Rome's Conviction: OR, A DISCOVERIE Of the unsoundness of the main Grounds of Rome's Religion, in an­swer to a book, called The right Religion, evinced by L.B.

Shewing,

  • 1. That the Romish Church is not the true and onely Catholick Church, infallible ground and rule of Faith.
  • 2. That the main Doctrines of the Romish Church are damnable errors, & therefore to be deserted by such as would be saved.
Nos autem non moveat aut turbet haeretici istius perfidi abrupta dementia, qui cum in tam ingen­ti dissentionis & schismatis crimine constitutus, & ab Ecclesia seperatus sit sacrilegà temeritate non dubitet in nos sua crimina retorquere. Cum sit enim à seipso nunc factus immundus, sordi­bus sacrilegis inquinatus, hoc nunc nos esse con­tendit, &c. Cyprian libell. ad Novat. Haeretic.

By WILLIAM BROWNSWORD, M.A. and Minister of the Gospel at Douglas Chappell in Lancashire.

London, Printed by J.M. for Luke Fawn, at the sign of the Parrat in Pauls Churchyard. 1654.

Brownsword's Romes Conviction.

[...]

Christian Reader.

COnsidering the multitude of Popish as well as of other cor­rupt Books dispersed amongst us, the greater activitie of the Romish partie in oppugning, than of ours in propugning the Truth, the reproaches which the true Reformed Protestant Reli­gion, by reason of the Schismes, Heresies, Blasphemies, Perjuries, Treacheries and other gross enormities of some pretended Professors thereof, lies under: It must needs be a work acceptable to God, and good men, to speak a word in season to roll away the reproach of Sion, to make good her antient plea against Babylon, and to manifest that we have neither lost nor left our Religion. The which is the pious design of this Author in this answer. As therefore upon perusall of it, we have judged it to be solid as well as seasonable, so we shall pray, and hope that it may be serviceable to the Church of God.

  • Richard Hollinworth.
  • Edward Gee.

To the Worshipfull, WILLIAM ASHHURST ESQUIRE.

SIR,

IF either particular favours exhibited to the Authour of any Book, or publick zeal for truth in the exhi­bitant (two of the main grounds of Dedicatory Epistles) may oblige to a Dedication; I know none whom I can so readily look to as your self, from whom, as the Church of God hath received much good, (especially, whilest the Lord did imploy you in a publick trust) so my self in particular have shared of your influences. Your actings in publick seasoned with wise­dome, piety, zeal and fidelity have made you pretious in the godlies sight, both in this and our sister Nation. Your seclusion from that trust hath made you [Page] less seen, not less vertuous: your influ­ences are not bound up, but contracted, that they might be more forcible where they fall. Our cold Religion hath more of warmth by your presence, Whilest you are an example to some, and an en­couragement of others to their duty. Your constancy, zeal for Truth, love to the Ministery, diligence in frequenting Ordinances, besides your Family wor­ship, (and that in these fickle and cold times, wherein Ministry, Ordinances and Duties are every where cried down) do render you a worthy example to fro­zen souls. Your respect to the Mini­sters of Christ, (to whom your house is as Obediahs to the Prophets) learned from the example of your religious fa­ther, is a great incouragement of them to their duty. Hereof as others, so espe­cially my self have been a witness, and a large partaker, receiving the greater in­fluence by my nearness to you, being for some time of your family, and still owned as your Pastor.

As a small acknowledgement where­of, [Page] I humbly offer these first fruits of my publick labours, for under your wing they were sown, quickned and brought to this ripeness. They beg your acceptance and patronage, which if the Author obtain for them, He mat­ters not the blustrings or hatred of Po­pish adversaries against him. The weak­ness of the work may receive strength [...] Cum sapimus patr [...]s: years may teach more knowledge: In the interim your favour may much strengthen it, but e­specially Gods blessing, to which I commend both your self and it, and rest,

Yours in all Christian dutie perpetually obliged, WILLIAM BROWNSWORD.

To the Orthodox READER.

