude, the Church of Rome, should have cast him no lower than the Torments of Purgatory.

The Eight and Thirtieth accused Point.

That the Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary, nor to be used.

[Page 129] Ans. You may so mean by the Word [Sacrament] and [Confirmation,] as that we do deny them. And you may so mean, as that we are more for them than you are.

1. If by a Sacrament, you mean one of Gods Institution, appointed by him to be his Solemn Delivery and Investiture in a state of Christianity or necessary Grace; and if by Confirmation you mean Arch-Bishops anointing Infants, or Ignorant Children, or Persons, with hallowed Oyl, compoun­ded once a year, and his Ceremonious boxing them, and such other Formalities; then we deny that such Confirmation is any such Sacrament, nor is necessary, or to be used; because Holy things are not to be mortyfied and profaned.

2. But if by a [Sacrament] you mean, but a Solemn renewal of our Covenant with God in Christ; and by Confirmation you must, that those Baptized in Infancy should at due Age, understandingly, under the Pastors hand or Care, profess their se­rious personal Consent to that Covenant which by others they imputatively made in Baptism; we are so far from denying this, that we think till this Solemn personal Covenanting, and owning their Baptism with understanding and seeming seriousness, be [Page 130] made, the Entrance into the state of Adult Church Communion, the woful Corrupti­on of the Church is never to be well hea­led; but while one side turn Confirmation into a dead Shadow and Mockery, and the Anabaptists scandalized Heresie, are all for Rebaptizing instead of Confirmation, Pro­phanation and Schism will gratifie Satan. You know, that the English Bishops pra­ctise Confirmation, and the Liturgy descri­beth it as I here do: And are the Church of England no Protestants? And divers Protestant Non-Conformists here have a­bout 29 and 30 years ago, written full Treatises for Confirmation.

The Nine and Thirtieth accused Point.

That the Bread of the Supper of our Lord was but a Figure, or Remembrance of the Body of Christ, received by Faith, and not his true and very Body.

Ans. 1. Protestants hold, that as all words are to be taken according to the usage of the Subject or Science that they are used about, Physical Terms Physically; Rhetorical Rhetorically, Geometrical, Astronomical, Arithemetical, according­ly, Law Terms according to Law, and Moral and Theological Terms Morally [Page 131] and Theologically; so, if as Naturalists, we ask what the matter of that Sacrament is, we say Bread and Wine: If as Moralists and Theologues, we say, it is the Body and Blood of Christ: As if you ask of a Gold and Silver Coyn, what it is in a Natural Sence, we say, it is Gold and Silver: But if you ask in a Civil, Political and Law-Sence, we say, it is a 20 s. piece, a Ja­cobus, a Carolus piece, or it is a Crown, or a Shilling. So we say that Sacramentally and Morally, and Relatively, that which is naturally true Bread and Wine, is yet also the true Body and Blood of Christ: And we say not that it is only a Figure and Re­membrance, but it is such a Figure as is Representatively his very Flesh and Blood: And it is to Deliver to us, and Invest us in a Spiritual Ʋnion with Christ himself, and right to his saving Grace.

A proxy that as Representative of a Prince Marrieth a Foreign Lady, is more than a Remembrance; and so is his Image, if it be used in the Marriage. A Key, or a Twig and Turf, by which Investiture in House and Land is delivered, and a Staff and Ring, by which Bishopricks were of old delivered by Investiture, are all more than a bare Remembrance.

2. As to your implied Doctrine of Tran­substantiation, [Page 132] that after the words of Con­secration, there is left no real Bread and Wine, it is Copiously and undenyably proved a Novel Doctrine, so monstrous, as if it had been formed to engage Mankind in a Renunciation of Christianity, Huma­nity, and common Senses, and to be an obliging profession of this Renunciation. It is enough for us to believe, that after the true Consecration, it is no more meer Bread and Wine, (as after the Coyning a 20 s. Piece, a Crown, or a Noble, or an Angel, it is not meer Gold, but the said na­med Coyn.) But if ever Satan shewed himself a Dragon, under the Name of an Angel of Light, it was when he made the Canons of the 4th. Laterane General Coun­cil under Innocent the 3d. that set up Tran­substantiation, and the Murdering of all that deny it, of deposing Princes that will not exterminate them. This adjuncts and effects will shew the difference between this Counterfeit Sacrament and Christ. Christs Sacrament was instituted to be a Sacrament and Covenant of dearest Love between God and Man, and one another: But as Satan, when he Covenanteth with Witches, to sell him their Souls, must have it sealed by his sucking their Blood, so the seal that he set to the Monster of Transubstan­tiation, [Page 133] was that his Church and it must live by the blood of those that own it not.

But what will convince men, that by Noise and Worldly Interest have Conque­red all that is proper to a man, yea, or a living sensible Animal.

1. They pretend Christs Words, This is my Body, when they know that it was his ordinary parabolical phrase, and they will take this Physically and singularly as different from all the rest. Tho' he say, I am the Door, I am the Vine, and ye are the Branches, and my Father is the Hus­band-man, and the Field is the World, and the Tares are the Children of the Wicked one, and the Harvest is the end of the World, and the Reapers are the Angels; they that re­ceived the Seed by the High-way, are they that, &c. And so he speaketh usually.

2. They know that in 1 Cor. 11. Paul calls it Bread after the Consecration, three times in the three next Verses: And would they have Burnt Paul for a Heretick? What can they devise against these plain words?

3. They sentence all to Death and Hell that will believe their Eyes, Taste, Feel­ing or any Sense of themselves, and all others, that perceiveth true Bread and Wine after Consecration.

[Page 134]4. Hereby they make God as Creator, the Grand Deceiver of the World, by de­luding all Men's Senses.

5. And hereby they overthrow all cer­tainty of Faith Divine and Humane. For Sense and Humanity are before Faith and Christianity, and their perception presup­posed: And if Sense be presupposed fal­lible, yea false, Faith must needs be so: For we are not sure that ever we saw a Book, or Man, or Light, or heard man speak, or what he saith: And how can he believe Gods Word or the Popes, or Priests, that is not sure that ever he heard or saw them?

6. They feign every sottish filthy Priest, to work more Miracles at his pleasure, by his transubstantiating, than Christ or his Apostles did.

7. They enable a drunken Priest to un­doe Bakers and Vintners, by saying the words of Consecration Intentione Conse­crandi over all their Bread and Wine: And then they have none left.

8. They feign Christ to have eaten his own Body by his Body, and either that the same Body did eat it self, or that he had two Bodies that did eat neither.

9. They feign that his whole Body did eat his broken Body, and that his Disci­ples [Page 135] did eat it, before it was broken; and drank his shed Blood before it was shed.

10. When two General Councils C.P. the 5th. and Nice the 2d. tell us, that Christs body in Heaven now is not Flesh and Blood, and Paul saith 1 Cor. 15, that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, yet they maintain that Christ hath had these 1600 years a body of Flesh and Blood.

11. They feign abundance of Accidents without subject Substances, that are the Accidents (Quantity, Quality, &c.) of nothing.

12. They feign a sottish Priest to make his Maker day by day.

13. When Christ saith, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, shall live for ever; they feign the most wicked men to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood.

14. They feign Mice to eat God.

15. They feign every wicked man to eat his God, and digest part of him into his own Flesh and Blood, and cast out the other part into the Jakes.

16. They teach men to commit Idola­try, by worshiping Bread as God.

17. All this is enforced by Fire and Sword, against the Blood of Holy men.

[Page 136]18. All this is Novel Heresie, contrary to the Doctrine of the Universal Church, for a Thousand years after Christ and more.

19. It's contrary to Paul's Quere, 1 Cor. 12. Are all workers of Miracles? understood Negatively.

20. It's feigned a sufficient ground to depose Princes, and destroy whole Lands.

But these things, and specially the for­ged Miracles of the Transubstantiation, are more largely confuted in many Trea­tises.

