DIALOGUE I.

AMong the diversities of opinion that are in the world, how may I know which is the truth whereto I must cleare, and who are the true Church, and true Catholicks?

^a Believe not every spirit (that is, every doctrine, which men bragging of the Spirit do teach) but trie them whether they be of God no; ^a Examine all things, hold fast that which is good, ^a 1 John 4.1. ^b 1 Thes. 5.21.

Whereby shall I try them?

By the Scriptures, John 5.39. Acts 17.11.

I am unlearned, and the Scriptures are hard to be understood.

There are indeed many things in them, hard to be understood, 2 Pet. 3.16. but such things as are necessary to be known of all to salvation, are plainly set down, Prov. 8.9. The meaning of which place is this:

The Word of God in points necessary to salvation, is easie unto all that have a de­sire unto it. Turn to the places of Scrip­ture, added to every answer of the Cate­chism, and you shall find this to be most true.

Is there no other way and means, whereby to try and know the truth and the true profes­sors?

Yes, it may be done even by the afore­said grounds of Religion. Whatsoever Do­ctrine is agreeable thereunto, is true, and to be received: but whatsoever is contrary to the same, is false, and to be rejected: but what­soever [Page 19] is contrary to the same, is false, and to be rejected. As many as do sincerely and soundly imbrace, profess, and practise the same, they are the Catholick Church, (that is, parts and members of the Catholick Church) and true Catholicks indeed. But such as teach, profess, and practise things contrary thereunto, are not the Church, nor true Ca­tholicks.

The Papists say, that they only are the true Church, and true Catholicks, and that we are not.

So the Jews cried: ^a The Temple of the Lord: ^b We are the seed of Abraham: the children of God, ^a Jerem. 7.4. ^b John 8.33, 41.

But Christ told them they were the chil­dren of the Devil, John 8.44.

Are not the Papists then good Catholicks?

No, but rather gross Hereticks.

What is an Heretick?

One that doth erre in any fundamen­tal point of Christian Religion, and doth ob­stinately teach, maintain, and defend the same.

Do the Papists erre in the fundamental points of Religion?

They do teach and maintain many false opinions, against the very grounds of Religion; as by and by shall be shewed in many particulars.

Are all Papists then Hereticks?

No: for there are (no doubt) many of them that do erre of simplicitie and igno­rance, and which would be brought from their errors if they had the means, namely, the Scriptures in their own language, preach­ing, catechizing, and the like. We do not therefore account them all Hereticks, but onely those before mentioned.

How do you prove that they are not good Catholicks?

I prove it thus: They are good Catho­licks which are of sound faith and good life, (Aug. lib. quaest. in Mat. cap. 11.) but Papists are neither of sound faith nor good life: there­fore they are no good Catholicks.

How do you prove that they are not of sound faith?

Even by the Apostles Creed (which may serve instead of a rule, whereunto the faith of all men ought to agree) contrary whereunto they teach many things.

Shew me wherein?

The Creed is a confession of faith, con­taining the sum of the Gospell, and of such things as are necessary to be believed of all that will be saved. They have devised many other new Articles of Faith, besides, and con­trarie to the Articles of the Apostles Creed: which they hold necessarily to be believed of [Page 21] all that will be saved: As namely, Indulgences and a treasurie of Saints merits, the reall pre­sence, the Popes Supremacie, Purgatorie, and such like. In the Council of Trent, the curse Anathema is pronounced upon all such as de­ny these or any of them, Master Perkins first vol. Page 621. The Creed teacheth what eve­ry one in particular is to know and believe: and a true faith cannot stand without certain knowledge. The Papists maintain an impli­cite or an ignorant faith; namely that it is e­nough to believe as the Church beleiveth: though they know not what the Church is nor what the Church believeth. And they com­mend this faith by the example of an old de­vout father, a Colliar, who being tempted of the Devil, and asked how he believed, answer­ed, That he believed as the Church believed: being asked again how the Church believed, he answered, As I believe: whereupon the Devil (as they say) was fain to depart.

It should seem it was but a simple Devil: for if he had been wise, he would have asked him this question; What if the Church believe that thou art a fool; what would the Colliar think, you have answered then?

I think he would have said nothing: for if he should have said, I believe so too, the Devil might then have begged him for a food indeed. And yet such fools are the simple and [Page 22] ignorant Papists, which content themselves with this kind of faith: for thus one may rea­son with them; You are to believe as the Church believeth: but the Church believes that you are fools: therefore you are to be­lieve so too. This their implicite faith, every one of himself may have. The Devils in some fence may be said to have a better saith then this: for they know what is contained in the Scriptures, and believe it to be true, Mat. 4.6. Iam. 2.19. This fond and ridiculous kind of saith, is a notable means to nuzzle people in blindnesse, superstition, and perpetuall ig­norance. Again, Faith is a certain and true perswasion of the heart, whereby we are per­swaded, and in some measure assured of the forgivenesse of our sins, and eternall salvati­on. The Papists say, it is presumption to be assu­red of salvation, and will have men to doubt thereof: the which is contrary to tht nature of true faith. They call the certainty of remis­sion of sins, a faithless perswasion: and the faith of Devils, not of Apostles, Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 9.12, 13. Rhem. Annot. 1. Cor. 9. Sect. 9.

DIALOGUE 2.

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

I could shew you many, but I fear that then I should be tedious to you: I will therefore set down onely the chiefest. In the second and third Article is described and set forth unto us, both the person and office of our Mediator, namely that he is both God and man, a Prophet, Priest, and King.

Concerning his Person, although in words they confess him to be God and man, yet in deed they deny it: for they ascribe to him a body invisible and infinite: they teach that he is corporally present in infinite places at once, which is proper onely to God, and contrary to the nature of a true body. And so in effect they do even deny his Manhood. The Son of God is called Jesus, because he is a Savi­our, yea the onely and perfect Saviour which saveth us from our sins: That is, hath deli­vered us not only from the blame, or guilti­ [...]ses, but fully also from the punishment due to our sins, Mat. 1.21. Acts 4.12. Heb. 7.25.

The Papists teach, that there must also some satisfaction of our own come to make up our perfect Redemption, Concil. Trid. Sess. 14.6.8. Can. 11.15. They will not be saved only by Jesus Christ, but by the merits also of Saints, their own merits, Popes pardons, &c. yea, they ascribe that to others, which is proper to Christ alone, and so consequently [Page 24] make them their Saviours. As for example.

They ascribe to S. Francis the same titles, properties, power, and the very same office due to Jesus Christ, and in all respects they make him like to Christ: whatsoever Christ did, that (as they say) did S. Francis. And what is this in effect, but to make him their Saviour? That they do ascribe the former things to S. Francis, is to be seen in a book written on purpose, to shew the conformitty between him and Christ, called the conformi­ty of Francis, the which hath bin confirmed by the authority of the Church of Rome. Pope Gregory the Ninth, enjoined the faithful to hold, and firmly to believe the things taught in the said book concerning S. Fran­cis, and that he should be punished as an Here­tick, that would think the contrary. Confor. P. 2. lib. 1. Fol. 3.

To whom else do they ascribe that which is proper to Jesus Christ?

To the Virgin Mary. They describe her nature by her name (Maria,) consisting of five letters and these (as they say) do import the five offices to be exercised by her toward us. The first is Maternitatis, of Mother hood: signified by the letter M: for the (as they say) is the Mother of mercy through whom we obtain mercy. Her second office is Conservati­onis, of crnserving the treasure of God: signi­fied [Page 25] by the letter A: which representeth Aream thesauri, the chest of treasure: for in her, as they say, we shall find an infinite treasure of the wisdom and grace of God. Her third of­fice is, Directionis and gubernationis, of direction and governing by example of her life. This is imported by the letter R and therefore she is named Regina, the Queen. Her fourth of­fice is, Jaculationis & repulsionis inimicorum, of slinging and repelling back of enemies: sig­nified by the letter I, and therefore they pray thus to her: Tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe. Protect thou us from the ene­mie, and receive us at the hour of death.

Her last office is Advocationis, of Advoca­tion, imported by the letter A. From whence they pray thus: O our Advocate, turn thy merciful eyes unto us. And what doe they herein, but even place her in the room of Je­sus, and make her their Saviour? These be the very words of Frier Iohn Viguerius (a Doctor, yea, and a publick professor of Divi­nity among them) in his Institutions to his Catholick Theologie, Cap. 20. Sect. 9. Fol. 21 4. And herein he is like to such as can make bells to sound, even what pleaseth their phan­tastical brain, and as best may seed their super­stitious humours.

Further they say, That she is the original of our salvation, and the recoverer of grace [Page 26] and forgiveness, our hope, our salvation, resur­rection, &c. Yea, that to her it is given to bruise the Serpents head, that she hath done it, and procured that peace between God and man, which no man could procure, Ʋigueri­us ibid 214, 215: Comfor. Fran. in conclus. Lib. 1. Is not this to make her a Saviour?

Surely yes, and I think it most horrible blasphemy,

Account you this blasphemy? what say you then to that which Carolus Scribanius, a Iesuite, hath written of her? As namely, First, that the milk of Mary may come into compa­rison with the blood of Christ. Secondly, that that the Christian mans Faith may lawfully take hold on both as well as one. Thirdly, that the best compound for a sick soul, is to mix together her milk and Christs blood. Fourthly, that the sins and spiritual diseases of the soul, are cured as well by her milk, as by his Blood. Fifthly, that her milk and the merit and vertue of it, is more pre­cious and excellent than Christs blood. These most horrible blasphemies, with many such like, are to be found in the aforesaid Iesuites book: which M. C. hath put into English, and sufficiently answered, calling it (The Jesuites Gospel.) Besides all these things, in a book called the Ladies Psalter, they have put out the word Lord, and put in the Word Lady, [Page 27] As for example, Psalme 110.1.