AMongst all the Darts that Sa­tan useth for the subversion of the Church there is none more dangerous, nor more used then his Arrow of Di­vision. Hereby apishly imitating God him­self, who by dividing their tongues over­throw Babels Builders, and by an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem destroyed them both. When Satan had endeavoured, but could not hinder the Churches Resurrection in Great Con­stantine, what hot divisions did he raise within her by Arian Hereticks? what contentions did the Church groan under in the time of zealous Luther, when Zion had newly delivered her selfe from the daughters of Babylon with whom she had dwelt? In our own times since the Church [Page] began to ascend to more then ordinary Re­formation in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, and that the Reformed Churches were drawing to the nearest uni­on; even in this juncture of time doth this old Serpent practise his ancient policy: This he doth by his agents, amongst whom in these last ages the Romanists (first Hea­then, now Christian idolaters) are chief. These have been the usual Fomenters of Protestant differences, using it as a main stratagem to divide us, that so they may o­vercome us; witness the advice of Cardi­nal Allen, mentioned by the Cheshire Mini­sters in their attestation.Chesh. attest. p. 34. And the project of the Spanish Court, at­tested by Sheldon, sometimes a Popish Priest,Sheld. Survey of Mi­racles of Antichrist, pag. 179, 180. and conversant in it. His words be­cause considerable, I have at large transcri­bed, Wheresoever (saith he) and when­soever I have heard (as I have done often) some, no small ones of those coun­treys, and of those Courts, debate up­on [Page] 88s overthrow, they ever resolved that Elizabeth living (so they termed that renowned Queen's Reigne) there was no such like attempt to be made; but she being dead, then if variety of Competitors (which they hoped for) did bring confusion it would be good fishing; otherwise if there follow a Suc­cessour peaceably to the Crown—then they resolved, that all means possible were to be used, that peace—might be concluded, which being made then by the secret endeavors of Priests and reli­gious men (who might be sent hither with more security then before) we must draw, said they; if not wholly, yet to be at least our indirect favourers and friends, some of the Commanders, and those who cannot be won by pretence of religion, must be purchased by gifts and large promises. But above all we must labour to shake hands with some of those to whom the care of the Navy, the Ports, and Sea-coasts is committed; that if any such like attempt hereafter be thought upon by the Pope, or his Ca­tholick [Page] Majesty, we may find some fa­vourites. This is their grand Project, and whether they are not now acting it, let the Considerate judge; for my own part, I have, and still do look on the Papists as the principal Instruments in our divisions, and there are these five speciall Considera­tions move me to it.

1. The many Popish Errours instilled into, and broached by such as leave the truth, Who that knows Anabaptism, but is acquainted with their Popish Doctrines of Free-will, Justification by works, Pos­sibility of keeping the Commandements, &c. It was Mr Love's Observation to his people a little before his troubles, that there were about twenty Popish errours broached by them. Was not the Foundation of that Babel the Anabaptistical party were late­ly erecting, (if God in mercy to his Church had not broken them in pieces) a popish principle, viz. that Dominion is founded in grace, and therefore they, the Saints, must rule over the wicked, as any that pro­fessed the true religion, and had estates, would have been. Is not the Quaker reli­gion [Page] a mixture of Popery with other er­rors, else what means those Tenets, charged upon them by the Ministers of Newcastle: That we are not justified by the righteousness of Christ, A book called The perfect Pharisee under Monkish ho­liness, &c. which he in his own Person did fulfill without us, but by inhe­rent holyness which Christ within us inables us to perform. 2. That man by his own power may stand perfect, and that men may be perfectly holy in this life. 3. That there is no entrance into Hea­ven for any not perfectly holy, unless by Purgatory. 4. That every man in the world hath a light within him suffi­cient to guide him to salvation. 5. That the Scriptures are not a rule for us, nor are the spirits to be tried by Scrip­ture, nor are we to study them or give any sense of them.

2. The Apologies which have been of late made for Papists and Popery by the Authors of the Beacon quenched, the Ca­tholick Moderator, with many other books [Page] pretendedly printed in France, but really in England, as the Beacon on fire under­takes to prove.

3. The discovery of some Priests and Jesuits, and their secret actings tending to divisions, themselves going under the names of converted Jews, or gifted men, or such as have left Popish Seminaries out of discontent with Popish errors, or Gentle­men that have been travelling and return unto us for their healths sake, or friends to some private Papists, whom they can accompany into the society of such as they have hopes of seducing.

4. The many wandring persons, stran­gers in the places where they come, without any call or imitation, gathering assemblies, thrusting themselves into the company of honest but simple persons, and dispersing books pretending to, and holding out some Truths, but not without mixture of Popish errors.

5. The intolerable enmity in the secta­ries of our dayes against those who most earnestly oppose Popery, and according to their Covenant seek the extirpation of it. [Page] Nothing hath so much been declaimed a­gainst, none so much opposed as the Mini­stry and Ministers of Christ who have set themselves against these errors.

Against this evil there is a twofold re­medy. 1. Discoveries of true solid and fundamentall Doctrines, which hath been excellently done by the reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions, by the reverend Assembly of Divines at West­minster in their Confession of Faith and Catechismes, and by many particular Di­vines in their summs of Divinity. 2. Op­position of the enemies of the Churches peace and unity. In which many have be­stowed much labour to good purpose, (some resisting one error, and some another) weakning the power, and stopping the pro­gress of false teachers. Though the former be more excellent, as more familiar and publick in its use (every one not being able to wade into Controversie) yet this latter hath its profit, and is also necessary: and therefore the Apostle requires that a Bi­shop be able by sound Doctrine, both to exhort and convince the gain-sayers, [Page] Tit. 1.9, 10, 11. and his reason is, For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the Cir­cumcision, whose mouths must be stop­ped, who subvert whole houses, teach­ing things which they ought not for fil­thy lucres sake. Of this nature is this book before thine eyes, composed and set forth upon serious and considerate grounds. The occasion offered hath an influx upon its composure, the seasonableness of it (as the Author conceives) occasions its pub­lishing. The occasion was this; a Popish Gentleman with whom I had some converse having had the loan of a Protestant Au­thor of mine, in requitall brought me this Popish Doctor, as worth my reading, expe­cting (as I conceived) that I should say something to it, which at first I thought to do very briefly and suddenly. But finding the book full of errors, and the study of a reply delightfull and suitable to my studies, wherein (by occasion of the place and per­sons amongst whom Gods providence had cast me) I had been most imployed, next to my speciall Ministeriall duties, especially, [Page] sup­posing it might be an Antidote both to my own Congregation, and others, against this and such like infectious writings, I pro­ceeded to this answer, which thou now seest; which I conceive very seasonable in these times, being moved hereunto by these rea­sons.