What hope of ending any Controversies with Papists, that agree not with us in the credit of Senses as Heathens do? Can we bring any Controversie to a plainer issue, than to all Men's common Senses, about due Objects and due Mediums? And is there any disputing where no principle is agreed on?

The Fortieth accused Point.

That we ought to receive under both kinds, and that one alone is not sufficient.

Ans. It concerneth them that deny this, either to keep men from Reading Gods Word, or to tell them it is false, [Page 137] and the Pope's is true that contradicteth it: What is a flat defyance of God or his Word, if this be not? Christ saith, Math. 26.27, 28. Drink ye all of it: For this is my Blood of the New-Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. And St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11.23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered to you: That the Lord Jesus, the Night in which he was betrayed, took Bread, &c. Vers. 25. After the same manner also he took the Cup, when he had Supped, saying, This Cup is the New-Testament in my blood: This do ye as oft as you drink it, in remem­brance of me: For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lord's Death 'till he come: Wherefore who­soever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that Cup.

These words do so plainly say, it is bread after the Consecration, and do so plainly require all to drink of the Cup, as well as to eat of the Bread, that the Infalli­ble Clergy are fain to accuse the Light of Darkness, the Text of deceitful Obscu­rity, till the Pope and his Prelates have ex­pounded it, by giving it the Lye: Just [Page 138] like the Knave in Ignoramus's Play, that Proclaimed the man to be Mad, from whom he intended to extort Money, that is, for binding and abusing him. What is it to proclaim Christ and Paul to be Fools, that could not speak Sense, if this be not?

But the Doctors have also contradictions to charge on Christ, even that else-where he saith, [He that eateth his Flesh shall live for ever:] Ans. 1. That is, He that trusteth in a Sacrificed Christ as the means of his Salvation, as bread is the means of na­tural Life: He that would not understand, cannot understand the plainest Words: But doth Christ say, that any man eateth his flesh, that drinketh not his blood? Or that he shall have Life, that doth the one without the other?

2. And seeing they take every Rogue that eateth their Wafer to eat Christs Flesh, do they not here falsly say that all such shall have Eternal Life: O happy (miserable) Church, that hath Eternal Life, how wicked soever, for eating the Wafer, and calling it Christs Flesh! And all this, that Faith may not be thought to be meant by eating.

3. But seeing it must needs be eating by the Teeth, or by Flesh eating that is meant, they have found out a crafty literal way: [Page 139] Christ saith that he loveth and cherisheth his Church as his own Flesh, and we are Mem­bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: And so they that Murdered a Mil­lion of the Albigenses, &c. and Massacred 40000 in France, and 200000 in Ireland, and Burnt them in England, Germany, the Low Countries, and Tormented and Kil­led them in Bohemia, and many other Lands, did learn the literal way of eating Christs Flesh. And who doubts but the Devil tells them that they shall thereby ob­tain everlasting Life? But why then are they against drinking his blood, when actu­ally they draw it out by streams? Perhaps by Burning his Bones, (as they did Buce [...]s, Phagius, Wickliffes, and 1000 more;) they think that their Teeth scape the trou­ble of gnawing them, and thus they feed on Christs body, flesh and bones: For their Masters beat Witches if they bring him not account at every Meeting, of some mischief that they have done.

3. And what but flat opposition to Christ, should move these men to forbid one half of his Sacrament, which he calls the New-Testament in his blood? One would wonder what should be their Mo­tive: It is no matter of Pleasure, Profit, or Honour: This very Deceiver had more [Page 140] wit than to pretend Antiquity for it, or any one ancient Doctor of the Church. They dare not deny (save to Ignorants and Fools,) that it is a Novelty contrary to unquestioned Consent and Practice of all Christs Church, for above a thousand years, or near at least. It is undenyably against Christs Institution and Command, against his Apostles Doctrine, and Scripture Practice; against all the Judgment and Pra­ctice of the ancient Church, against the Nature and Integrity of the Sacrament, against the Concord of the Church, that will never Unite against all these, against the Sense and Comfort of Believers. What then doth over-rule so many men to Tear the Church, to Murder so many Bo­hemians as they did, &c. for such a thing as this is? Reader I will tell thee all that I know: The Devil is in constant War a­gainst Christ and his Kingdom, and the Souls of men: As he thought he could have triumphed in making Job curse God to his Face; so he would fain shew that he can make Christs own pretended Ministers oppose and despise the plainest of his Com­mands, and defie his Word and him to his Face. To this he gets by the baits of Worldly Wealth, Honour and Dominion, a sort of Fleshly Worldly men to be Bi­shops, [Page 141] whose very hearts are against the Laws of Christ: And puffing up these men by degrees, he tells them how they must be Great, and arrogate Power equal to Christs Apostles, and so domineer over the Souls of men; and all this on pretence of honouring Christ: And having gotten a Generation of gross ignorant debauched Villains, into the Papal elevated Seat, and the Ruling Church Power, when some poor Woman once or twice shed some of the Wine, or a Priest chanced to spill it, their prophane Holiness decreed that they should drink the Wine no more (save the Clergy,) but should eat Christs Blood, which they said was in his Flesh, and a while they dipt the Wafer in Wine; and then pretended Infallibility being their vain Glory, they must not change lest they should seem to be fallible, and should Repent; for Repenting undoes Satans Kingdom.

The One and Fortieth accused Point.

That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice; and that the Mass is not a Sacrifice.

Ans. True and proper, if the words are intelligible, are put against false and equivo­cal [Page 142] or figurative. And what man can tell us which Sence of the word [Sacrifice] must be taken for the only proper Sence, when with Heathens and Christians the word is used in so many Sences, and there are so many sorts of Sacrifices? This man would not tell you whether it be the Thing or the Name that he controverteth; that would be to come into the Light. If it be the thing, we never doubted but divers things are and must be in the Church, which are called Sacrifices, some in Scrip­ture, and some by Papists: And some things by them called Sacrifices, are in their Church which God is against.

If it be the Name that is the question, we know that in a General Sence it may be given to many things of different Spe­cies, and equivocally yet to more; but which Sence to call proper among so many, let quibling Grammarians tell him: We strive no further about Names, than tend­eth to preserve the due Judgment of things.

Sometime a Sacrifice signifieth a second thing offered to God by way of worship.

Sometime more strictly, somewhat suppo­sed highly to gratifie or please him, offered to expiate some Crime that displeaseth him, or by pleasing to procure some benefit from him.

[Page 143]Among Heathens and Jews, there were various sorts of Sacrifices: Some Hilasti­cal, some Eucharistical: Some of things Lifeless, and some of Living Creatures; where strictly part was burnt and so offered to God, and part given to the Priest, and part eaten by the Offerers.

We hold, 1. That Jesus Christ offered his Body on the Cross a Sacrifice to God for the expiation of Sin, as a thing pleasing to God, in a sence which no other Sacri­fice ever▪was or is; not that God delighted in his Blood, Pain or Death as such; but as finis gratiâ, it was the most excellent means to demonstrate his Wisdom, Love, Justice, and Mercy, and save a sinful race of men, with the honour of his Law and Government.

2. We hold that Christ hath instituted his Sacrament, to be a visible Representa­tion of this his Sacrifice, both for Comme­moration and for actual Investiture and Col­lation of Christ to be our Saviour, and Head in Union, and of his Grace and Be­nefits, Pardon, Reconciliation, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification, and Title to Glory. And we know that the ancient Churches called this often a Sacrifice: Not in the same sence as Christ was our Sacri­fice; nor as the Mosaical Types were Sa­crifices; [Page 144] but a Representative Sacrifice, re­presenting Christs own. But we are the shier to use the name Sacrifice, where Pa­pists apply it to Idolatry.