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

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

The latter of them was indeed written long agone, but is not rejected, but stand un­controuled, or rather defended by the Jesu­ites, and those of the principall. The former was written but lately. And whereas both the Author and his book (as M. C. saith) de­served the fire and halter, it was so farre from being misliked in the Romane Synagogue, or any way censured, that the book hath bin re­printed, and the Author and his book stand enrouled, approved, and commended (in their great Volumes set out for that purpose) for good and Catholick. As they place S. Francis and the Virgin Mary in Christs room, so do they the Pope also: ascribing that to him which is proper unto Iesus Christ, and may not (without blasphemy) be ascribed to any creature. They say that the Pope is the Sun: The Church the Moon. The Pope is the Bridegroom: the Church the Bride. The, Pope is the head: the Church the Body. And what is this, but to place the Pope in the [Page 28] room of Jesus Christ; and even to say that the Pope is Christ? Confor. F. 2. li 2. fol. 10. That they do thus place S. Francis, the Virgin Mary, and the Pope in Christs room, and so make them Saviours, is more at large, and sufficiently proved (out of their own writers) in a little Treatise (set forth by M. Thomas Rogers, in the year 1589.) intituled, An histo­ricall Dialogue of Antichrist and Popery

DIALOGƲE. 3.

Hitherto you have shewed, how the Son of God is called Jesus, because he is a Saviour, and how the Papists do place others in his room. Now shew me also why he is called Christ, and what that title signifieth.

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

Do they teach any thing contrary hereunto.

They do even deny this office of his, and so consequently deny the fruits of his com­ing in the flesh, 1. Ioh, 4.3.

She [...] me wherein they deny his Office.

Christ is a Prophet to teach his Church, and to reveal the will of God unto us, to whom all are to hearken, Mat. 17, 5, Ioh. 10, 27. Act, 3, 22, 23, And this he hath perfectly done in the Scriptures.

They preferred their own blind traditions before the Scriptures: they lay aside the [Page 29] Scriptures, accounting and calling them dumb Judges, A nose of Wax, The black Gospel: Inken divinity, &c. Piggins Contr. 3. de Eccl. Hierarch. lib. 3. cap. 3. A certain Popish Doctor reasoning with M. Tindal, was not ashamed to say, that we were better to be without Gods Law then the Popes. They likewise set up Images to be Lay-mens books, and so in all this they deny by conse­quence his Propheticall office. Christ is also a Priest and that for ever, after the order of Melchisedec, Heb. 7.24. And in this his Of­fice he hath none to succeed him. They ac­knowledge not this, but maintain still an out­ward and corporall Priesthood, to offer up an outward Sacrifice, even Christ himself, Rhem. on Heb. chap. 7.7 Sect. 7.8.

If this were true, why then the Priest were become a Mediator between God and Christ: the which is most absurd, to think that any creature should be such a one.

It is indeed most absurd: and yet in the very Canon of the Mass they intimate this much, when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings (namely, Christ himself offered) as he did the Sacrifices of Abel and Noah. And which is more absurd then this, (yea blasphemy for any to affirm) they by then former doctrine) do make the Priest to be more worthy in some respect, then Christs [Page 30] for the person that doth offer a sacrifice, is of more worth and honour then the thing which he offereth; but the Priest (as they say) offe­red up Christ to God his Father: therefore the Priest that offered him, is of more worth and honour than Christ, whom he ostereth.

As Christ is a Priest, so He alone (and that but once for all) offered himself: and by his own offering once offered, hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our sins, Heb. 9.12, 14, 26, 10, 14, 18. They teach, that in the Mass, there is dayly a Sacrifice of­fered for the sins both of the quick and the dead: and so they make Christs Sacrifice not to be the perfect and onely Sacrifice of the New Testament, but set up another in the stead thereof.

They say that their sacrifice is not a new sacrifice, or another from Christs: but that it is the same.

The Author to the Hebrews teacheth, that Christs sacrifice neither may, nor ought to be reiterated and repeated: for as it is but one, so it was but once offered. And this word (Once) he useth five several times, Heb. 7.27, 9, 12, 26, 28, 30.

They say that Christ indeed was offered but once after a blo [...]dy manner, but he is often offered after an unbloody manner.

This distinction of theirs hath no war­rant [Page 31] out of Gods Word: nay rather it is di­rectly against the Word: for Heb. 9.22. it is said, Almost all things are by the Law, pur­ged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission. From whence we may thus reason, Without shedding of bloud is no re­mission: but in the Mass is not shedding of bloud: therefore no remission. And there­fore it is no sacrifice for sin.

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

The Fathers indeed make mention of unbloudy Sacrifices: but they hereby under­stand not outward and bodily Sacrifices for sin, but the Spirituall Sacrifices of Christians, and they so call them, in comparing them with the bloudy sacrifices of the Law, and with Christs bloudy Sacrifice.

The Papists do not say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an expiatorie, but an applicatorie Sacrifice: that is, it serves not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to apply unto us the satisfaction of Christ already made?

Their doctrine is, that it is a Sacrifice propitiatory: that is available to obtaine (ex opere operato, by the very work wrought) remission and pardon of all their sins: yea, that it is available to obtain all other benefits; as peace, health, and such like, Concil. Trid. [Page 32] Sess. 2.2. can. 3. Bellar. lib 1. de Miss. cap. 25. lib 2. cap. 3. But let it be (as you say) that they account it but an applicatory sacrifice, yet this maketh nothing for them. The Sacri­fices of the Law did serve to apply the vertue of Christs Cross: and yet the Apostle exclud­eth them by this reason; that where there is remission of sins there is no more Sacrifice, Heb. 10.18. Wherefore if the Apostles reason be good, it concludeth also against their Sa­crifice applicatory. Again, the Apostle teach­eth, that therefore the Sacrifices of the Law are abolished by the death of Christ; because they were but shadowes of good things to come, and could not make the offerers per­fect, &c. Heb. 10.1, 2, 3. And therefore, this kind of applying sacrifice (which they fain themselves) hath ceased. We need not now a Sacrifice for the application of Christ death: for Christ to that end hath appointed the preaching of the Word, and hath instituted Sacraments, whereby his death, with all the benefits thereof, are most fruitfully applied un­to us, Gal 3.1. 1 Cor. 11.26. Again, this their applying sacrifice, is against the nature of a Sacrament, in which God gives Christ [...] us: whereas in a sacrifice God receives from man, and man gives somthing to God.

The ancients Fathers used to call the Supper of the Lord, a Sacrifice: it should seem [Page 33] therefore, that there is some sacrifice offered therein to God.

It is true that they called it so: not that Christ is therein offered a Sacrifice to God, but in other respects. First because that there­in there was an offering and giving of Alms, Bread, Wine, &c. which are a spirituall Sa­crifice. Secondly, they called the Sacrament, a Sacrifice, not properly, but figuratively: be­cause there was therein a representation of that Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross, and because it is a commemoration of Christs body, which he offered for us, and of his bloud which he shed for us, Thirdly: It is called a Sacrifice, because it is an appli­cation of the Sacrifice offered upon the Cross, unto our selves. Fourthly, It is so called, be­cause of the sacrifice of prayers and thanksgi­vings: and because in the Lords Supper we offered our selves unto God to be consecrated unto him, and serve him in body and soul.

What is then your opinion of the Popish Mass?

It is an abridgement of all Superstition and Idolatry: there is in it adoration direct­ed to bread: there is (as they say) the body of Christ offered really in a sacrifice of propi­tiation: which which was never offered but once with shedding of blood. There is adora­tion of stocks and stones, invocation of dead [Page 34] men, saying of Masses to the honour of Saints and Angels, worshipping of dead mens bones, and such like abominations.

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

The Mass had this originall: First, the Lords Supper was celebrated in most simple and plain manner. Secondly, it began to ad­mit some increase of ceremonies, especially the offrings for the dead, which was but a thanks­giving for them untill more then two hun­dred years after Christ. Thirdly, prayers for the dead, got entrance into the Lords Supper about the year four hundred, and then came in Purgatory, and the redemption of souls from thence by Masses, M. Perkins 2. Vol. 554. 1. D. Again you are to know that Mass is like a beggers cloak, patcht up with many pieces, whereof some were put in at one time, some at another. One Pope puts in one patch, another Pope puts in another: and it was not fully patcht, as now it is, till twelve hundred yeares after Christ, Acts and Monu­ments, pag. 1274 &c. And in the Canon of the Masse, there are to be found a full half hundred of errours and blasphemies, Synopsis Papismi, the 13. general controversie, quaest. 8.

But how can the Mass be so late and new, [Page 35] seeing that the Fathers in their writings make mention of it?

The word (Missa) which is now called the Mass) in the Fathers, signifieth a publick meeting to the Communion, and to Prayers, or the solemn dismission of that meeting, or even the form of their religious worship. And the Phrase, Missam facere, (used in some of the Fathers) doth not signifie to say the Po­pish Mass, but to dismiss some out of the as­sembly. After the Sermon the Catechumenists (that is, such as learned the Catechism, and were not admitted to the Lords Supper) are dismissed, And hereupon the Communi­on was called Missa figuratively, because when it began, there was a dismission of some, Per­kins 2. Vol. 552. 2. D. 553. Synopsis Papismi, the 13. generall controversie, Quaest. 2.