1. This is the great Controversie: Po­pery is the main errour which the Church of the New-Testament hath to oppose; Its the mystery of iniquity upheld by the man of sin, The Antichrist.

2. Its at present least opposed of any other. We abound in controversies amongst our selves, whilest Papists set by unoppo­sed, taking it (to use the Cheshire Mini­sters language) as if God had set us toge­ther by the ears to make some sportfull spe­ctacle for them to behold.

3. Its most active, (though more pru­dently, and with lesse noise managed) then other errours. The man of sin was acting in the Apos [...]les days, much more now, see­ing his time is shorter than then it was. Po­pish books are compiled, translated, printed and dispersed over the Nation; Priests a­bound, [Page] and are active amongst our people both with books and tongues, and make great use of our divisions to perswade to Popery.

4. Its the judgement of some learned men, that Antichrist shall have a time of prevailing before his death, and if so, the people of God must have a time for their trying, and it cannot be far off. Now when this comes, the question will not be whe­ther we be Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Inde­pendant; this and many such like diffe­rences, which through meekness of spirit might be easily reconciled, shall then with shame be laid aside, and questions of high­er concernment will be put to us; as whe­ther we believe the carnal presence in the Sacrament, the Popes-Headship in the Church, and the Roman Churches Head­ship over the world: whether we believe the Scriptures, or not rather the Pope to be the rule of faith; whether we allow of Free-will, Merit, Justification by works, Prayer to Saints as Mediators, halfe Com­mu [...]ion, which with other errours, this Book of my Adversary endeavours to per­swade [Page] you to, and that with great hastiness.

5. The thoughts and study of this Con­troversie may be a means to divert that heat which flye into o [...]r faces one against another. We have an enemy that seeks the ruine of us all, and is getting ground of us whilest we are contesting with our selves. Should we not unite against him? Papists are no despicable adversaries, they are po­litick in getting, and cruel in their posses­sing power over us. Should they prevaile, they would soon put a period to many of our controversies, to a deal of our fury against Ministers, Ordinances, Truths. I know it will be said, this Controve [...]sie is old, and very much is already learnedly written a­gainst it, and there needs no more.

To this I answer, 1. Though the Con­troversie is old, yet it still continues. We have not yet seen the expected fall of An­tichris [...]. It would favour ill to perswade an Army to leave off a Siege, because much powder and bullets have been shot against it. B [...]bylon is not yet sto [...]med, and taken, and ruined. 2. I acknowledge, that much hath been lea [...]nedly written against it, I [Page] reverence the memory of learned Whita­kers, Reinolds, Chamier, Cameron, Perkins, Rivet, with many others, with whom Papists may cavil, but shall never confute: My designe is not to adde perfecti­on to their labours, nor to oppose them main­ly with whom they have contested. If I mention Bellarmine, Baily, &c. its only because they comply with, or dissent from my present Adversarie: my purpose is only to imitate them who opposed Popery in s [...]ch as maintained it in their times: I rake not amongst the dead, but meddle with a present writer. If Papists will writ anew against truth, it cannot be unseasonable to write anew for truth. Many errours long since confuted, and laid in the dust, yet ri­sing again are assa [...]lted by later Divines. I had rather say much for truth then too lit­tle.

What I thought necessary to say against this Authour, I have spoken avoiding in­vectives, and needless digress [...]ons, endea­v [...]uring to prevent some charges in thy buying, and some pains in thy reading of it, and some rayling from my Adversary [Page] if he should reply; I commit thee and this labour to Gods Blessing. If thou reap be­nefit by it, give God the praise, and let the Authour have thy prayers, whereby thou shalt oblige to further service,

Thine and the Churches Servant in the Work of Christ. William Brownsword.

The Contents of this Book.

  • CHapter 1. Of Happiness. Page 13
  • Chap. 2. Of the way to Happiness. Page 14
  • Chap. 3. Of the diversities of Faiths, Hop [...]s, and Charities. Page 23
  • Chap. 4. Of the Churches Power and Infa [...]i­bilitie in matters of Faith. Page 27
  • Chap. 5. O [...] the possibil [...]tie of keeping the Com­mandements. Page 69
  • Chap. 6. Of Religion. Page 93
  • Chap. 7. Of the Ʋnitie of Religion. Page 79
  • Chap. 8. Of the Spirit of Spiritists. Page 103
  • Chap. 9. Of th [...] Spiritists rule of Fa [...]th. Page 113
  • Chap. 10. Of the Protestant Church. Page 130
    • Shape 1. Page 132
    • Shape 2. Page 153
    • Shape 3. Page 159
    • Shape 4. Page 173
    • Shape 5. Page 182
  • Chap. 11. Of the Roman Church. Page 231
  • Chap. 12. Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church. Page 272
    • [Page]1. Objection Page 273
    • 2. Objection Page 299
    • 3. Objection Page 321
    • 4. Ob [...]ection Page 324
    • 5. [...]b ecti [...]n Page 340
    • 6. Objection Page 348
    • 7. Objection Page 363
  • The Epilogue. Page 380

Romes Conviction; OR A DISCOVERY OF The unsoundness of the maine grounds of Romes Religion.