3. We know that all Christians are bound to dedicate themselves to God, and even to lay down their Lives when he re­quireth it; and bound to offer him peni­tent Confession, Praise, Thanksgiving, and to give Alms to the poor, and serve and honour him with all their Wealth and Power. And all these are called Sacrifices in Scripture, because they are sacred ob­lations, acceptable to God through the merits of Christs Sacrifice.

Is not this man a Calumniator then, that faith we hold, [that there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice,] unless he call none true and proper but what no man can offer to God.

But what say we to the Sacrifice of the Mass? We say, that for the Priest to pre­tend that after his words, Bread is turned into Christs Flesh in a Physical sence, and Wine into his Blood, and that this is our God, and that he sacrificeth this God to God, and eateth and drinketh him so sa­crificed, and that all that so receive him have Eternal Life: This is a prophanation of Holy things, a deceiving of Souls, a [Page 145] blaspheming of Christ, and Idolatry a­gainst God. And all sacrificing in their Mass, that is more than a Representation of Christs own sacrificing himself, for Comme­moration and Communication of the gifts of his Testament, and the expression of our Gratitude, and Devotedness to God by him, is their own prophane invention.

How do they offer his broken body and blood shed, any otherwise than Representa­tively, unless they kill him, and eat him when he is Dead? It was only a Repre­sentation of his own sacrificed Body and Blood, which he made at the Sacrament himself; not then broken and shed, but to be broken, slain, and shed soon after, (unless he had two bodies, one dead and one alive.) The Sacrament indeed was called a Sacrifice by the ancient Churches, to signifie that it is not Christs body as now glorified in Heaven that is there Re­presented, but his body as once flesh and blood sacrificed on the Cross: And how can it be that, but by Representation, sacrificing it was killing it: Do they kill Christ a thou­sand thousand times over, yea, and kill his Gloryfied body? He hath no existent Flesh and Blood in Heaven, speaking pro­perly and formally; but a Spiritual glorified body, that was Flesh and Blood on Earth: [Page 146] And doth every Priest turn Christs Spiri­tual glorified body into Flesh and Blood again? O what a Mass of prophanation is their Mass.

Tho Two and Fortieth accused Point.

That Sacramental Ʋnction, is not to be used to the Sick.

Ans. In those Hot-Countries, anointing their bodies was used as a great refresh­ment for Delight and Health. And Christ and his Apostles applyed it to the Miracu­lous use of Healing, as Christ did Clay and Spittle to a blind Man: And while that miraculous use continued, St. James bids those that are sick as a punishment for some sin, to send for the Elders of the Church, that they may pray for the par­don of his sin, and for his recovery, and anoint him with Oil, and if he have not sinned unto Death, (that is, a Capital Crime, which God would have Magi­strates punish with Death, and will do so himself,) his Sin shall be forgiven, and he shall be healed.

See now the Malice of the Prince of Darkness. He that tempteth men to cast out half the substance of the Lords Supper, meerly to shew what they can and will, [Page 147] and dare do against his Word, and temp­teth men to forbid the very Scripture it self, yet to undoe, he will overdoe, and draw men to be wise and Righteous over much: Who would think these men are against the sufficiency of Scripture, that will turn its temporary occasional actions into perpetual Sacraments? They make Conscience of washing Feet, of bearing Palms, of the Holy-Kiss (but on the Pax) and a Sacrament of anointing the sick: And why they make not a Sacrament of anointing the Blind with Clay and Spittle, of washing at Jordan or Siloam Pools, and of the said Kiss, and washing of Feet, of bearing Palms, of the Popes Riding on an Ass, &c. I know not.

But for the Name of a Sacrament, (bring first a Military, and then a Church Term, not used in Scripture) we will not quarrel with them: They may laxly extend it to almost any Ceremony or sign Religiously used, rightly or wrongly. But, 1. They use that to the Dying, when they judge them past hope, which St. James spake of using for Recovery.

2. They use that as an ordinary thing, which was to be used only for miraculous Cures: and yet shew not that they have the Faith or gift of Miracles, nor cure any by it.

[Page 148]3. They force men to that feigned Sa­crament now ceased with that gift, which was used to none but such as Voluntarily desired it. Why are they not con [...]ed to use it themselves, but they must force all others to it as necessary? What Man, Woman, or Child, do you read of in all the New-Testament, that was anointed in order to Death, save a Woman that meant no such thing, that anointed Christ in Health? Where read you that Dra­goons or Inquisitors inforced it, and drag­ed naked the bodies through the Streets, and Buryed them in Dunghils, or where Dogs may eat them, if they refuse it? Whose Sacraments can we think are these?

The Three and Fortieth accused Point.

That no Interior Grace is given by Impo­sition of hands in Holy Orders: And that ordinary Vocation and Mission of Pastors, is not necessary in the Church.

Ans. Contrarily the Reformed Catho­licks hold, 1. That God often gave mira­culous interior gifts to men, by the Impo­sition of the Apostles hands.

2. And if he please he may now bless Ordination to the increase of men's mental [Page 149] fitness for the Ministry; and when he doth so, we know not.

But we hold, 1. That men should be supposed by the Ordinances to be true Christians, and to have competent Mini­sterial Abilities before they Ordain them.

2. That now miraculous gifts cease, no man can tell when any other inward Grace is given by Imposition of hands in Ordina­tion, than Relative, which is Obligation and Authority for the work of the Mini­stry. And Durandus and other of their School-men, say that their Indelible Cha­racter is no other. And the rest know not what to make of it.

3. If we read of Multitudes of Debau­ched, Ignorant, Apostatical Popes and Pre­lates, and many Ages of Church Barba­rism, and Bruitishness, (even in Baroni [...]s, Genebrard, and the fiercest Papists;) and if we see Priests after Ordination to be Ig­norant, Drunkards, Fornicators, unable and unapt to Teach, haters of a Godly Life, we cannot tell what Grace it is that these men are said to receive in Ordination: Whatever it is, it will not keep them out of Hell, as it keeps them not from serving Satan.

4. We take an ordinary Calling and Mission to be ordinarily needful to the [Page 150] Church Ministry. This Calling consisteth, 1. In necessary Abilities, without which God sendeth none. 2. In willingness and Consent. 3. In the Ordination by Senior Pastors, where it may be had. 4. And to fix them in relation to particular Con­gregations, the mutual consent of them­selves and the Flocks.

5. But we know Rules of meer Order are for the things ordered, and the Edifica­tion of the Church, for which all Church Power is given, and God Commandeth that all be done: And we know that God who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, would not have us destroy the substance by pre­tence of a Ceremony. And that in seve­ral Cases, Ministers may be lawfully called without Imposition of hands, and Canoni­cal Ordination. As, 1. In case men be cast into Infidel Countries, where no Bi­shops or Pastors can be had: As by Ship­wrack, or Merchants Factory, or Embas­sadors, or when a Bishop with them dyeth by the way: They must not be without all publick Church Worship, for want of an Imposing Bishop.

2. In case Persecution drive all the Bi­shops out of reach.

3. In case the persecuted Bishops refuse to Ordain for fear of suffering.

[Page 151]4. In case the Bishops be Hereticks, or intollerable Usurpers and no true Bishops, wanting the Essentials of a Qualification and a Call.

5. In case the Bishops impose any false Oath, Subscription, Covenant, or Pro­fession, or any other Sin, as the Conditi­on without which they will not Ordain, (which is the case of all the Papists Pre­lates;) their Ordination in these cases is not necessary.

6. We know that in such cases the Mi­nistry faileth not, but there may be a true succession of Pastors, though regular Ca­nonical Ordination be interrupted. For there is nothing necessary after Gods Law, which specifieth the Office by stated Insti­tution, but only the determining who the Persons are that God would have in this Office: Which may be well known without Canonical Ordination, where that cannot lawfully be had. There are instan­ces in the ancient Churches, that when some Elected to be Bishops, fled or hid themselves; the Bishops Ordained them absent, by writing, without imposition of hands.