I am satisfied touching the Sacrifice of the Mass, by which (as I do now plainly per­ceive) they do even denie the Priesthood, and the onely Sacrifice of Christ: I pray you now to shew me wherein else they denie his Priesthood?

Christs Priesthood consisteth of two parts, Satisfaction, and Intercession. As by his owne Sacrifice once offered, he hath made a perfect satisfaction for our sins: so he now continually maketh intercession to God for us, Rom. 8.34. Heb. 7.25. Papists teach, that the Saints in Heaven doe make intercession to [Page 36] God for particular men, according to their several wants: and that having received par­ticular mens prayers, they present them unto God. And so herein they do also deny the Office of Christs Priest-hood, Rhem. on Luke 16. Sect. 4. on 2 Cor. 1.3. on 2 Pet. 1. Sect. 3. and in many other places.

They say that Christ indeed is the only Mediator of Redemption; but the Saints are also Mediators of Intercession.

This is but an idle distinction: for Christ only is the Mediator as well of the one as the other. For in a true and sufficient Me­diator, there must be these properties: first of all, the Word of God must reveal and propound him unto the Church. Secondly, he must be perfectly just, and such a one, as in whom was no sin ever found. Thirdly, he must be a Propitiator, that is, bring some­thing to God, that may appease and satisfie his wrath and justice for our sins. Now, these three properties are not to be found in any creature, but in Christ alone: and there­fore he is the only Mediator of Intercession, as well as of Redemption, Perkins 1. Volum. 603, 604.

Do they teach any thing contrary to the Kingly Office of Christ?

Yes, they teach that the Pope is Christs Vicar, and head of the Church; that he can [Page 37] make Laws to bind the conscience; that he can make new Articles, and abolish the old, that he can dispense with all the precepts both of the Old and New Testament: And so here­in (and in many other such like things) they deny the Kingly Office of Christ.

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

They do so indeed: for whosoever de­nieth the Office of Christ, (for the perform­ance whereof he came in the flesh) denieth in effect, Christ to be come in the flesh: but the Papists deny his Office, therefore they deny him to be come in the flesh: and so they are no good Catholicks, but rather He­reticks.

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

It makes much for her profit, and by this means they do the more easily deceive people. That their profit and advantage is the only end they aim at appeareth by a most blasphemous speech of a Pope of Rome, (Leo the tenth) who being somewhat moved a­gainst one of his Cardinals, for alledging a place against him out of the Gospel concern­ing Christ, answered him thus, Quantum [Page 38] nobis profuit ista fabula de Christo? O what advantage hath this fable of Christ brought us? Sleydan de statu Relig. &c. Reip. lib. 1. They are herein much like to a Fowler, who spreading his net to catch Larks, hath tied to his net an artificial Lark, a Lark in shew, but not indeed: This he causeth to move and stir: the which the Larks perceiving, and thinking it to be a Lark indeed, they fall down by him, and so are caught in the net. So they have a Christ in their mouths, to draw people to them, but it is a counterfeit Christ. Or if it be the true Christ, yet they do it but as the Lark catcher doth, who many times hath in his net a true and living Lark indeed, but it is to deceive the Larks, and the more easily to catch them in his net. So they profess Christ, have his Word and Sacraments a­mong them, but it is only to deceive simple people, and to make a prey of them.

DIALOGUE. 4.

Do they teach any other thing, contrary to any other Article of the Creed?

Yes, divers things: In the Article we profess to believe, that Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost: & so he & h [...] only was concei­ved without Original sin. They [...]each, that the Virgin Mary was also conceived without Origi­nal [Page 39] sin: and that by this means it came to pass, that Christ was free from all spot, Concil. Trid. Sess. 5. cap. 1. de peccato originali. And so herein they do altogether overthrow this ar­ticle of Christs conception by the holy Ghost, to whose only power the Scripture doth im­pute Christs holiness, and not the Virgin Ma­ry, which was no less then all others concei­ved and born in sin, and did need Christ to be her Mediator as well as the rest of man­kind. There was a long time a foul stir in the Church of Rome, between the Dominicans and the Franciscans about this point, Acts and Mo­numents, p. 732. It was the common opinion of Fathers and Writers until Lumbards time; (which was about the year 1150.) that she was conceived in Original sin, Perkins 2. Vol. 596. In the fourth Article we profess, that Christ suffered, &c. by which he hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for the sins of his elect, and for the whole punishment thereof, both ete [...]al and temporal.

The Papists teach, that Christ hath satisfied for sins going before baptism; but concerning sins following baptism, the fault is remitted by the passion of Christ, & the punishment (which of infinite is made finite) is to be satisfied for, by men themselves, either here or in Pur­gatory: that is, men themselves must satisfie the justice of God, for the temporal punish­ment [Page 40] of their offences, either on earth or in Purgatory.

There is (say they) a certain infernal place in the earth, called Purgatory, in the which as in a prison house, the souls which were not fully purged in this life, are there cleansed and purged by fire, before they can be recei­ved into heaven: Bell. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 1. & cap. 3. lib. 2. cap. 6. Rhem. on 1 Cor. 3. Sect. 4.

They say also, that it is an Article of Faith, to believe that there is a Purgatory; and that he which believes it not, is sure to go to hell, Bellar. ibid. l. 1. c. 15. But this is so far from being an Article of Faith, as that it is a meer fa­ble, and contrary to an Article of Faith. The blood of Christ is the Purgatory of our sins, 1 John 1 7. Afflictions are called the fiery tryal, 1 Pet. 1.7, 4.12. whereby we are cleansed from our corruption, as gold is from the dress by fire. No other Purgatory is to be found in Scriptures. The Scriptures mention but two sorts of men, believers, and unbelievers; and but two places after this for them, heaven for the one, and hell for the other, Luke 16.25, 26. John 3.36. Revel. 20.14, 15. & 21 7, 8. They that die in the Lord, rest from their labors: which cannot be true, if any of them go to Purga­tory. Their works follow them, that is, the [Page 41] reward of their works, Revel. 14.13. If any man should have gone to Purgatory, then the thief upon the Cross had gone thither, who repenting at his end, wanted time to make satisfaction for the temporal punish­ment of his sins: but Christ said to him, To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. The Do­ctrine of Purgatory came into the Church, out of the Heathen Writers; for the Philosophers and Poets were the first that ever wrote of it: and Popish Purgatory was unknown to the Fathers many hundred years after Christ, Perkins, 2. Vol. 568, 569.

If Purgatory be but a fable, contrary to an Article of Faith, then what is the cause that the Church of Rome so stifly maintain it?

There is great cause why they should so do, for it keeps in the fire in the Popes Kitchin: for if the fire of Purgatory were not great, the fire in the Popes Kitchin would be but small; for, by this means they have store of Mony for Pardons, Masses, Diriges, and other such like Trum­peries.

DIALOGUE. 5.

Do they teach any thing else contrary to the Creed?

Yes, The sixth Article saith, that Christ ascended into Heaven, &c. and the Scriptures say, that the Heavens must contain [Page 42] him, &c. Acts 1.11. & 3.21. They teach contrary hereunto, namely, that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, and that in many places at once: The which is con­trary to the nature of a true body, and con­trary to the nature of the Sacrament, which is a remembrance of Christ. Virgilius against Eutychus, lib. 4. saith thus: When it (that is, the flesh of Christ) was on earth, it was not in Heaven: and because it is now in Hea­ven, it is not on Earth. This is the Catho­lick Faith and consession. It is an Article of Faith to believe the Catholick Church: and faith is the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. Therefore the Catholick Church is al­ways unto the world invisible, and not to be espied but by the eyes of Faith: because things se [...]n are not believed. The Papists teach that the Catholick Church is, and hath been always visible. Rhem. on Mat 5. Sect. 3. The Church is said to be Catholick, that is, universal, because it is not tied to any one special place, but is spread abroad over the face of the earth. They tie it to Rome alone, which can be but a particular Church, and not Universal. In the Church there is a Com­munion of Saints: and these are they that are sanctified by the blood and Spirit of Christ, having the perfect holiness of Christ put upon them, by imputation of Faith, and [Page 43] the quality of imperfect holiness poured into their heart by the spirit of sanctification. And such are the Faithful here on earth, 1 Cor. 1.2. Psal. 16.2.

The Papists acknowledge none to be Saints, but such as are in heaven. They teach that the Pope can canonize Saints: whereas to make one a Saint, is only the work of God, 1 Cor. 11. The Pope hath canonized many, that indeed were never true Saints of God, but wicked men, and rank Traitors to their Princes, as Becket, with many others.

This canonizing of Saints was never heard of with the Fathers, until the year Eight hundred and eighty, and then Adrian took up this authority. And Alexander the Third, after him, confirmed it in his decrees.