WHen I look upon this book, I cannot but remember what that blessed Apostle St. Peter foretold should come to pass— There shall be false Teachers a­mongst you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, — and many shall follow their perniciou [...] ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make Merchandize of you, &c. 2 Pet. 1. What feigned words this Author useth whereby to bring in his damnable Heresies, and to make Mer­chandize [Page 2] of souls, besides the book it self, the Epistles, and Epilogue do clearly evince. I shall therefore take a view of them as they lye in my way, and first for the Epistles, one is directed to the Catholikes of England, the o­ther to the Reader; whether he intends to ex­clude his Catholiques from reading his Book, because he distinguisheth from the Reader; or that he mainly designs it for the use of others, (it may be the Protestants of England) whilst he only calls for the Patronage of Catholikes, let the Reader judg. Certainly there are strong endeavours to enlarge the Popes Chair by the seduction of English Protestants, as appears by those many books lately printed in London in the behalf of that Seat.

The former Epistle is divided betwixt mur­muration; and adulation: There are sad com­plaints that truth is grown so loathsome and hate­ful, t [...]at whosoever goeth about to tell it indan­gers displeasure, they despise and maligne what ought most of all to be cherisht and loved, of whom it is said they preferred darkness before light, Joh. 3. Were it the truth indeed that you speak of, I should joyn with you in complaining, and rather entitle your language to a serious and sad complaint, then an unjust murmurati­on: It was once the sad language of the Pro­phet, That truth is fallen in the streets, yea truth faileth, and he that departeth from evil [Page 3] maketh himself a prey, Isai. 59.14.15. And through the privy introduction of Heresies a­mongst us, it hath come to pass that the way of truth is evil spoken of, and the language of the Prophet is in the mouths of thousands of Gods Saints: But blessed be God for this good news from Rome, that Popery is grown so loathsome and hateful, that whosoever goeth about to tell it indangers displeasure; and let me tell you, that I hope that God will raise up Governours in this Land, that with other Protestant Princes shall hate the Whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire, Apoc. 17.16. and that as God hath cast it out from being the publikely profest way in this Nation, so he will root it out of the hearts of people in this Land more and more, though your selves be murmurers, &c. 2 Pet. [...].

2. Your adulation is most palpable: Catho­likes are renowned Catholikes; the best and great­est conquerours, brave champions, great, glori­ous, good conquerours, overcoming themselves, and what not? Their sufferings are many, glorious, Such as bles­sed Saints have passed through. for the truth, for God, and God with them, in them, and for them, God hath just cause to reward them. But alas how ground­less are all these Titles. 1. What great, or how [Page 4] many sufferings have your Catholiques under­gone in Engl [...]nd? Have you been burnt at Stakes, or drawn into close inquisitions, and there tortur'd, rackt, murdered? Have your bodies been mangled and cut in pieces? Have you been gathered into Companies, and then burnt? Have your Wives been ravisht and ript up, and their children tost on Pikes? Have you been whipt to death? Have the chief of you been designed to speedy ruine, as our King and Nobles by you in the Gun-powder Treason? Have forraign Nations been sent for to come and destroy you? yet such usage as this have Protestants had from you. How many Protestants have been murdered by you in the daies of Q. Ma [...]y in this Kingdome? How many thousands have suffered miserable tortures by you in Ireland within these few years? And its more then probable, the slaugh­ters that have been in these late Wars have proceeded from you, time would fail to tell of forraign murders committed by Catholikes: The Duke of Alva boasted that he had slain 36000. Protestants in Belgium only in a very few years: France can give sad instances of very many murders, and yet our English Pa­pists are great sufferers by Protestants, as if Papists might cut our throats lawfully, yet it were unlawful for us, yea grievous persecuti­on to hold their hands. 2. How come your [Page 5] sufferings to be glorious? or how are they for truth? What truth is it you suffer for? Po­pery is a combination of Heresies, old and new; with the Valentinians and Gnosticks you add to holy Scripture a number of Apocriphal Books and Tra­ditions;Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. 1. c. 16, 17, 18, 22, 30. & lib. 2. c. 39. you use Extream Un­ction, you cry out against Mar­riage, and abstain from flesh; you worship the Image of Christ, you make Christs body phantastical, being one thing, and seeming a­nother; with the Ebionites you adore places, you use strange language before the people who cannot understand you; how then can you suffer for truth which you do not hold? but supposing Popery to be the truth, do you suffer for it? Can you name one Papist that is a great sufferer, and that meerly for his Reli­gion? Its true, many of you stand sequestred, and some of your estates are set to sale, but this is only upon a civil account, had you li­ved peaceably out of arms, you had still en­joyed your estates for ought I know, neither are you alone sufferers this way, but have Pro­testants going along with you, you suffer as evil doers, murderers, busibodies, thieves; your oppressions and murders of the Parlia­ments friends whilst you were in power, may put you in mind that you suffer not for Truth [Page 6] or Religion, your sufferings have still been for Treason; such were the sufferings of some of you in Q. Elizabeths, K. James, and King Charls's Raign, and such is your present suf­fering, you being the kindlers of those flames that have burnt down the glorious Towers of this Land: The truth is, your Religion is Treason, and as such might well be rooted out from amongst us, but yet you have not met with such strict measure from us; your Doctrines put us in fear of you, left if we binde you not to good behaviour, we may come to loose our lives by you; we know that in the Popes Books we stand as Heretiques, such as are not to be suffered, and that you are the Popes Slaves ready to execute his Decrees without scruple, you are all Cross-bearers, a­ctors of the Popes pleasure, whether against Prince or people: Its one of Bellarmines Positions,Bellarm. tract. de Pontif. pote­state advers. Guil. Bard. cap. 20. p. 191. Non licet Christiane tollerare Re­gem infidelem aut alios per­vertintem; and he gives this reason why the first Christi­ans rose not up against their Magistrates, Hoc fuit quia tum Christianis de­erant vires temporales: So that if you had pow­er in your hand you would not sit still, and its your weakness that makes you loyal Sub­jects, what we do therefore to you is for our [Page 7] own security, your practises and Doctrine put us upon it, your sufferings are just, and that deprives them of glory and merit, yea and of being imitations of the Saints sufferings; neither are you for all your obstinacy so much as Conquerours, much less the best and great­est conquerours, &c. Had the Spanish Ar­mado, or the Gunpowder Treason taken effect, or had the Irish fury gone on without stop, it may be you would have proclaimed your selves Conquerours, Champions, &c. But blessed be God, that those snares were bro­ken and were escaped: I shall conclude with this prayer, that this cry of persecutions which is made by these late Popish writers with one mouth, be not a Trumpet calling up a discon­tented Party in this and other Nations about us, to execute an Irish fury upon us in Eng­land.