7. Yea, we know that if in any one Church or Nation, the succession were to­tally interrupted, for many years, God [Page 152] hath left means sufficient to restore it. 1. His Word describeth the Office, and giveth the Authority and obligation to the Person when determined of. 2. That Determination may be made, 1. By the due Qualification of the Person: 2. The inviting Necessities of the People and op­portunity. 3. Mutual Consent; and with­out these the Ordination and Mission of a Bishop is vain.

8. The Church of Rome more needeth this Doctrine than the Protestants: For it is notoriously certain, that regular Successi­on hath failed oft and long in the Papacy, and consequently in its Clergy. 1. There is no more notorious interruption than by the utter incapacity of the Unqualified: And such have been those that were Chil­dren or declared Sots, Beasts, Simonists, filthy Lechers, Hereticks, Infidels, Schis­maticks, by General Council, and the most Papal Historians. Their Succession now is from Eugenius the 4th. deposed as an Heretick by a General Council.

2. When there have been two or three Popes above twenty times, no man know­eth which was the right.

3. Either Election is in the power of some in special, or not; if not, the Turks, or Heathens, or Hereticks, may choose [Page 153] a Pope: If it be, Then who have the Power? Its known that at first the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the People of one Congregation: After by the Clergy and people of the Christians of the City: Af­ter that by the Bishops of the Diocess: Sometimes by the Emperors: Or Arrian Kings (with the Clergy and people:) Sometimes by General Councils: Some­times against General Councils, by an Ar­med Faction: And of late times by things called a Colledge of Cardinals. If all these were lawful, no one sort have the Electing Power: If any was unlawful, the Succes­sion hath been interrupted.

4. Either the Ordination of a Superior is necessary, or not: If yea, then the Pope having no Superior, was never truly Or­dained: If not, then a Presbyter may be Ordained without a Bishop. Rome is more concerned to answer these things than we.

The Four and Fortieth accused Point.

That Priests and other Religious persons who have Vowed their Chastity to God, may freely Marry notwithstanding their Vow.

[Page 154] Ans. 1. Must none keep Vows but Priests and Religious People.

2. The known Doctrine of the Prote­stants about Oaths and Vows (which you may see in Sanderson de Juramento,) is, 1. That Antecedently it is unlawful to en­snare our selves by unneecssary Vows, of that which is out of our Power, or so mu­table, that it may hereafter be made our Duty which now is not. 2. But having once Vowed, we must distinguish of the Imposing, the making of the Vow, and the Matter of it. And that, 1. Though it was by Parents, or others unlawfully im­posed, 2. And by our selves, by temerity unlawfully made or sworn, 3. Yet if the Matter consideratis considerandis be neces­sary or lawful, the Vow must be kept: But if it be Sin that is Vowed, it must not be done. Because Man's Vows cannot ab­rogate or suspend Gods Laws. Can any of your Casuists deny this?

Therefore, if Boys or Girls Vow Cha­stity, and it prove thar they cannot keep it without sin, the Matter becometh to them unlawful, and they must break it: As for instance: 1. If they cannot keep it without apparent hurt to their Souls by Lust. 2. Or if the Heir of the Crown, or some great Estate, Vow it, and if he [Page 155] keep it, the Kingdom or Church is like to suffer by it. 3. If Parents or Prince countermand the Vow in Youth.

But if they can keep it, and that keeping become not Sin by consequent accidents or changes, they ought to keep it; though they must repent of their rash unlawful making it. Gods Law is perfect, and maketh Duty enough for us, and we should not foolishly make more as Law-givers to our selves, when we are consci­ous how far short we come of keeping Gods own Laws.

The Five and Fortieth accused Point.

That Fasting and abstinence from certain Meats, is not grounded on Holy Scripture, nor causeth any Spiritual good.

Ans. Still deceitful Confusion: Protestants hold, 1. Fasting is a needful Duty to seve­ral Persons in several cases. As, 1. To take down the Flesh when it groweth too strong in Lust. 2. For the cure of many Diseases from fulness. 3. To exercise our Humiliation in times of publick Dan­ger and Calamity, or of personal repen­tance for some great Sin, or under some affliction that calleth for great Humilia­tion.

[Page 156]2. They hold that Abstinence is need­ful in it's time and place, as Fasting is in it's: And that all Eating and Drinking is unlawful, which gratifieth the Appetite by Quantity or Quality against Men's health, and the just Rules by which we should judge what is healthful: Yea, that bare Eating and Drinking to please the Appe­tite, which doth not some way conduce to fit us for our Duty, is Sin.

3. We know that the same Meat and Drink for Quality and Quantity which is best for one, is hurtful and mortal to ano­ther: And we know that Fasting is as Phy­sick, whether for Health, or for the Soul: and if we are fallen into the hands of such Physicians, as will tye all the Land and all the World to take the same Physick, and on the same days, to take a Purge or a Vomit every Wednesday, Friday, and Holy Evens, we shall obey them when we are a-weary of our Lives. I think our London Colledges would deride such pre­scribers.

4. And if any will tell us that we shall merit of God, and save our selves by for­bearing the coursest sort of Flesh, and eat­ing the more costly Fish, Junkets, Sweet­meats, and drinking Wine and strong-Drink, we abhor such Mock-Fasts, for [Page 157] God will not be mocked: But Hipocrites turn all Religion into a Mockery. I have heard those called strict precise Protestants, accused as being against abstinence and Fasting; and upon enquiry I found that those of my acquaintance, eat and drink less all the year, than their accusers of my acquaintance do on their Mock-fasting days. To such their Diet would seem a strict Fast, even Calvin that macerated his bo­dy, with eating but a few bits once a day, is by some Papists called a sensual Glutton, (though Massonius saith the contrary.)

The Six and Fortieth accused Point.

That Jesus Christ descended not into Hell, nor delivered thence the Souls of the Fathers.

Ans. 1. And do not these false Accu­sers know that both the Creed which we all profess, and the Articles of the Church of England, say expresly that Christ de­scended into Hell? 2. And those ahat dis­like the Translation of [...] into Hell, yet grant Christ went into [...]; and that's all the Scripture saith: So that all the doubt is but what [...] signifieth? Whether the Hell of Torment, or more Generally the unseen state of separate Souls! If you mean [Page 158] the last, what Protestants deny it? If you mean the first, what presumptuous cruelty is it, to believe that all the Souls of the Fathers were in Hell, till the Death of Christ? Christ alleadging, I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, sure meant not, that God was their God, be­cause they were in Hell: Was Lazarus in Hell when Abraham said, Now he is Com­forted? It was a Hell of Joy and Com­fort: Were Samuel, Elisha, Job, Da­niel, &c. in Hell? Was Moses in Hell, that appeared in Glory on the Mount with Elias? But what is it that the Infallible Church cannot make good, when they have once presumed to affirm it?

The Seven and Fortieth accused Point.

That there is no Purgatory Fire, or other Prison, wherein sin may be satisfied for after this Life.

Ans. 1. Which way this Church came to be so much acquainted with Hell, and Purgatory, and Prisons, and satisfying in them, in the other World, more than is revealed in the Word of God, we know not, unless some have told them that come thence, or from Heaven. But for our parts, we think Gods Word more trusty [Page 159] than Dead men whom we know not: God sendeth us to the Law, and to the Testi­mony: If they speak not according to these, it is because there is no Light in them, Isa. 8.20. Abraham preferred Moses and the Prophets before one from the Dead. The prophane citation of Scripture by him for such a Purgatory-Prison, and Satisfaction, needs no answer save the perusal of the Texts.