In the Creed we profess to believe the for­giveness of sins, that is, I believe that God, for Christ his sake, doth freely forgive the sins of his Elect, and my sins also. And herein consisteth our justification, namely, in this free forgiveness of our sins, and the imputa­tion of Christs righteousness to us. The Pa­pists teach many things contrary to this Ar­ticle. First, That men are to make satis­faction for their sins. Now, satisfaction for sins, and forgiveness of sins, are contraries. If we satisfie in our own person, we are not justified freely: if we be justified freely (as most [Page 44] certainly we are, Rom. 3.23.) then we make no satisfaction at all. If a man can satisfie and pay a debt, then he needs no forgive­ness: but if the debt be forgiven him, then it is plain, that there is no satisfaction made. The satisfaction for our sins was made by Christ, and not by us.

Did not the Ancient Fathers teach men to make satisfaction for their sin?

The satisfaction which they maintain­ed, was an Ecclesiastical and publick mulct, or penalty imposed upon notorious offenders, thereby to testifie their repentance, and to sa­tisfie the Church whom they had offended, Perkins, 1. Vol. 577, &c. 2. vol 165. 2. D. 166.

The efficient cause of our justification, is God alone. It is God only that forgiveth our sins, Esay 43.25. Mark 2.7. Rom. 8.33. They teach that the Pope can forgive sins, and we know that he gives pardons, not only for the time past, but also for the time to come: yea they teach that priests have right to remit sins, and they alledge these places to prove to it, Matth. 16.19. John 10.23. Now we are to note this, that as none can forgive a debt, but the party to whom the debt is due: so none can forgive sins, but God only, against whom the sin is committed, Psal. 51.4. The power of binding and loosing committed to [Page 45] the Apostles and Ministers of the Word, is, by declaring the will and pleasure of God out of his Word, both to pronounce forgiveness of sins to all that are truly penitent: and the re­taining of them to the impenitent. The Pope and his Clergy are never able to prove themselves to be the true Ministers of Christ: and they cannot so much as challenge this lat­ter authority and power to themselves, much less the former which is proper to God only. The motive or impulsive cause, which moved God to justifie us, was not any thing in us, but only the grace of God, that is, the free good will and pleasure of God, Rom. 3.24. Ephes. 2.8. Tit. 3.5, 7. They teach that we are not justified by grace only, but by works also, that is, by the merit of our works. And to this end they have (of late years) devised a first and second Justification. The first is, when a sinner (of an evil man) is made a good man: and this (they say) cometh only of Gods mercy by the merit of Christ. The second is, when one (of a good or just man) is made better and more just: and this proceedeth from works.

But we are to know, that there are not two kinds of justification, a first and se­cond; but one and the same justification, con­sidered in different respects. In respect of Gods actual acceptation of a mans person, [Page 46] justification is absolute: but in respect of the actual application, and manifestation of Gods acceptation unto a mans conscience, justication is by parts and degrees. Ma­ster Scudder on the Lords Prayer, pag. 303. to 390.

And further we are to note, that the Pa­pists second justification, is no other then san­ctification, which is an effect and fruit of justification: the which is imperfect, and not able to justifie us before God. The material cause of our justification, is the active and passive righteousness and obedience of Jesus, Christ, his inherent holiness, his fulfilling of the Law, his death, sacrifice, and full satis­faction.

The formal cause, or the form of justifi­cation, is the righteousness of Christ, impu­ted of God unto us, Rom. 5.19. Rom. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 1.30. 2 Cor. 5.19, 21. Phil. 3.9. The Papists deride this doctine, that Men are justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: which righteousness is not in us, but in Christ. The Rhemists call it a new no justice, a phantastical apprehen­sion of that which is not, Rhem. on Rom. 3. Sect. 7. They hold them accursed that so affirm and teach: And they teach, that the only formal cause of our justification, is the justice of God, whereby we are not [Page 47] reputed and accounted just, but are made just ind [...]d: and this [...] is that which every man hath within himself, and is inhe­rent in him, Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 10, 113 Rhem. on Phil. chap. 3 Sect. 3. The instru­mental cause of justification, on our part, [...] true and lively faith, whereby we receive and apply unto our selves the mercy of God, Christ Jesus and all his benefits, resting upon him alo [...] for salvation.

They teach, that saith doth not justifie, as an instrument in apprehending the righteous­ness of Christ, but as a proper and true cause, is actually justifieth by the dignity, worthi­ness and meritorious work thereof, Bellar. l. 1. de [...]u [...]cat. cap. 17. They teach also, that saith is not the only cause of our justification, but that there are oth [...]r also, as hope, charity, [...]-deeds and other vertues: yea, they say, that works are more [...] then faith, in the matter of justification: and pronounce him [...] that shall say, a [...] justified only by faith, Rhem. [...] Rom 8. Sect. 6. and [...] J [...]m. 2. Sect. 7. B [...]. l. [...] de J [...]. c. 13. [...]l. [...]il. Se [...] [...] C [...]n. 9. These and other s [...]h like th [...]g, they [...] contrary to the Doctrine of j [...]s [...]fi [...]ation, which is a [...] ground of Religion. And if there­were no more points of difference between us, these were sufficient to keep us from uniting [Page 48] of our Religions: for hereby the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation.

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

Because the Decree of God the Father for our Redemption is free, and we pay no­thing again to God of our own. And therefore by the word (freely) our merits are excluded, but not Christs. By which it ap­peareth, that in respect of our selves, we are justified freely of Gods meer mercy and grace, without any respect of our own righteousness or worthiness, but yet through Christ, and for his righteousness and obedience imputed to us: both which are signified by the Apostle, Rom. 3.23, 24.

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

By, Merit, we understand any thing, or any work, whereby Gods favor and life everlasting is procured; and that for the dignity and excellency of the work or thing done. Now the true merit whereby we look to attain the favor of God, and life everlast­ing, is to be found in the person of Christ alone, in whom God [...]s well pleased. The [Page 49] Papists make two kinds of merit: the merit of the person, and the merit of the work. The merit of the person is (as they say) a dignity in the person, whereby it is worthy of life everlasting. The merit of the work, is a dignity or excellency in the work, whereby it is made fit, and enabled to deserve a life everlasting for the doer of the work. See Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 5. We now do re­nounce our own personal merits, and all me­rit of our own works, and rely only upon the merits of Christ, and we hold that no works of ours can merit. That no man by any works of his can merit, may be proved by the properties and conditions that must be in a work meritorious, and they are five.

First, the work must be absolutely per­fect: but all our works are unperfect, as well in parts, as in degrees of accomplishment. In parts, because we omit many things which the Law prescribeth, and do many evil things which the Law prohibiteth. In de­g [...]ees, because the works of the Saints are un­c [...]e [...]n, Esay 46.6. Phil. 3.8.

Secondly, a man must do the work of himself and by himself: for if it be done by th [...] help of another, the merit doth not pro­perly belong to the doer. But the good works which we do, are not ours, but are wrought by God in us.

Thirdly, a man must do the work, of his own free-will and pleasure, not of due debt: for when we do that which we are bound to do, we do no more but our duty. But whatsoever we do, we do it as poor deb­tors; we are miserable Bankrupts, we have nothing; we have less then nothing to pay, Luke 17.10.

Fourthly, the work must be done to the benefit and profit of him from whom we look to be repayed. But no man by any work of his can bring any profit unto God, John 22.2, 3, 5, 7. Psal. 16 2.50.12. We may benefit men, but we cannot benefit our Ma­ker, from whom we have received life and limb, soul and body, and all that we have; we can give him nothing, and there­fore can deserve nothing from him, Rom. 11.35.36.

Lastly, the work and the reward must be in proportion equal; for if the reward be more than the work, it is not then a reward of desert, but a gift of good will. But there i [...]o proportion between our works, which ar [...] altogether unperfect, and the excellency of those great blessings, and benefits which the Father giveth us freely in his Son, Rom. [...] 18. And therefore in this and the former respects, there can be no merit in any meer man: wherefore it is no less absurd to say, that [Page 51] we merit salvation at Gods hand [...] by good works, then if one should say, Thou hast given me an hundred pounds, therefore thou oughtest to give me a thousand.

Was not this Doctrine of merit taught in the times of Ancient Fathers?

Merit being taken in his proper sense, for due and just desert, was never allowed of the sound Professors for a thousand years after Christ, Perkins, 1. Vol. 574, 575. second Vol. 535, 536. Such therefore as will be justified and saved by their own works and challenge eternal life by their merits, do shew them­selves to be most proud and unthankful per­sons, and deserve most justly to be condem­ned eternally.

The Papists at their end, do renounce their own merits, and profess that they look to be sa­ved only by the merits of Christ.

If there were nothing else but this, it were enough to prove their doctrine of merit, to be a false doctrine: for if it were a truth, then a man is not only in his life time to pro­fess it, and maintain it, but also in his death; yea rather to die for it, then to deny it. But seeing they in their life profess it and main­tain it, but at their death renounce it; it is a manifest argument, that even they them­selves do know, that it is not a true, but a false Doctrine.

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

It serves greatly to maintain and up­hold the Popes Kingdom: for they teach, that the over plus of Christs merits, and of the merits of Saints and Martyrs, is the trea­sure of the Church, which being gathered together, and put into a store chest, is in the Popes custody, and he alone hath the plenary opening and shutting of this Chest, and the ordering and disposing of these merits: by vertue whereof, he gives out Indulgences and Pardons when and to whom he will: So that such as have not merits [...]now of their own, may have them from thence. And so hereby he maintains and upholds his King­dom: for hereby comes in infinite wealth and revenues, Perkins 3. vol. 1. part, pag. 165. 2. D. 2. Vol. 590. 2 a. In these and many other particular points, the Papists teach contrary to the Articles of the Creed, and therefore are no true Catholicks, neither do they belong to the Catholick Church, as is thus proved: Whosoever have not the Catholick Faith, do not belong to the Catho­lick Church: but the Papists have not the Catholick Faith, therefore they do not belong to the Catholick Church. That they have not the Catholick Faith, is plain by that afore­going

DIALOGUE. 6.