The Epistle to the Reader.

OF many Religions professed in this Land, se­veral Writers (even of approved integrity, and profound learning) have so clearly demon­strated that there is only one true rule, and that the Roman is it, that I cannot but impute the ungeneral acknowledging of the same to prejudice or impatience of labour; to prejudice in them that have read their works, and yet do not believe [Page 8] accordingly; to impatience of labour in others that will not bestow the pains to turn over great volumes.

A. 1. I may well retort your words with a little variation, and say, that of several Re­ligions professed in the Christian world, and in special in this Land (if we may justly call the several opinions and wayes of worship ma­ny Religions) several writers, men of appro­ved integrity and profound learning have most clearly demonstrated, that there is only one ttue, and that not the now Roman, but that which the reformed Churches do hold and maintain is it: So that mens rejecting of it cannot be imputed to any want of truth, evi­dence of this Religion, but to other causes, amongst which your two shall have the leading in my Catalogue. 1. Prejudice in them that have read our works, yet give no credit to them; nor can it be otherwise with you, whilst your faith is pin'd upon others sleeves: Let us speak never so much reason, let our assertions be plain Scripture, yet if your Priests affirm it not, you will not believe us, yea many times when you are convinced of the truth of our assertions, you will not believe them because they are ours, as if a truth might be an error because we hold it: When Augustine had af­firmed that the Jewish Sacraments, though dif­fering in signs, yet were the same in significa­tion [Page 9] with ours, because the Apo­stle saith,Mald. in Joan. 6.11.60.62. they did all eat the same spiritual meat, 1 Cor. 10.3. Mal­donate answers, that he is per­swaded, that if Augustine had li­ved in these times, he would have thought o­therwise, especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of his opinion, and saith fur­ther, that he rather approves of his own opi­nion then of that of Augustine, because this is more contradictious to that of Calvin. How can these men read our books without preju­dice, when they will not receive a truth profes­sed by ancient and eminent Fathers, because we hold it? Sure if we have thoughts of con­vincing these men, we must write for Popery, and then they will become Protestants for fear of joyning with us in our opinions, which are dangerous, meerly because we hold them.

2. Impatience of labour, Papists will not set themselves to read our books, or if they read, not to study them; should I go over these parts where I live, I believe I should not finde one Papist that doth seriously read our books, nor can tell you truly what we hold, they spend their time in other things, and will not be per­swaded to imploy themselves this way.