What mean these men by [satisfying for Sin?] 1. If they mean that Satisfa­ction by the merits whereof God pardoneth sin without dishonour to his Justice, Govern­ment, or Law:] Christ, and he only, hath thus fully satisfied for sin, already, and there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sin; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

2. But if by satisfying for sin, they mean that all must suffer all the punishment that their sin deserveth, then God forgiv­eth no sin at all: For to forgive the sin, is to forgive the punishment: And then they renounce the Office, Sacrifice and Blood of Christ, which are for the pardon of Sin: And they renounce Baptism and the Lords Supper that give and Seal it: And they cast away all hopes of Salvation, and damn all Mankind: For all Sin deserv­eth [Page 160] some degree of Damnation in Hell. But if the Pope can pardon, sure God doth pardon some: To deny pardon, is to deny all the Scripture, and all humane hope and mercy.

3. But if by [satisfying for sin,] they mean that God when he forgiveth through Christ the destructive everlasting Punish­ment, will yet require some corrective tem­poral punishment, with which he is said to be satisfied, in that he requireth no more, we confess de re, that such a thing there is in this World; Death as Death, and Pain as Pain are such; and the Curse on the Earth, and the loss of some degrees of Grace; they are all corrective Penalties: And if any say that a lower degree of Glo­ry for the loss of some degree of Grace is such; or that the separation of the Soul from the Body till the Resurrection, hath some nature of Penalty; we strive with no man about such things: But de nomine we justly here dislike the Word, [Satis­fying,] because in common Sence, it soun­deth as some Compensation, and somewhat that is of the same nature with Christs sa­tisfaction; and that is all that Justice re­quireth to purchase our pardon. And it encourageth the ill use of it by Papists, that make it meritorious.

[Page 161]And de re we believe no such Purga­tory, (much less the Popes Power to deli­ver men out of it, for Masses or the like,) because God tells us of no such thing. And the Primitive Churches never owned it: Augustine first seemed to doubt of it: But I find none before that ever held it, unless you will call Origens Opinion such, that thought the Devils and Damned should have a time of Deliverance, (now called Heresie.)

As to 1 Cor. 3.13, 15. Is there no fiery Tryall of mistaken Doctrine, and of the Erroneous in this Life?

As to Joh. 11.22. What an Expositor is this: I know (saith Martha,) that what­ever thou wilt ask of God, he will give it thee: Ergo, Lazarus was delivered out of Purgatory. As well he may say, All Saints shall have a Resurrection: Therefore all are in Purgatory. Or God denyeth Christ nothing: Therefore there is a Pur­gatory.

So Acts 2.24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of Death, be­cause it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Here he noteth two things. 1. That where Christ was, there was pains. Ans. As if Death it self were not a Pe­nalty: It was Christs pains, or penal State [Page 162] of Death, that Peter mentioneth, and the man himself here confesseth that Christ had no pain in that place. 2. But he saith that it was not Christs, but others pain that is said to be loosed; when the Text plain­ly saith, 1. That it was Christs pains of Death. 2. Loosed by his Resurrection. 3. Because it was impossible that he, (not they) should be held of it.

So 1 Cor. 15.24. Because there is no mention of Baptizing for the Dead, he feign­eth a Purgatory meant. And Luk. 16.9. That Receiving at Death into the everlast­ing Habitations, proveth a Purgatory: When yet they say that Purgatory is to none an everlasting Habitation: And Luk. 23.42. Because the Thief would be remem­bred by Christ in his Kingdom, Souls may be holpen after death out of Purgatory: As if it was Purgatory that was the Para­dise with Christ, where that Thief was to be that day: Is it not tedious but to read such prophanation of Gods Word?

The Eight and Fortieth accused Point.

That it is not lawful to make or to have Images.

Ans. This Lie hath conquered the blush­ing Passion. 1. Can such men believe [Page 163] that there are no Protestant Painters? Are there none of their Shops in London, or Holland? Do none but Papists make or sell Pictures? Are not the Statues of Kings at the Exchange, the Stocks-Market, Chaering-Cross? Are there no Images on our Coyn? Nor our Banners? Nor on the Escutcheons of the Nobility and Gen­try of this and other Lands: Are there no Images at the Sign-posts in all London, nor in all the Cities, and Market-Towns in the Kingdom? Nor in any of the Church-Windows?

But perhaps they will say, tho' we speak so universally (to deceive the ignorant,) yet we meant it of Images of Religious sig­nification and use. Ans. And do not all the Lutherans keep them in their Chur­ches? Are they not continued in most Church-Windows in England?

Obj. But at least it's true of the Calvi­nists or Puritans? Ans. 1. And will you therefore slander the rest? 2. But we must not hastily believe any thing that false ac­cusers say? Have not the Holland Calvi­nists multitudes of Pictures? Did you ne­ver see Beza and others, Icones virorum illustrium, nor Mr. Samuel Clerk's Lives with Images? Nor the Puritans English Geneva Bible, with the Images of the Hi­stories? [Page 164] Nor the Dutch Quarry-Bricks for Chimneys, on which most of the Hi­story of the Bible is painted? O! for Truth or Modesty.

2. But we confess that there are some Images Bawdy, some Superstitious, Ido­latrous, or Blasphemous, which we leave to such as choose them, they being not for our use, (of which after.)

The Nine and Fortieth accused Point.

That it is not lawful to reverence Images, nor to give any honour to insensible things.

Ans. Methinks you should sometime speak truth, if it were but before you are aware. 1. Protestants commonly hold, that they should give Honour to all Insensible things: They are all the work of God; dishonouring or not honouring the Creature, or Work, is dishonouring or not honouring the Creator and Maker as such. The due praise and honour of a Building, a Book, &c. is necessary to the due praise and honour of the Author! Do you think Protestants Condemn the 18th. Psalm, the 104th. Psalm, the 145, and all the rest that Magnifie the works of God? Is there any above a Beast, that doth not honour and praise Sun, Moon, [Page 165] Stars, Heaven and Earth, Sea and Land, as the works of God? Yea we honour every Plant and Flower, every Vigetable and Mineral, knowing that God is won­derful and unsearchable in all. What is Physick, Astronomy, Geography, but the shell of knowing and honouring Gods Works, and God in them.

2. And the Image of Kings, of Holy Men, are purposely made and Printed by Protestants, in Love, Honour, and Reve­rence to the persons Living or Dead, whom they represent: You may see many Rooms adorned with the Images of the Fathers, and of late Divines: For their Relation they love with some sort of ho­nour the Pictures of those whom you have burnt as Hereticks: See whether you find them not in John Fox his Acts and Monuments.

3. But we are warned oft enough by God, and by the mischievous effects of it in the Churches, against all Idolatrous and scandalous, and ensnaring respect and use of Images, which are either false Repre­sentations, or are used contrary to the se­cond Commandment, to Corporal Idola­try though not mental, in such likeness to the Heathen use of their Demons Images and deified Heroes and Emperours, as [Page 166] seemeth to be but a change of the object Persons; or may tempt others to unlawful usage of them: Especially the use being not commanded us of God, while it is dangerous.

And we abhor the Papists Omission of the second Commandment, and turning the Tenth into two, lest the people should perceive the evil of such Imagery. No wonder that their Proselytes must be kept in Ignorance, and forbid the Scriptures in a known Tongue, without a special Li­cence, when they must not ordinarily read or hear all the Ten Commandments, even these Ten written by God himself in Stone, are too much for them to be trusted with; and yet all the Mass of Ceremonies, and Ocean of Canon Laws, are not too much: And he that must be killed for not obeying these, must not know all Gods own Ten Commands; yea many have been burnt for having his Word Tran­slated.