Do they teach any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Sacraments?

Yes, many things. Christ ordained but only two Sacraments. The Church of Rome hath added to them five more; namely, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Orders, and Extream Unction.

Are not these Sacraments indeed?

No, surely; for there are four things necessarily required to make a Sacrament. First, the Authority of Christ commanding it. Secondly, the element or outward sign, as the matter of it. Thirdly, the word of institution, as the form. Fourthly, the end and use, to be a seal of our faith, for remis­sion of sins. These four things are not to be sound in their five latter Sacraments, and therefore they are no Sacraments indeed, Ma­ster Attersol on the Sacraments, pag. 119, to 150. Synopsis Papis. Controv. 14, 15, 16.

May not the Church then institute and ordain Sacraments?

None may ordain a Sacrament, but only the Lord. As none may put a sign and seal to a mans last Will and Testament, but only the maker of the Testament: so none may ordain Sacraments (which are signs and [Page 54] seals of the New Testament and Covenant of Grace) but only the Lord which made the Covenant. And therefore the Church of Rome, in doing the contrary, proves her self not to be the true Church of Christ, but rather the Church of Antichrist. They do also in many other things teach contrary to the Do­ctrine of the Sacraments. As,

First, that the Sacraments do give grace, and namely, remission of sins, ex opere-ope­rata, by the work wrought, Rhem. Acts 22. Sect. 1.

Secondly, that not only faith doth justifie, but the Sacraments also, Them. Rom. 6 Sect. 5. Whereas Sacraments are Signs and Seals of Justification, Rom. 4.1.

Thirdly, that Infants dying without Ba­ptism, cannot be saved, Rhem. Joh. 3. Sect 2. They have also added many idle ceremonies to Baptism, as Cream, Tap [...]s, Salt &c. with an opinion of salvation and worship annexed unto them: yea, in times past they baptized bells, but now they began to be ash [...]d of it, and say that they were but only hallowed, and consecrated to holy uses [...]elar. l. 4 de Pant. Rom. cap. 12. Synops s Papis [...]. Contr [...]. v. 12. Quest. 5. Concerning the Lords Supper, they have likewise most gr [...]sly abused it in many things.

First, they take away the Cup from the [Page 55] Laity: whereas the Church of Rome for above a thousand years after Christ, used both signs in the Communion. The Communion under one kind, was decreed, and determi­nated as a publick Law, in the Council of Constance, about the year 1114. Perk. 2. Vol. 554.2 b.

Secondly, they reserve the Bread in boxes, pixes, and other vessels of the Church, for days, weeks, and months. They shew it to the people, the Priest lifting it over his head, and going with it in procession. All this is contrary to the Sacrament: for it is no Sacra­ment, unless there be a giving, receiving, eat­ing, and drinking, M. Attersol on the Sacra­ments, 386, 387.

The reservation of the Sacraments was not allowed of, but rather found fault withal by the Fathers, Perk. 2 Vol. 557.

Thirdly, they adore, fall down and honor the Sacrament with Divine Worship, calling it their Lord and God. A thing never heard of among the heathen Idolaters, name­ly, to worship a piece of Bread, or rather, a thin Water.

The adoration in the Sacrament belongeth unto Christ sitting in Heaven: and is an in­ward worship of the heart, or lifting up of the mind, being stirred up with the outward signs. Pope Honorius the third (in the [Page 54] [...] [Page 55] [...] [Page 56] year 1220.) was the first that ever institu­ted the adoration of the Sacrament. And after him, Ʋrban the fourth ordained a Feast in honor of the body of Christ, Perkins, 2 Vol. 564. Attersol on the Sacra­ments, 388, 389.

Fourthly, they turn the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the quick and the dead, abo­lishing the fruit and remembrance of the death of Christ, disannulling his Priesthood, giving him to his Father, whereas the Father hath given him to us, &c. ib. p. 309.

Fifthly, they maintain Transubstantiati­on. These are their very words: If any man shall say, that there remaineth the sub­stance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, or shall deny that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is changed and converted into the body and blood of Christ (the forms and shews only of Bread and Wine remaining: which singular and miraculous conversion the Church calleth Transubstantiation) let him be accursed. Con. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 2. This their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is a very fable to mock fools withal, and it over­turneth both the nature and use of the Sa­craments, pag. 45, 46. & pag. 365. to 369. If there were a miraculous conversion (as they say there is) of the Bread and Wine, it [Page 57] would appear to the outward senses. For all true miracles are wrought openly, cleerly, and evidently to mens senses, John 6.26. But the Bread and Wine, by the judgment of all the senses, remaineth and appeareth to be the same in substance which it was before, of the same quality, quantity, colour, taste, hand­ling, smelling, vertue and nourishment: there is not any one sense, or all the senses together, that can judge otherwise of it, then it did before. If a man should be called in, when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table, and bidden to consider well what he there seeth, smelleth and tasteth; and then is willed to go forth, and to come in again, after the Consecration is ended by the Priest, and to do the like: and then is ask­ed what he thinketh of it: he, no doubt, will answer (unless fear of persecution make him to conceal the truth) I see, feel, smell, and taste the same wafer-cake, and wine that I did before: I can perceive no natural and substantial change therein. And therefore it followeth, that there is no miracle wrought, and consequently, no Transubstantiation at all. The difference that is, is in the end and use only. Before consecration, it was com­mon Bread and Wine, ordained for the nou­rishing of our bodies. After consecration, it becometh holy Bread and Wine, sanctified [Page 58] by the Lord, not so much to feed the body, as the soul.

Did not the Ancient Fathers hold this Doctrine of Transubstantiation?

They knew nothing hereof for at least Eight hundred years after Christ. After­wards begun the disputations of Transub­stantiation, but not approved as an Article of Faith. The Church for a whole thousand years taught no other then spiritual receiving of Christ. In the year One thousand two hundred and fifteen Transubstantiation was decreed and determined in the Council of Lateran, under Pope Inn [...]cent The third, and made a main matter of Faith, Perk. 2 Vol. 558, 559.

What say you then of their Transub­stantiated, or consecrated host (as it is called) or the bread in the box carried in procession and worshipped?

Surely it is nothing else, but a wheaten, or breaden god, or rather an Idol, nothing inferior to Aarons Calf, or Jeroboams Calves, or the Nehustan, and piece of Brass that Eze­chias brake in pieces: nay, as vile and dete­stable as an Idol among the Heathen. And for a conclusion of their doctrine of Transub­stantiation, I will here set down a witty conceit which one shewed me not long since: I have kept the matter, but chan­ged [Page 59] the Meeter, to make it somewhat the sweeter.

DIALOGUE 7.

I am satisfied touching the first point, namely, that the Papists are not of sound Faith: but how do you prove that they are not of good life, seeing they do so many good works?

I prove it th [...] Where the Doctrine is corrupt, the life [...]annot be good: but their Doctrine (as yea have heard) is most cor­rupt, therefore then life cannot be good. A true saith is the ground of a good life, and without which it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. yea, whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, Rom. 14 23. A true saith they have not, and therefore their works cannot be good, and such as may please God. That they have not a true and sound Faith, hath b [...]n shewed in many particulars, and it fur­ther appeareth also in this, that they do even wilfully reject the means whereby it is wrought, namely, the preaching, hearing and reading the Word of God, They have [Page 60] not, neither will they have the Scriptures to be soundly preached, read, and heard in their own tongue. That they cannot abide to have them in their own Language, appear­eth by this one example: One Panier a Town clark of London (in the time of King Henry the Eighth) hearing that the Scri­ptures should be put into English, he spake to this effect, and confirmed it with an Oath, viz. that if he knew that the Scriptures should be put into English, and that the King would have them to be read in the Church, rather then he would live so long to see it, he would cut his own throat: But (as Hall saith, who heard him speak it) he was not so good as his word: for, instead of cutting his throat, he hanged himself.

What is the cause that they cannot abide to have the Scriptures in [...]heir own Language?

S. John gives the reason. For, every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to it, lest his deeds should be repro­ved and discovered, John 3.20 If the Owl flieth abroad by day, the b [...]d [...] and by di­scern him, follow him, and [...]all upon him; and therefore he flies abroad in the night and then he is quiet. If the Scriptures should be suffered to be expounded and read of all Na­tions in their own Language, th [...]n that Owl of Rome (the Pope I mean) with all his [Page 61] fooleries and abominations, would be discern­ed and discovered, and then the world would hate him, follow after him, and persecute him, (even as the small birds do the Owl:) and therefore they cannot abide the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, but love darkness ra­ther then light, because their deeds are evil.

What say you then to their good works, as building of Churches, giving of alms, &c?

These and such like works, required in the Law of God, in themselves are good, and to be practised of all: but to them they are (as the Fathers called the vertues of the heathen) but splendida peccata, glittering dross, and beautiful deformities.

Do they teach any thing contrary to the moral Law, and to the Doctrine of good works?

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

First, concerning set Pilgrimages unto certain Images: there was none of the Fa­thers did so much as dream of them for Six [Page 60] Six hundred years after Christ at the least, Perkins, 2 Vol. pag. 541, 542.