3. The restraint that is laid upon them that they dare not read them, Pope Pius by his Bull forbad Papists to look into the books of [Page 10] Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, and such like Here­tiques as he calls them, contrary to the pra­ctise of Protestants, who are permitted to read Popish Books; Dr. Reynolds takes notice of this injunction (Reynold. praelec. 3. de lib. Apocr.) and saith, Licet. Pontif. Rom. pru­dentiam admirari qui suis interdicit ne legant, habeant ve librum aliquem haeresiarcharum isto­rum quos appellat; (nempe) si Calvinum, Buce­rum, Bullingerum, inspicere sinerent; viderent quales Medii sint ipsorum Magisiri: Hic in officinis & Bibliothecis nostris cujus legendi per­mittuntur haeresiarchae Pontificii, fortasse nimi­um peccamus in alteram partem. Nay such is the care of these men, that what we hold be not known to their people, that the contro­versies written by their own men, wherein our Doctrines are discovered, and weakly con­futed, are not suffered to walk publikely where the Pope bears sway, its observeable what Sir Edvin Sands writes: Those principal Writers who have imployed themselves wholly in refuting from point to point the Protestants Doctrine and Arguments are so rare in Italy, as by ordinary enquiry not to be found — the controversies of Bellarmine I sought for in Venice in all places; neither that, nor Gregory of Valenza, nor any of such quality could I ever in any such Shop in Ita­ly set eye on, but instead of them an infinite of meer invectives and declamations; yea further, [Page 11] they are not ashamed to censure some of the Holy Writers, as seemingly at least consent­ing with us, as the same Author notes, (Eu­rop. Specul. pag. 156.) The Papists (saith he) are very jealous of S. Pauls Epistles, and think them dangerous, so that some of their Jesuites of late in Italy in solemn Sermons, and other of their favourers elswhere in private communicati­on, commending S. Peter for a worthy Spirit, have censured S. Paul for an hot-headed person, who was transported so with his pangs of zeal, and eagerness beyond all compass in sundry his di­sputes, that there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions, yea he was dangerous to read, as savouring of Heresie in some places, &c. Certainly Papists are much afraid of books whereby the judgment might be informed, lest their Disciples reading them, should with that Author who was set to confute Calvin by our books, be converted to the truth, while they find our arguments solid, and those accusati­ons of Heresies cast on us by their Rabbi's, to be nothing but slander; and therefore most prudently (the children of this world being wiser in their Generation then the children of light) do they confine them to some kinde of books, whereby a kinde of devotion may be excited in them, but little of sound knowledg attained by them, or rather tying them to Beads instead of books, to dumb Pictures in­stead [Page 12] of the Gospel, those lively representers of Jesus Christ, and to railings and invectives in­stead of controversie. When I consider these things, I cannot but pity the common sort of Papists, and withal admire the impudency of their Priests, who while they cry up the peoples freedom of will, yet flatly deny them to have any judgment.

2. I desire to know who these Authors you mention are, and whether they are yet unan­swered? I'm sure there are many learned an­swers extant to the Popish books formerly written, and for the late ones they are not yet grown common, as they come to the know­ledg of learned men, I doubt not but they will receive their answers: In the meane time, (though the meanest of that Tribe that desires to be learned) I have attempted to answer your book, to which I now (depending on the assistance of Gods Spirit) do address my self.

CHAP. I. Of Happiness.

WHen I had considered this Title, and read the Chapter, and compared it with others following, I presently thought of those Locusts that came out of the smoak of the bottomless pit, and of the shape wherein they are represented to us, (Apoc. 9.7.) On their heads were as it were crowns of gold, and they had brest-plates as it were brest-plates of iron, and the sound of their wings was as the sound of charets of many horses running to battel, and they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails, &c. This Chapter is the crown like gold in the head of your Book; one or two of your Chapters following have the faces of men, the countenance of truth, though not without some excrements of the Romish Whore; the rest of your Book is mi­litary, and hath a sound of War; and the tail of it, which is your Epilogue, is the tail of a Scorpion, and hath a sting in it wherewith to hurt the simple. I shall therefore pass over this Chapter, which is Christian, to come to that in the others, which is Popish.

CHAP. II. Of the Way to Happiness.

SEct. 2. you say, God hath appointed the means to mans natural happiness to be acts of his understanding a [...]d will; for by them he may seek and find out God, as he is the Author and End of Nature; by these cleave and unite, and so enjoy him: to mans supernatural happiness, to be a Conformity of Faith to the Church, a Conformity of Hope to our Lords Prayer, and a Conformity of Charity to the Commandments. Reply, 1. Are not the acts of understanding and will means to supernatural happiness? for by them he seeks and finds out God as he is the Author of Grace; by these he cleaves and unites, and so enjoys God his Saviour and Redeemer. When you say, Sect. 3. that by faith a man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace, do not you think that faith is an act of the understanding or will? But you were so big-bellyed with the Church, that you travelled to be delivered of it, and therefore not heeding what you have said, you tell us of a Conformity of Faith to the Church. 2. I confound Means of divers natures, viz. those that are proximate, and have an agency or [Page 15] activity in them, as understanding and will; and those that are remote, and do only dispose and help those proximate and active means towards their intended end. The proximate means of natural and supernatural happiness are the same, only those faculties are helped as to natural happiness by the Books of Nature and the Creatures, as to supernatural happiness by the Word of God contained in the Scrip­tures of the Old and New Testament: See Rom. 1.19, 20. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16.17. John 17.3. 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence, is a novel phrase, not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings; nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved (though that was of greater authority then the present Church is,) but still called their faith to the Word of God; contrary to which, if Paul, or any other Apostles, yea or Angels from Heaven, did preach, the people were to reject them; and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff, as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word, the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying. It was for want of this Con­formity of Faith to the Word of God, that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that tra­velled to Emaus, Luk. 24.25. He saith not, O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church [Page 16] beleeves, (this as I said was no Scripture lan­guage, nor known to primitive Christians;) but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken: And that he may lead them to this Conformi­ty of Faith, he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees (who sat in Moses Chair) whereof there were ma­ny; but 'tis said, Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself, vers. 27. Sir, I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church, that had you been in Christs stead, you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets, writings of Traditi­ons rather then Scripture, if such things then had had a being. But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth re­vealed, as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth? The Truth re­vealed, not the Church revealing it, is the Rule of Faith, as I shall shew hereafter. 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church; for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church, as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it.