4. And to pray before the Image of Saints, and then to say, we do not pray to them , but to those that they represent, is but to do what the Heathen Idolaters pro­mised to do to their Demons: They usu­ally said, We be not such Fools as to think Wood, and Stone, and Gold, and Ima­ges, [Page 167] to be God. But as the first Com­mandment forbids us to have any Gods but the true God; so the second forbids us to seem to have any more, tho' our minds de­spise them, or by their way of Image-wor­ship, to seem to be of their mind: For as a man that useth the common Words of an Oath, without any purpose to Swear, is a prophane Swearer with the Tongue, (which the mind should better rule,) tho' his mind Swear not; so he that on his Knees in Religious Prayer, looketh on Images, as the mediate Object of his Worship, his act is bodily Idolatry, and his mind is guilty by not better ru­ling it.

Where God affixeth the mention of his Jealousie, even to the Third and Fourth Generation, calling the bowers to Images, those that hate him; it is needful to us to be jealous of our actions: For our God is a Consuming Fire. And we are n [...]t igno­rant of the Doctrine of your St. Thomas, who saith that the Image is to be Wor­shipped, with the same sort of Worship as that which it representeth, and the Image of the Crucifix, with Latria, called Divine Worship.

The Fiftieth accused Point.

That no man hath seen God in any Form, and that therefore his Picture or Image can­not be made.

Ans. 1. But what if it were Lawful to Paint God? Is it Necessary? Why may you not be contented to have a painted God your selves? Must all be burnt and damned as Hereticks that are not of your mind? Will you be jealous against those that bow not to a painted God, as God is jealous against those that do it? God saith Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: Where saith he, Thou shalt bow down to them, and worship them? Or bow to­wards them, and say, It is not to them?

2. God saith, Thou shalt not make to thy self the likeness of any thing in Hea­ven or Earth, to bow down to them and worship them. Bowing down purposely towards them, and before them, is inter­pretatively bowing down to them, wor­shipping them. And God would not be so worshipped: Isa. 40.16, 25. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto him? To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy one? [Page 169] See Lev. 26.1. Deut. 16.22. Hab. 18.2. The Molten Image is a Teacher of Lies.

It is Blasphemy to make a Picture or Image of God, but what he maketh him­self; as if we said, God is like that Image or Creature.

But this Deceiver tells us, how God appeared to Adam and others, in a hu­mane or some certain shape. Ans. 1. And yet he hath oft and earnestly forbid mak­ing Images of him to worship.

2. Anthopomorphits, that take God to have parts like man, are Condemned as Hereticks by the Church of Rome it self. Every notifying sign of Gods attributes, is not called his Image; and man is called his Image, for the Divine Impressions on his Soul, which cannot it self be seen and Pictured. If God appear by an Angel, and that Angel appear in humane shape, we are nevertheless forbidden to worship God pictured as a man. Sun, Moon, Stars, yea, every Creature notifieth God to us; yet may we not paint him like these, or any other Creature. Did not Gods transcendency, and his express Word plainly and frequently reprove this, Popery had some small excuses. [Page 170] If they deny Christs and his Apostles Words, that no man hath seen God at any time, save his Son, they reproach him: To see his Works, is only to se [...] that which notifieth him, and not him­self: Else every Pagan and Brute seeth God. We deny not but the Sun, and Fire, and a man may be pictured, and that God being partly notified to us by these, (and every Creature) may be said so far to appear in them? And when did he appear so wonderfully as in Christ▪ And yet it being not his Essence in it sell that we see in them, but his attributes is part; an Image of a man, of the Sun, Moon, Stars, of a Horse, or a Dog, or a Toad, is not to be called an Image of God, else God may have as many Images as Creatures.

The One and Fiftieth accused Point.

That Blessing or signing with the sign of the Cross, is not founded in Holy Scripture.

Ans. The man would not tell you whe­ther he mean the Lawfulness of the Cross only, or also the necessity of using it. But what are his Proofs?

1. Rev. 7.3. Hurt not the Earth, nor the Trees, till we have sealed, (we read [Page 171] signed,) the Servants of our God in their foreheads.

Is here any mention of Crossing or Bles­sing with the Cross? An Angel in prophe­tical Vision, is bid to mark or seal the Servants of God, as those that are not to be destroyed, when God commissioneth other Angels to destroy the Persecutors: Therefore the Priest must sign all Christians with the Cross. And I would they did not infer as one did from Ezek. 9.4, 5. [And to the other he said, go ye after him through the City and smite; let not your Eye spare, neither have ye pity, stay utterly Old and Young, and little Children and Women; but come not near any man on whom is the mark, and begin at my Sanctuary.] And thus what­ever Plague or Death God bid Angels ex­ecute on his uncurable Enemies, Idolaters, and Persecutors, the Devil will teach men, that Priests and their Hang-men may execute on all that are not marked in the Forehead with a Cross? But as long as Rome is so like to Babylon, they were bet­ter teach men a truer Exposition of the Revelations. Thus they can prove, that the Scripture is but like a Nose of Wax, by using it as if it were so. It was Idola­trous Persecuting Rome that was to be de­stroyed, and it was those that had Gods [Page 172] mark, and not the Beasts that were to be secured. And who is that Idolatrous per­secuting Beast?

The next Text is Mark 10.16. Christ put his hands on Children, and blessed them▪ And would he make men believe, that we deny Christs blessing them or others? Or that Pastors may bless the people in his Name? Is here ever a word of signing with the Cross?

The other is Luke 24.50. He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lift up his hands and blessed them. Therefore the Priest must Cross men in the Forehead: Reader, this is the fashion of these Men's confuting the Reformed Catholicks, and proving Popery, and using Scripture. And have they not reason to challenge the sole Interpreting of it? Let but the Pope and his Priests expound it, and it shall all speak for them, and speak Blood and Fire against all that obey them not: But till then, they are it's Enemies, because it is the greatest Enemy to them.

2. But suppose Christs blessing had been Crossing: With what Face do they feign Protestants in England, to be against Cros­sing in the Forehead? When the World knoweth that the Church of England is not only for it, but Ejecteth and Silenceth [Page 173] all Ministers that will Baptize the Child of the most Godly Christians without it. And they know that all the Churches called Lutheran use it. Are none of these Pro­testants?

3. And though those called Non-Con­formists, are not for the using of it as a dedicating Symbol of Christianity in Bap­tismal Covenanting, to bind the Covenan­ter to that Confession and holy warfare which is the promised duty of the Cove­nant, nor for denying Christendom to those that refuse this use of the Cross, (out of a fear lest this Covenanting use make it a human Sacrament added to Bap­tism;) yet I meet with few of them that Condemn the ancient Christians, that lived among Heathens, (who scorned them as worshiping a Crucified God,) for their seasonable Crossing themselves in those Heathens sight, meerly to shew that they were not ashamed of such a Crucified Saviour; (not thinking what Papists would bring it to at last.)

The Two and Fiftieth accused Point.

That the publick Service of the Church, ought not to be said, but in a Language that all the People may understand.

[Page 174] Ans. The Reformed Catholicks indeed hold this, with these exceptions: 1. That by All be meant the Ordinary Congrega­tion; not meaning that if a French-man, or a Dutch-man, come in among them, they must needs speak to him apart in his own Tongue.

2. That if any Rustick, Illiterate, or No­vices, understand not many words in the Translation of the Bible, or some apt words of the Minister, we must not there­fore change the Translation, nor forbear those apt words that are suited to the more Intelligent; but help to amend the under­standing of the Ignorant.

But that in Publick and Private, the Congregation should understand what they hear as the Word of God, and what is said in Confession, Prayer and Praise to God, this we hold as a matter of grand importance.

1. Because it's purposely, plainly, and copiously decided so by the Holy Ghost, in the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor 14. Do but read the Chapter and judge.

2. Because Christ always Preached to the people in a known Tongue.

3. He prayed, Joh 17. in a known Tongue, and taught them so to pray.

[Page 175]4. The Apostles where ever they came, Preached and Prayed in a known Tongue.