Secondly, the necessity of the vow of con­tinency was established first, and annexed un­to Orders about Three hundred and eighty years after Christ, and that by Pope Siricius. But it had no universal admission, until the time of Pope Hildebrand, in the year 1070. Perk. 1 Vol. 583. to 587. 2 Vol. 575, 576. Acts and Monuments, 1151.

Thirdly, their Doctrine of single life was never commanded of God, nor known in the Primitive Church, but hath sprung up since, and is indeed the very Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.13. So as is also the forbidding of meats for Religions sake. They teach also, that a man may fulfil the Law, yea do works of supererogation, that is, more than the Law doth require: and that men of their a­bundance, may allot to others such works of supererogation, Rhem. on 1 Cor. 9. sect. 6. 2 Cor. 8 sect. 3. This Doctrine of theirs makes the Law of God to be unperfect, and is directly contrary to the words of Christ, Luke 17.10. And it was not know of the Ancient Fathers. They spake indeed some­times of Sepererogation, but in a far other sen [...]e then Papists do. There are no such works to be found in the person of any meer [Page 63] man or Angel, but only in the person of Christ. God and man, Perk. 1 Vol. 598, 599. 2 Vol. 540, 541.

DIALOGUE 8.

Shew me, I pray you, in particu­lar what things they teach contrary to the Com­mandments?

I could plainly prove unto you, that they do both teach and practise many things contrary to every one of the Commandments; but I will only set down the chiefest, and such as most men know to be true.

The first Commandment concerns the in­ward worship of God: the ground of which worship is the true knowledge of God; and without which, none can truly worship and serve him: for such as our knowledge is, such is our worship, 1 Chron. 28 9. Psal. 9.20. Jer. 9.24. The Papists teach that Ignorance is the mother of devotion: but the truth is, it is the mother of superstition and Idolatry, Gal. 4.8. The Papists therefore being ignorant, and without the true knowledg of God, can­not truly worship him, but must needs be Idolaters, worshipping they know not what. The first Commandment requireth that we have the true Jehova for our only God. They [Page 64] make Christs body to be God, because they hold that it may be in many places at once, which thing is proper only to God. They make the Pope to be God, and that in plain words. Christopher Marcellus said to the Pope, Thou art another God upon earth: and the Pope took it to himself, Concil. Later. Sess. 4.

They give the power to the Pope, which is proper to God, and so make him to be God. As, that he can make holy that which is unholy, pardon sins, &c. Perkins 1 Vol. 400. 1. and they give Divine Worship to creatures, and so make them their Gods. The second Commandment concerneth the outward worship of God, or the form and manner of his worship. This Command­ment they have clean put out of the Deca­logue, and to fill up the number, they divide the last into two. The scope of this Com­mandment is, that no Image is to be made of God, nor any worship performed to him him in an Image, Deut. 4.15, 16. But they teach it lawful to make Images of the true God, and to: worship him in them, and that there is a Religious worship due to them, Belarm. de imag. sanct. lib. 2. cap. 21. And in the second Nicen Council it was decreed, that the Image of God should be worshipped with the [Page 65] same worship that is due unto God. Their practice is answerable to their Doctrine: for they worship the Images of God, of Christ, the Saints, the wooden Cross, yea, a piece of bread.

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

Suppose that this were true, yet in so doing, they commit gross Idolatry, and the same that the people of Israel did, for which God plagued them greatly, Exod. 32.5, 28. I think there is none so very a Calf, as to think that they did worship the Calf it self. The Calf was but a representation of God; and yet they sinned greatly in making it, and worshipping God in it. The Heathen in times past could say as much for themselves, concerning their worshipping of Images, as the Papists now do: and yet as they were Ido­laters, so are the Papists: for as touching their superstition and Idolatry, blood cannot be more like to blood, or an egg to an egg, then the one of them is to another. The Heathen had for every Nation and Province, some pe­culiar god. Among them, the Elements had their several gods to rule over them. The Heathen had a certain god assigned to their cattel. The Heathen had peculiar gods for [Page 66] learning and learned men; and for handy­crafts men. And all these have the Papists likewise. The Heathen erected Altars, or­dained Priests to offer Sacrifices, fell down before their Idols, &c. So the Papists deck and adorn their Images, go on Pilgrimage to them, fall down upon their knees before them, and make their prayers unto them. And what is all this, but to worship the very images themselves, the which is most gross Idolatry? Musculus on Psal. 16. verse 4. pag. 139, 140. Virels grounds, pag. 87. to 92. At­tersol on Philemon, pag. 63, 64.

They say, that there be degrees of Reli­gious Worship, the highest is Latria, and this is due unto God: the lowest is Dulia, proper to Saints, &c. Bellar. de imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25. The Scripture acknowledgeth one only kind of Religious Worship, and that due only to GOD, Matth. 4.10. Revel. 22.9. And this distinction of theirs was not known and re­ceived into the Church, till Four hundred years after Christ, Perk. 1 Vol. pag. 696. 2 Vol. 530.

Was not the making and worshipping of Images approved of by the Ancient Fa­thers?

There was no use of Images among Christians, especially in their Churches, for [Page 67] Three hundred seventy years after Christ. Adoration of Images was never publick­ly authorized till Seven hundred eighty eight years after Christ, in the second Council of Nice, Perk. 1 Vol. page 696. 2 Vol. 421.

If you be disposed to see more at large when Images first came up, how they were forbidden and condemned by Fathers, Em­perors and Councils, and how all that the Papists can say for them, is answered: then read the book of Homilies against peril of of idolatry: for I know none that hath written more soundly, fully, and plainly thereof.

Do they teach and practise any thing else against the second Commandment?

Yes, to the right worshipping of God, there is required a reverend use of the means of Gods worship and service, the which are sincere prayer, preaching, hearing of Gods Word, and the use of the Sacra­ments. Concerning prayer, it must be made with understanding, 1 Cor. 14. vers 15. Con­trary hereunto is their praying in an unknown tongue, In the purest Churches for the space of Eight hundred years at the [...] Divine Prayer was never performed in a [...] un­known to the people, Perk. 2 v [...] [...]57, [Page 68] Concerning the Sacraments, they do not rightly administer and receive them, but have added and taken from them at their pleasure.

The helps and furtherances of Gods Wor­ship are specially two; Vows and Fasting. The Papists make these to be parts of Gods Worship; yea, they make fasting to be a work of satisfaction to Gods Justice, for the temporal punishment of sin, and a meritori­ous work, Rhem. on 1 Cor. 15. Sect. 7. Perk. 1 Vol. 596. Synopsis Papisini. The sixth ge­neral Controversie, quaest. 3, 4. The nine­teenth general Controversie, quaest. 8. In a word, all their Carnal Ceremonies, devised by men, and wherein they place the Wor­ship of God, are contrary to the second Commandment. The most of which Cere­monies, they have borrowed, partly, from the Jews, partly from the Gentiles, Willet on Jude, pag. 215, 216.

DIALOGUE 9.

Do they teach and practise any thing contrary to the Commandments following?

Yes, The third Commandment con­cerneth the glorifying of Gods Name in the whole course of our life. They teach men [Page 69] to give the glory which is proper to God, to creatures, as to the Virgin Mary, the Pope, &c. They teach it lawful to swear by Saints, and not by God only. They maintain perjury, because they teach with one consent, that one being examined, may answer doubtful­ly against the direct intention of the Exami­ner, framing another meaning to himself in the doubtfulness of his words. As for ex­ample, A man is asked whether he were not such a day at the Mass, in such a place? They affirm that he may say no, and swear unto it (although he were at it) reserving this to himself; not with purpose to reveal it to the Examiner: whereas (in the very Law of nature) he that takes an Oath, should swear according to the intention of him that hath power to Administer an Oath: and that in Truth, Judgment and Righteous­ness, Jer. 4.2. They are also egregious bla­sphemers of Gods Name. They have utter­ed most horrible blasphemies concerning the Scriptures. See Doctor Willets four Pillars of Papistry, pag. 49. to 61. The fifth Commandment requireth subjection and obedience to Superiors, and namely, to Kings and Princes, who are Supream and next under Christ, Rom. 13.1, 2. 1 Pet. 2.13. They teach that the Pope is Supream head [Page 70] over all persons, &c. that he oweth no sub­jection to Kings and Princes, but hath power to make them, and to put them down at his pleasure. The Pope and his Clergy will not be in subjection to them, but rather exercise Lordship over them. The Popes Supremacy was unheard of and un­known, till the year of Christ Six hundred. It was first broached by the murthering Em­peror Phocas, at the ambitious desire of the proud Boniface the third, about the year Six hundred and seven. And since that time, the Popes have shewed their intoler­able pride, in their behavior towards Prin­ces. The Pope in his writings calls himself, Servus servorum Dei, The servant of Gods servants: but in his actions, he will be Do­minus dominorum, the Lord of Lords: wherein he plainly sheweth himself to be that man of sin and Antichrist, which ex­alteth himself above all that is called God, 2 Thes. 2.4. This may be shewed by many examples.

Alexander the Third, did tread upon the neck of the Emperor Frederick the First, blasphemously abusing the words of the Psalm, Thou shalt tread upon the Lyon & Adder, &c. Acts and Monuments, p. 185. Pope Celestine crowned Henry the fifth with his foot, & with [Page 71] his foot spurned it off again, ibid. 221. The Papists also teach and maintain disobedience to Parents; for, they teach that it is lawful for the Child, being a Roman Catholick, to deny his duty to his Parents, being Here­ticks. And as the Scribes and Pharisees taught, that if the Children did bring to their Corban (that is, their Treasury) though they neglected their Parents, yet they were free; so they teach children to give that they have to Monasteries, &c. wherewith they should relieve their Parents, Bucanus Com­mon places, pag. 901.

DIALOGUE. 10.

Do they teach and practise any thing con­trary to the sixth Commandment?

Yes, the sixth Commandment for­biddeth us to kill, or hurt any man. They teach it lawful for Subjects not only to rise up against, but even to kill their Princes the Lords Anointed (if they be excommunica­ted by the Pope) and that it is a meritori­ous work so to do. This with other such like Devilish Doctrines, and the Authors thereof, are to be seen more at large in Bu­canus Common places, concerning Magi­strates: and in Master Taylor on Psal. 32. pag. 208, 209.

Can you name any that have put it in practice?

Yes, Pope Gregory the seventh, called Hildebrand, hired one to kill the Emperor. A Monk poisoned King John. Henry the third, King of France, was slain by a Frier. Yea, Pope Sixtus Quintus highly commend­ed the Frier for doing it. Henry the fourth of France was also slain by a Papist. Many of them, (yea of their Priests and Jesuites) have attempted to kill our late Queen Eliza­beth, and our King James, with all his royal issue, and that after a most barbarous man­ner. These Popish Traytors may very fitly be compared to that base and unnatural bird the Cuckow: who though he be hatched, fed and brought up by a little bird, yet he de­voureth both the natural young ones, and also the dam her self.

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

This Doctrine was never maintained by any Hereticks (besides the Papists) as our most Christian and Learned King hath shewed in a speech of his, uttered in the Parliament house, in the year One thousand six hundred and five, by occasion of the Gun­powder Treason. And herein you may see how contrary they are both to the Doctrine [Page 73] and practice of the Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles, who both taught and practised subjection, even to wicked and Idolatrous Princes, and did never so much as attempt to hurt them. As for example, Saul was a wicked King, forsaken of God, and one that did most cruelly persecute David, who was anointed to be King after him. At two several times the Lord delivered Saul into his hands, so that he might (without any resistance) have killed him; yea, Abishai desired that he might strike him but once with his spear. But what said David? Touch him not, for who can lay his hand on the Lords anointed, and be guiltless? Nay, his heart smote him for cutting off the skirt of Sauls Robe, 1 Sam. 24.4, 5, 6, &c. chap. 26.8, 9, &c. And afterwards, when one brought tidings to David that he had slain Saul, what did David? Did he commend him for it, as the Pope did the Frier? No, he caused him to be slain for his labor, 2 Sam. 1.14, 15, 16. Now what think you of David?

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

It is most true, and therefore the Pa­pists (which both teach and practise the contrary) are indued with the spirit of Sa­tan. [Page 74] S. Paul saith, that to forbid marriage and meats, is a Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. If that be a Doctrine of Devils then much more is this. In the sixth Com­mandment is also condemned all cruelty; yet herein they exceed and excel all others. And this is a special note of a false Religion, and yet this is one special means whereby Popery is upheld. See Tay­lor on Psal. 32. pag. 204. to 208. Solomon describes an harlot by three properties, cru­elty, treachery, and flattery, Prov. 2.16, 17, 18. As a dishonest and unchast woman is thus discerned, so is a corrupt Religion. And these are very badges and Ensigns of the Whore of Babylon: Where they get the sword, they shew all cruelty: where their power faileth, they work by treachery: where this speedeth not, they will deceive by flattery and hypocrisie. See the Preface to Dr. Willets Treatise on the Epistle of S. Jude, pag. 2, 3, &c.

DIALOGUE. II.

What do they teach and practise contrary to the seventh Commandment?

They hold and teach, that Marriage is unlawful in the Clergy: and that the Mar­riage [Page 75] of Ministers is the worst sort of Incon­tinence and Fornication, Rhem. on 1 Cor. 7.9. Sect. 8. Whereas Marriage is the re­medy against Fornication, 1 Cor. 7.2. They allow the [...] Priests to keep harlots, (rather then to Marry) so they do it closely: for this Caveat is given them: Si non castè, ta­men cautè. If thou canst not live chastly, thou mayst keep a whore warily. And what uncleanness and filthiness hath been commit­ted by many Popes and Popish Priests, all the world knoweth. A tast hereof, I will give you in a few Examples.

Pope John the thirteenth was an Adul­terer, and an incestuous person, Being found without the City with another mans wife, he was so wounded of her husband, that within eight days after he died, Acts and Monu­ments, pag. 143. Pope Sixtus the fourth erected at Rome a Stews of double abomina­tion, not only of women, but also of men, Ibid. 6. pag. 667. Alexander the sixth com­mitted incest with his own daughter Lucre­tia, Guicciardine, lib. 3. Innocentius the eighth had divers bastards, and boasted of them. See Willet on Jude, pag. 188. They had one Pope that did beget no child, but was begotten with child, and brought it forth in going on procession; and that was Pope John [Page 76] the eighth, who proved to be Jone, and not John. This they deny, but there was of late years written a book by M. Alexander Cooke, and another writen in Latine by a stranger, wherein they prove (and that out of Popists Writers) that there was such a one. For they sufficiently prove themselves to be men indeed, in begetting Bastards. It is an old saying, It must needs be a holy Pro­cession, where the Devil bears the Cross: so it must needs be an holy, chast and pure Church, that hath such unholy, impure, un­chaste, and filthy heads, as many Popes have been. And as were the heads, such was the rest of the body. Their Monasteries and Monkish Cells were detected of most infa­mous Incests, Fornications, &c. as doth ap­pear in the inquisition made in the time of King Henry the eighth, Praefat. Balaei. de actis Roman. Pontif. See a little book (lately set forth) called the Friers Chronicle. Contrary to the eighth Commandment are the Popes Bulls, Indulgences and pardons for sin; and all for mony. They sell such things as are not to be sold, namely, remission of sins, and the merits by which men may come to the Kingdom of Heaven. But no peny, no Pater noster, Synopsis Papismi. Controversie 14. part. 3. Popes Bulls and Indulgences (where­in [Page 77] is given absolution from the guilt of tem­poral punishment) were not known to the Catholick Church, for One thousand years and more after Christ, Perk. 2. vol. 589. And herein they maintain licenciousness; for what need one care what sin he commit­teth, when for a little mony he may have a Pardon for it?

One Roger Holland (sometime a Papist) saith thus, I was of this your blind Religion, having liberty under your Auricular Con­fession, I made conscience of sin, but trusted to the Priests absolution; he also for mony, doing some pennance for me: which after I had given, I cared no further what offences I did: no more then he cared, after he had my mony, whether he fasted with bread or water for me or no, Acts and Monuments, pag. 2040.

DIALOGUE 12.

Shew me also, I pray you, what they teach and practise contrary to the two last Com­mandments.

The ninth Commandment condemns all lying, and dissimulation, rayling, mock­ing, &c. They maintain equivocation, which (as the Secular Priests have said) [Page 78] (Quodlibet 2. Art. 4. pag. 6.) you may term in plain English, lying, and cogging. They are notorious lyers, and slanderers, raylers, and mockers, Willet on Jude, pag. 195. & 205. 212. They have falsified mens writings, putting in, and putting out what they please, as is to be seen, in their Index expugatorius. See Perk. 2 vol. page, 489, &c.

There have been in times past games ap­pointed for lying. If there were any such now, the Papists would carry the Whet-stone from all the Hereticks in Christendom. The tenth Commandment condemneth Original Corruption, and the very evil thoughts and lusts of the heart without consent.

They teach, that concupiscence in it self is not sin. These are the very words of the Council of Trent; This concupiscence (which the Apostle sometime calleth sin) the holy Synod declareth, that the Catholick Church did never understand to be called sin, because it is truly and properly sin in the re­generate, but because it cometh of sin, and enclineth unto sin: If any man think the contrary, let him be accursed, Sess. 5. cap. 1. de pec. orig. Wherein, they both decree a­gainst the Apostle himself, Rom. 7.23. and also they gain say themselves; for if this concupiscence boil of Original sin, as out of [Page 79] a fountain, and that is damnable: It follow­eth, that concupiscence or lust is also sin be­fore God, and doth deserve condemnation. They say, that in the regenerate it is venial. But this is an undoubted principle, that all sins in themselves and their own nature are mortal. And concerning this venial sin, it was not known among the Fathers for Se­ven hundred years after Christ. And thus you see what gross things they both teach and practise contrary to the Commandments of God: whereby it plainly appeareth, that Popery cannot be of God, for thus I reason; Whatsoever Religion doth teach things con­trary to the Commandments of God, is not of God: but Popery doth so, and therefore it is not of God, and so by good consequence, Papists cannot be good Catholicks.

DIALOGUE 13.

Hitherto you have shewed, that the Pa­pists teach many things contrary to the Creed, the Sacraments, and the ten Commandments, now tell me, I pray you, whether they teach any thing contrary to the Lords Prayer?