5. They wrote the Gospels, the Acts, and all their Epistles, to whole Churches, in the Tongue most commonly known to the Reader, and so to be read to, or by all.

6. It was their standing Rule; Let all be done to Edification.

7. Their Preaching and writing was all for Teaching: And it is no Teaching to speak to men in a strange Language, (unless we be teaching them to under­stand it.)

8. Praying is the expressing of known desires to God: It's no Prayer that ex­presseth no Desire, and Ignoti nulla Cupi­do: There is no Desire, save sensitive Ap­petite, that supposeth not Knowledge that the thing is good and needful. The words of a Parrot are not a Prayer. And con­fession of Sin is the act of a penitent Soul, and it is no Repentance or Confession that is but words of they know not what: It's no penitent Confession to hear or speak words, not understood what Sin they signifie.

And to give God thanks, implyeth that we understand what Mercies or bene­fits [Page 176] the words express. And to praise God is understandingly to magnifie his perfect­ions or Works. So that words without understanding them, are no more to be called Prayer, Praise, Confession, Thanks­giving, than the singing of a Bird is, or the Crowing of a Cock.

9. No reasonable man would be thus served or conversed with: A Parent in­deed can understand an Abba, or a look from an Infant; but it is on supposition, that the Infant himself perceiveth what he would have: And if it be not by intel­lectual but sensitive perception, it is no more a Petition to his Father, than a Dogs waiting for Food, tho' the person deserves more pity. So God understand­eth the meaning of Spiritual Groans, in one that wants words for large expression: But that supposeth that it is true inward desires after him which those Groans signifie.

But publick worship requireth a conjun­ction of Soul and Service, and therefore a conjunct understanding: Else there is no true Union and Communion in the wor­ship. For one sound of words with dis­cord of desires, is no Christian Union and Communion. It must be supposed that either the Hearers are not praying at all, [Page 177] or else that every one is secretly praying after his own thoughts for various things, without any Concord.

What melody would it be for all the Church to sing in as many Tunes as per­sons? What King or Judge will take it for a Petition, for a man to talk-gibberish to him, or say he knoweth not what?

10. Even Papists deride Quakers, for meeting to say nothing: And what diffe­rence is there, when they hear and say nothing understood, saving that the Voice maketh it a more pompous Mockery, than the Quakers Silence? O! who would have thought that the primitive manner of publick worship, should ever have dege­nerated into such a prophane abuse of God and man, against plain Scripture, univer­sal practice, and humane Reason? And this as a part of a grand design to kill the Life of all true Religion▪ and delude Souls with the dead Carkass of mortified For­malities, and Ceremonies; and that men should think that Souls are saved as Wiz­ards do pretend, to do Cures by Charms of words not understood; they serve God with empty shells, when they have cast away the Kernels: Like the silly Samari­tan▪ Woman, that lookt for a Christ to come to tell them, whether in this Moun­tain [Page 178] or at Jerusalem men ought to worship, little knowing what it was to worship God as a Spirit, in Spirit and Truth, when it should be neither at that Mountain, or at Jerusalem.

But hath this man no Scripture, (against Scripture?) Yes, Luk. 1.8. [The people were praying without, while the Priest was offering Incense within.] Therefore the publick Worship may be performed, so as the people understand not: That, 1. The Priests action only out of their sight is the publick worship, and the peo­ples praying is not so. 2. The offering Incense, is Praying; or because the peo­ple are not to do the Priests Office in Incense and Sacrificing, therefore Mini­sters must pray and praise God alone, without the people, and all this publick worship. 3. If the Levitical, Sacrifices were offered by the Priest alone, Christs Gospel worship must be performed by the Priest alone, the people not knowing what he saith: And the precepts and ex­amples of the New-Testament, must all be reduced to the Levitical Order of In­cense and Sacrificing. 4. And is he sure that all the people in the outer Court, prayed they knew not what, or in an unknown Tongue? What use is Scripture of to these men?

[Page 179]His next is, Levit. 16.17. None was to go in with the Priest to make attonement for the Congregation, &c. Ans. You see that these men are Judaizers, and set up the Levitical Law for the Churches Rule of Service, as if Christ had not changed the Law. But our Question is not now, Whether their Priest have any solitary at­tonement to make for the Congregation; but whether Christ hath not instituted such publick worship, in which Ministers and people must understandingly joyn? Doth their Priest celebrate their Mass alone, out of the peoples sight or hearing, in a Sanctuary while they are in the outer Court? Do not their people assemble to their Mass? Will they stand to it, that their Church renounceth all worship of God in Holy Assemblies, save by the Priest alone? And is this the Holy Catho­lick Church?

And the man here professedly calls the Priests solitary action, the publick Service, which is for the people, and not by them, and therefore they need not understand; and all the peoples Prayers are private and should be understood; so that (the Mystery ope­ned,) either the Priest is all the Church, or else they have no publick Church Service, if they must meet, that every one may [Page 180] have a secret Prayer of his own, and may only see the Priests Service called pub­lick. And by this he pretends that he answereth Paul, 1 Cor. 14. Adding most shamelesly, 1. That it seemeth there by the Text, that the common Service of the Church, was not then in a Tongue com­monly understood. 2. Because there was one to supply the place of the Ideots, to say Amen, where he saith, that the Geneva­men, most deceitfully and maliciously Tran­slated, [He that is an Ideot, how shall he say Amen?] And raileth at them for putting [So be it.] O! what is man, and how incredible is the pretended infallible Cler­gy, that can expect that all men trust their Souls on such palpable deceit! When St. Paul spent a great part of the Chapter to disswade those that by Inspiration, could speak strange Languages, that they should not use them in the Church, as being un­edifying, or at least not without an Inter­preter; this man gathers, that the com­mon Service was in an unknown Tongue? As if this disswaded use of some Prophets gift, were the common Service. 2. And when he disswadeth them from Praying in an unknown Tongue, or giving thanks in it, saying, else how can he that occupi­eth the Room of the unlearned say Amen, [Page 181] this man feigneth, that yet they were to give thanks in an unknown Tongue, and one was to supply the place of the Ideot or unlearned, in saying Amen, (See vers. 23.) Paul would have all say Amen, this man says one was to do it for them: Paul argueth that therefore they must speak to the understanding of the unlearn­ed: This man turneth his own words against him: Doth his Supplier of the Ide­ots place himself, understand or not? If not, Paul saith, How can he say Amen? If he do, how doth he supply the place of the Ideots, that are supposed should say Amen, and cannot?

For the sake of this Chapter and In­stance, I shall never think any words so plain, that Papists cannot turn against their most evident sense.

But what is the Man's pretence for this erroneous Confidence? Why, the Vulgar Latine Translateth it, Qui supplet locum, instead of Qui implet locum: And that La­tin Translator by supplet meant the same as implet, possidet vel tenet: [...] is well known to signifie to fill up: Their own Expositors are many of them for the Sence which this Doctor chargeth as de­ceitfully and maliciously given: Cornelius a Lapide saith that, [...] is Denuo im­plere, [Page 182] vel simul & Communiter omnes im­plere, to fill again, or all together, or in common to fill: It is not Qui supplet vicem indocti, but Qui locum occupat inter in▪doctos, or Idiotae locum tenet.

And so it is expounded by the anci­ents, Chrysostom, Occumenius, Theophy­sact.

And are not these Roman Priests noto­riously Perjured, that all Swear to ex­pound the Scripture, according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, when as (besides that the Fathers have but few of them written Commentaries on the Scriptures, there are very few of them that unanimously agree, of the Sence of the one half of the Scripture Texts, but either say nothing of them, or differ: And not only in this, but in most points named by this Doctors Touchstone, he and others go flat against them?