They do likewise teach and practise many things contrary thereunto, I will but only name some of them. The Lords Prayer [Page 80] teacheth us to call upon God only. They teach and practise prayer to Saints. In the first Petition, we pray for the hallowing of Gods Name. They give unto Saints depart­ed, that which is proper to God, and so di­shonor Gods Name. In the second Petition, we pray for the erecting of Gods Kingdom of Grace in our hearts, and also for the means thereof, namely, the preaching and hearing of Gods Word. They hinder the coming of Gods Kingdom, in rejecting the Word of God, and in persecuting such as will preach, hear, and read it. Contrary to the third Petition is their Doctrine of Free-will. Con­trary to the fifth Petition is their Doctrine of satisfaction for sin. In the sixth Petition, we pray for strength to withstand Satan and his temptations. They teach people to drive away the Devil with holy water, and such like childish toys. These and other such like things, they teach and practise contrary to the Lords Prayer.

DIALOGUE 14.

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

It is true indeed, we must therefore do [Page 81] as the Lord bade Jeremy (Chap. 15:19.) Let them return to thee, but re­turn not thou to them. We may joyn with them in respect of Civil Society, but not in respect of Religion; and yet even then we are to take heed, lest we be corrupted by them; for he that toucheth Pitch, shall be defiled therewith. Some think that our Re­ligion, and the Religion of the present Church of Rome, are all one for substance, and that they may be united, but they are grosly de­ceived, for an union of these two Religions can never be made, more then the union of light and darkness; and that because the Church of Rome (as hath at large been shewed) hath struck at the very founda­tion.

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

One special cause of it is, that because men will not receive the love of the Truth, therefore God will send them strong delu­sion, that they should believe a lie, 2 Thes. 2.10, 11.

A second cause is, ignorance of the Scri­ptures, and of the grounds of Religion, for if men would well acquaint themselves here­with, [Page 82] they should easily see the grossness of Popery.

A third cause is, that Popery is very a­greeable and pleasing to mans corrupt na­ture; As for example, to be justified by our good works, to have Images to Worship God in, to live in Ignorance, to have par­dons for our sins, to serve God in outward Ceremonies, as in choice of meat, difference of days, &c. These are things very agreeable and pleasing to our corrupt nature, and there­fore one especial cause why so many embrace Popery.

A fourth cause is, the tyranny of the Church of Rome, whose chief means to uphold her Religion, is fire and sword: for were it not for this, many thousands in a few years would utterly renounce Popery.

A fifth cause, why so many (especially of the Learned) do embrace it, is pomp and profit; that is, ambition and covetous­ness.

This was that which made the Scribes and Pharisees (even against their own knowledg) to withstand Christ and his Gospel.

And this makes many learned Papists to do the like. They know (no doubt) that in some things they err: as it doth appear by the words of Stephen Gardiner on his death bed.

The Bishop of Chichister seeing him to be in a desperate case, comforteth him with the hope of remission of sins by the merits of Christ. Gardiner hereunto answereth thus; What, will you open that gap now? you may speak it to me, and to such as are in my case; but if you teach it to the people, then farewell all; meaning our authority, pomp, and profit by absolutions, Masses, &c. These are the special causes why so many embrace Popery.

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

You are then to mark what a Papist is. A Papist (as the Rhemists on Act. 11. Sect. 4. do describe him) is one that cleaveth to the Pope in Religion, and is obedient to him in all things.

Every one now that is under the jurisdi­ction of the Pope, is not to be counted a Pa­pist; for there are some, even in Italy, Spain, &c. that hold the Grounds of Religion, do sigh and grone under the Romish yoke, and desire to be freed from it, yea, would rejoyce to see it.

Again, there may be some, that (for [Page 84] want of knowledge, and the means thereof, are entangled with some points of Popery, but yet they hold the foundation, which is Christ Jesus, and look to be saved by his merits, and not by their own, or any others. Such we account not Papists, but the true Church and children of God. But by Pa­pists, we mean such as cleave fast to the Pope in Religion, are in all things obedient to him, will not be reclaimed from their errors, re­fuse to hear the Word of God, to read the Scriptures, or any other good books. Of such we may boldly say, that if they thus continue to the end, they cannot be sa­ved.

DIALOGUE. 15.

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

All that do truly and sincerely em­brace, profess, and practise the afo [...]esaid grounds of Religion, in what countrey soever they live.

Is the Church of England the true Church?

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

The Papists say, that there are diversities of opinions among us, that we cannot agree a­mong our selves, and that therefore we are not the true Church.

In all substantial points of Religion, we agree both amongst our selves, and also with all other sound Protestants in Christen­dom. In other things there have been, are, and will be diversities of opinions, and dif­ferences to the worlds end. They should first pluck out the beam of their own eyes: for we can truly charge them with greater differen­ces: As namely, with that sharp and bloody contention between the Franciscans and the Dominicans; and with the late bitter con­tention between the Jesuites and the secular Priests: wherein the Priests did write as bit­terly against the Jesuites (and namely, against Parsons) as ever did any Protestant: nay there was never any Protestant writer that did lay such foul and odious crimes to their charg, as the Priests did. And herein they verified the old proverb, When thieves f [...]ll by the ears, true men come to have their goods. For one dissention that is among us, they have [Page 86] (at least) ten among themselves. D. Willet (in his fourth Pillar of Papistry) hath set down at large:

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

Secondly, The contradictions of the Je­suites amongst themselves.

Thirdly, that their stoutest Champion, Bel­larmine, is at variance with himself, shame­fully forgetting himself, saying and unsaying: now of one opinion, by and by of another. And no marvel. Oportet enim mendacem esse memorem. A lyer had need to have a good memory.

Fourthly, he sheweth the repugnances, in­conveniences, and inconsequent opinions which Popish Religion hath in it self. And thus you see, how they charge us with that, wherein themselves are most faulty.

DIALOGUE 16.

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

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

There be some that profess the former [Page 87] grounds of Religion as we do, and yet say that there is no true Church among us: and there­fore will not joyn with us in prayers, hearing the Word, and in the use of the Sacraments, but separate themselves from us; what say you of such?

I say, that they are possessed with the spirit of pride and singularity; and that in so doing, they do even deny these Articles of Faith, the Catholick Church, and the Com­munion of Saints, and are such as the Apostle speaks of, Rom. 16.17. Heb. 10.25, 39. Ma­ster Perkins (in his first Vol. pag. 409.) calls them a schismatical and undiscreet company, and saith, that they are full of pride, think­ing themselves to be full, when they are em­pty; to have all knowledg when they are ignorant, and have need to be catechised. Another saith thus of them: The error of those men is full of evil, yea of blasphemy, who do in such manner make a departure from this Church, as if Christ were quite ba­nished from hence, and that there could be no hope of salvation to those that abide here. And further he saith, that if they cannot find Christ here, they shall find him no where. The errors of these men you may see in a little Treatise set forth by M. Barnard, called, The Separatists Schism.

I pray shew me some example, that they ought not to separate themselves from us, and that they do sin in so doing.

In the Church of Corinth, the incestu­ous man was not punished; fornication was lightly regarded, yea, there were some that even denied the Resurrection, yet S. Paul doth account and call them the Church and Saints, he doth not perswade any to make a separa­tion, but doth plainly rebuke them, and shew­eth how they should punish the evil doer. I speak not this to excuse any gross sin that reigneth amongst us; (for I wish that the same might be severely punished) but to shew, that where the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments rightly administred (as in our Church they are) none ought for any cause to separate themselves: And, that such as do it, do sin grievously, I will shew you by a familiar example. A mother conceiveth and bringeth forth a son, and that with great travel and pain: She traineth him up to mans estate, and that not without great care and labor: This son at length espying some spot and blemish, or some infirmity in his mother, forsaketh her, and will not acknowledg her to be his mother, what would you now think of him?

Surely I should think such a one to [Page 89] be a very wicked and unnatural son.

Even such are they, who (for some seeming faults in our Church) deny it to be a true Church, and do separate themselves from it; whereas this Church hath conceived them, brought them forth, and nourished them. For if ever they were truly begotten unto Christ, and born a new, it hath been by our Church, and our Ministery, by which likewise they have been trained up, and brought to that knowledge which they have.

There are many amongst us that make great profession of Religion, but I can see no good works come from them: nay, they are not only barren in good works, but also live in some one gross sin or other. Are these the true Church, and true Catholicks?

Though they live in the Church, yet they are not of the Church: they are but Hy­pocrites and shall (if they repent not) have the reward of Hypocrites; yea, it shall be easier in the Day of Judgment for many Pa­pists, then for them; because by their bar­ren and fruitless, yea wicked life, they have caused the Name of God, his Gospel, and the true Professors thereof, to be evil spoken of. Let all therefore that will be ac­counted the true Church, and true Christi­ans, [Page 90] he careful to adorn the Doctrine of God our Saviour in all things, and that by a godly conversation, and by doing of good works.

The name of God be blessed for this our conference, whereby I find my self much edi­fied. There remaineth yet one thing more, which I will demand of you, and that is, How I may come to know and be assured, that I am indeed a member of the true Church, and that I shall cer­tainly be saved?

Be diligent to hear the Word of God preached. Read the Scriptures. Receive often the Sacrament. Acquaint your self throughly with the aforesaid grounds of Re­ligion. Joyn hereunto earnest and hearty prayer. Set apart some time for these things, specially be careful to spend the Sabbath herein. And to all these things joyn an holy conversation, indevouring above all things to have always a clear conscience to­ward God, and toward men. In doing this, you shall at length come to that full as­surance, whereof S. Paul speaketh, namely, that you are the Child of God, and that nothing shall be able to separate you from the love of God, which is in Christ, Rom. 8.38.