And what meaneth the man to rail at them, that say So be it, instead of Amen? Is it not a true Translation? But he will prove that it should not be Translated, and consequently that Servict may be said in an unknown Tongue, for Amen is not Greek but Hebrew. Ans. 1 . Who can stand before these Arguments, if they be but backt with Guns and Swords, or [Page 183] Smithfield Fires, which are too hot for any Answer save Patience. He may also prove it from Christs Words on the Cross, Eloi Eloi Lamasabacthani: For Christ was now the most publick Priest, and was offering the most publick Service by his Sacrifice: Ergo, the publick Service should be in an unknown Tongue: And it may be, they may find some other untranslated word, that shall confute not only all the Bible, but all the Septuagint and Vulgar Latine Translations.

But seeing these Men's Arguments are too hot for me to answer, as they might know that the Church of England refuseth not AMEN, so neither will I, (though as I can prove, that the Corinthian Church were Hebrews and Gentiles mixt, and that Amen was understood by both; so Prote­stants use it as a word understood.)

From the Serpents Seed, and his deceiv­ing subtil Lies: From Cain and his Suc­cessours, and the malignant and Blood-thir­sty Enemies of Abels faithful acceptable wor­ship; from such a worldly and fleshly Sa­cred Generation as take gain for Godliness, and make their worldly carnal interest the Standard of their Religion, and their proud Domination to pass for the Kingdom of Christ: From an Ʋsurping Vice-Christ, [Page 184] whose ambition is so boundless, as to extend to the Prophetical, Priestly and Kingly Headship, over all the Earth, even at the Antipodes; and to that which is proper to God himself, and our Redeemer: From a Leprous Sect, which Condemneth the far greatest part of all Christs Church on Earth, and separateth from them, and calleth it self, the whole and only Church: From that Church that de­creeth Destruction, to all that renounce not all humane Sense, by believing that Bread is not Bread, nor that Wine is Wine, but Christs very Flesh and Blood, who now hath properly no Flesh and Blood, but a Spiritual Body; and that decreeth the Excommunication, Depo­sition, and Damnation, of all Princes that will not exterminate all such; and absolveth their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance: From that Beast whose Mark is PER Perjury, Perfidi­ousness, and Persecution, and that think they do God acceptable Service, by kil­ling his Servants, or tormenting them; and that Religion which feedeth on Christs Flesh, by Sacrificing those that he calleth his Flesh and Bones, Ephes.5. From the infernal Dragon, the Father of Lies, Malice, and Murder, and all his [Page 185] Ministers and Kingdom of Darkness: GOOD LORD make haste to de­liver thy Flock; and confirm their Faith, Hope, Patience, and their Joyful desire, of the great, true, final, Glorious De­liverance, AMEN. AMEN, AMEN.


This Book was delivered by Mr. Baxter himself to the Bookseller, and not being seen by us the Authours of the Epistle to the Reader, till the Sheets were printed, these ERRATA's must be corrected.

  • PAge 76. line 24. read after God through him.
  • Page 81. l. 14. read Converted for Convicted.
  • Page 94. l. 24. read converted for convicted.
  • Page 96. l. 21. read they do hold, for do they hold.
  • Page 97. l. 1. read sinless for senceless.
  • Page 116. l. 9. read intuition for intention.
  • Page 119. l. 17. read Reneus for Romans.
  • Page 149. l. 4. r. Ordainers for Ordinances.
  • Page 150. l. 15, 16. r. preference for pretence.
  • Page 152. l. 2 [...]. r. Councils for Council.
  • Page 162. l. 10. r. there is mention.
  • Page 165. l. 3. r. Vegetable.
  • Page 166. l. 27, 28. r. professed for promised.

Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Sun over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill.

AN end of Doctrinal Controver­sies, which have lately trou­bled the Churches, by Reconciling Explication without much disputing: by Richard Baxter.

The Certainty of the World of Spirits, fully evinced by unquestion­able Histories of Apparitions and Witchcrafts, proving the Immorta­lity of Souls. By Richard Baxter..

The Harmony of the Divine At­tributes in the Contrivance and Ac­complishment of Mans Redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. By VVilliam Bates, D.D.

[Page]The Duty and Blessing of a Ten­der Conscience, plainly stated, and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God. By T. Cruso.

Two Sermons, opening the Na­ture of Participation with, and de­monstrating the Necessity of Purifi­cation by Christ. By the same Au­thor.

Five Sermons on various Occasi­ons: by the same Authour.

The Mirror of Divine Love Un­vailed: In a Paraphrase of the high and mysterious Song of Solo­mon.

Tho Countreys Concurrence with the London United Ministers. By S. Chandler.

A Summary or Abridgement of the whole Bible, whereby Children, and the Younger sort, may learn the Contents of it in a very short time, and give an Account of the principal passages of it.

[Page]A New Examination of the Ac­cidence and Grammer.

A New Discourse on the Mar­riage of Isaac and Rebecka. 12o.

The Suffering Christian. 12o.

Nostradamus's Prophesies.



  • 1 OF the Rule of Faith p. 1
  • 2 Of the Judge of Controversies in matters of Faith p. 6
  • 3 Of the Scriptures difficulty p. 8
  • 4 Of Traditions p. 19
  • 5 Of the private Spirit p. [...]9
  • 6 If St.Peters Faith failed p. [...]4
  • 7 If the Church can err p. 39
  • 8 Of the Churches Infallibility p. 50
  • 9 Of her Ʋniversality p. 56
  • 10 Of her Ʋnity p. 58
  • 11 Of St. Peters Headship p. 60
  • 12 Of a secular Princes Headship p. 63
  • 13 Of Antichrist p. 67
  • 14 Whether none but God can forgive Sin [...] p. 7 [...]
  • 15 Whether we ought to confess to none but to God p. 7 [...]
  • 16 Of Pardons p. 7 [...]
  • 17 Whether the Actions and Passions of [...] Saints are profitable to us p. 7 [...]
  • [Page] 18 Of works of Supererogation p. 18
  • 19 Of Free-will p. 82
  • 20 Of keeping the Commandments p. 89
  • 21 Of Faith and good works p. 99
  • 22 Whether good works are meritorious p. 96
  • 23 Whether Faith once had cannot be lost, p. 97
  • 24 Of Gods inevitable decree, who shall be damned and who shall be saved p. 99
  • 25 Whether we ought to assure our selves of our salvation. p. 103
  • 26 Whether every one hath his Angel-keep­er p. 107
  • 27 Whether Angels pray not for us p. 108
  • 28 Whether me may not pray to them p. 110
  • 29 Whether they can help us or no p. 113
  • 30 Of Saints Apparitions p. 114
  • 31 Whether they know what passeth on earth p. 117
  • 32 Whether they pray not for us ib.
  • 33 Whether we may alledge their Merits in favour of our selves p. 118
  • 34 Whether we may not pray to them p. 121
  • 35 Of the Relicts of Saints p. 122
  • 36 Of hallowing of Creatures p. 123
  • 37 Of the Necessity of Baptism p. 126
  • 38 Of Confirmation p. 128
  • 39 Of the last Supper p. 130
  • 40 Of r [...]ivers under one kind p. 136
  • [Page] 41 Of the Sacrifice of the Mass p. 14 [...]
  • 42 Of Extream Ʋnction p. 14 [...]
  • 43 Of Holy Orders p. 148
  • 44 Of Religious Vows p. 15 [...]
  • 45 Of fasting and abstinence from meats p. 155
  • 46 Of Limbus Patrum p. 157
  • 47 Of Purgatory p. 158
  • 48 Of making Images p. 162
  • 49 Of worshipping Images p. 164
  • 50 Of making the Picture of God p. 168
  • 51 Of blessing with the sign of the Cross p. 170
  • 52 Of service in an unknown Tongue p. 173

[Page]THere will in due time be published a large Account of Mr. Baxters Life, mostly writ­ten by himself.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.