2. You urge Scripture to prove your Asser­tion, viz. three Texts, Mat. 28.19. Luke 10.16. Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as [Page 17] mention the word Church; the last mentions the word, but proves not the thing you bring it for.

1. Mat. 28. Going, teach ye all Nations. Ans. I wonder in what word the proof lies. I suppose it's not in Going; and I dare say Teaching proves it not; for then every Teach­er should be a Rule of Faith: besides, the A­postles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others, whether of the Roman or any other Church; but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded, vers. 10. amongst which this was the principal work, to believe on him whom God had sent (Joh. 6.29.) viz. Jesus Christ, to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching, as living stones to be built upon a foundation.

2. Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me. Ans. I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other, which had need of a Com­mentary to make it speak your language. But, 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles, who were Christs mouth in deli­vering the Scriptures, and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost, that they could not err in what they delivered to us. That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law, the same were the Apostles to us in deli­vering the Gospel: So that he that heareth [Page 18] the Apostles, heareth Christ, because it was the word of Christ which they did speak; and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet, whilest w [...] read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd: but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions? 2. As it's un­derstood of ordinary Ministers in the Church, it can only be understood conditionally; He that heareth you (while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God) heareth me: so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine, but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures, which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our be­leeving. Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesom words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ—he is proud—from such withdraw thy self, 1 Tim. 6.3, &c. The Scribes and Pha­risees, who were the Church in a Popish sence, were to be heard, but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair, that is, whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies, but Moses doctrine. Arias Montanus saith, (Elucid in Mat. 23.) Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, Ex prae­scripto legis, id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis. So Origen, (Origen apud Lyran.) Super Cathedram, &c. isie sermo de me est qui bona d [...]ceo & contraria gero. 3. The Text speaks not of the Church, [Page 19] for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church. Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words, It is all one to despise Christ, Rhē. Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Mi­nisters in the Catholique Church, to refuse his doctrine and theirs: And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine, not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates.

3. Mat. 16. you would say, Mat. 18.17. which you read thus, He that heareth not the Church, let him be as an Heathen and a Publi­can. Not to say any thing of your false quo­tation or reading (a fault common throughout your Book) Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms, as they expect, whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans, though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians. But to the Text: How little it makes for your purpose the Context, words themselves will shew: It speaks not of Con­formity of Faith to the Church, but of obedi­ence of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church. Thus Lyranus, Si non aud. Eccles. pr ceptum prae­latos contemnendo. Lyr. in loc. You might as well say, that faith is a confor­mity to our selves, because it's said, If he neglect [Page 20] to hear thee, vers. 15. or to two or three wit­nesses, because it's said, If he neglect to hear them, vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them: Hence it might well follow, that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neigh­bor that is a private man, then upon the Church, because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church: And then Sir, who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of? Sure your selves, and not the Protestants.

In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you, I shall give you one or two plain Scrip­tures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conform­able. The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great, saying, None other things then those w [...]ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass, Acts 26.22. This was his teaching: And for his own faith you have it, Acts 24.14. This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call Heresie, so worship I the God of my fa­thers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets. I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselites writes a­bout this Point: I found that by consent of all Christians, Dr Vane, Lost Sheep return, p. 5, 6. this knowledg of the means to attain to happiness, was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight, nor [Page 21] by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason, nor by reliance upon Authority meerly humane, but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD, revealing unto men things that were otherwise, only known to his infinite Wisdom, —seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles, and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them, as St. Paul saith, Ephes. 2.20. Your self also, when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith, say, that the Truth of God re­vealed and expressed to us, is the Rule of Faith, Chap. 9. If Faith be grounded on Gods Word, and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith, How can the Church be it, seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church, as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it: Can you say properly, that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard, or that the post that bears it is it, or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass? Now you only say, that the Church is the Pil­lar of Truth, i. e. it doth but bear it. If the Church be the Rule of Faith, then I wonder what Rule they have, sure not themselves; and they being men like us, they cannot be without a Rule, no more then they can be Christians, and yet want faith.

3. You say, By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author [Page 22] and End of Grace; by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness, &c. Ans. 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledg, distinct from reliance on Gods mercy and goodness, whereby you give too little to faith, whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects, but to rely upon that merciful and good pro­mise of God, whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us: By this receiving is faith expressed, John 1.12. If faith be no more but bare knowledg, then Devils, yea Reprobates may have true faith, yea and may hope in Gods mercy, for faith is the foun­dation of sound hope. Your Vasquez is more ingenious then most of you, for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or histo­rical faith,Vasq. in 1. 2. To. 2. disp. 209. c. 1. & 4. which he calls Ca­tholike, there is also a peculiar faith, whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved. And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention, and not much differing from it, only that as hope looks at the thing promised, so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise, though Vas­quez saith the same of faith that you of hope, —Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit, &c. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet; Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam [Page 23] qui cum tribuant fideli spem & fiduciam circa electionem grati­am & salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant. Rivet. sum. Cont. Tract. 4. q. 16. ss. 6. But as you cast faith here below it self, so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above it self, making it the soul of faith.

CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths, Hopes, and Charities.

IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages. 1. You say, The means of habitual and actual divine (Faith, Hope and Charity) is the Tradition of the Church. Ans. 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church, as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it, then I shall easily consent to you; for it is no more then the Apostle himself asserts when he saith, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10.17. But 2. If you mean the Churches opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities, as they are called by you, then I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end; the [Page 24] Scripture it self, without your additions, being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces: And this you are not altogether unconvinced of, as appears by your Preachers, who in their Sermons do ground their discour­ses upon Texts of Scriptures, and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith, hope, &c.

2. You say, St Paul—gives to Charity the preeminence: And not undeservedly; for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope, &c. both they—being (out of her company) as dead bodies without life or motion, &c. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures, viz. 1 Cor. 13.13. and James 2.26. For the first, I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity, but upon the Apostles reason (not yours,) which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail: Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss, Primasius, Augustine, and the generality of Expositors: In presenti tria haec, Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13. in futuro sola charitas permanebit; Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit. But you say, It's the Soul of Faith, &c. This I deny: For, 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith, yea that faith that justifies, and is joyned with hope and charity, 1 Cor. 13.13. may be without charity; charity therefore [Page 25] cannot be the soul of faith; for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body, and yet that body remain a true living humane body. 2. The Apostle saith, that faith without works is dead, as the body without the soul; yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith, whereby it hath life and motion. Your Rhemists assert it, that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works, and thereupon conclude,Rhē. Annot. on Luke 23.43. that Faith, hope, &c. will be suf­ficient, and good works not requi­red, where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had. Now can you say, that his faith was without life and motion? It had so much life and motion, that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession. Now if the body move, it hath the soul in it, be its motion never so little, or of so short continuance. 3. Faith is before Charity, and that not only by priority of nature, but of agency or activity: Faith is a leading grace. Men first believe to righteous­ness, and then make confession to Salvation. Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the pro­mise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Com­mandments. This is clearly taught by our Sa­viour, Luke 7.47. as Salmeron, Tolet, Stella, and others, even Papists, acknowledg. Now in Na­ture [Page 26] the Soul precedes the body in its activity. 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith, they should be intrinsecal to faith, for the form is not out of the matter, nor the soul out of the body: but so they are not. Hence 'tis that some learned men call charity an ex­ternal form of faith, and other virtues; and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath, making the sence this, Even as the want of breath argues a dead body, so the want of works a dead faith. Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan, Estius in Jam. 2.26. who as he saith was moved to it by this rea­son, because works are not the form of faith, but certain concomitant effects; but the soul is the form of the body. Azo­rius clearly adheres to Cajetan, Azor. instit. Moral. lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrin­secal form of faith, or other vir­tues, because they have their pro­per fruit, and produce works without charity; only he calls it an extrinsecal form, which will never prove it to be the soul of them.Par. in loc. Pareus doth well observe for this purpose, that it's not said, [...], but, [...], not without soul, but without spirit or breath. Ber­nard speaks most suitably to this Exposition, Sicut corporis vitam, &c. As we know the life of the body by motion, so the life of faith by [Page 27] good works. If this Exposition please not, I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins; saith he,Perkins on Galat. 5.6. Here is a false composition of the words; Faith that is without works is dead, is true; but to say, Faith is dead without works (as though they gave life to faith) is false. To conclude; Though we de­ny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith, yet we assert them to be the in­separable concomitants of a true faith: so that as good works cannot be without faith, so neither can faith be without good works. As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it, so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it; these are its two vital acts, that is internal, this is faith's external act, neither of which can a living faith not exercise.

CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith.

IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion, and a leading Article in the Creed, to whom you are so liberal, that you leave little to Christ or his Father. It's the observation of one of your [Page 28] own men, that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady: so the Name of God into the name of Church, and the Attributes of God are pre­dicated of the Church, as here, Infallibility, an­swering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist. That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he is as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thes. 2.4.

But to your Chapter. You might have done well (seeing the Church must come in first) to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of, before you tell us of her Infalli­bility; as, whether it be the Church virtual or representative, or essential: did I know which you meant, I could speedilier answer you; but seeing I do not, I shall shew the fallibility of each of them, lest I should happen to miss of you. 1. Then; Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown. Lyra com­menting on the words of Christ, Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, Lyran. ibid. A ve­râ fide subvertendo-scil. saith, Ex quo patet, &c. Whereby it is evident that this Church (which hath this promise) doth not consist in men of ec­clesiastical or secular power or dignity, because many Princes and Popes (summi pontifices) and others inferior have been found to apostatize from [Page 29] the Faith; wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg, and confession of faith and truth. Some of your Popes have been de­posed for Heresie; as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil; Concil. Basil Ses. 34. apud Binnium. Hart Answ. to Reynolds, p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned, and that justly, saith Hart in his An­swer to learned Reynolds: Inno­centius was little better then an Heretique, who held, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children. Nor was he alone in this Heresie, for it continued in the Church 600 years, as Maldonat observes.Maldon, in Joan 6. Concil. Trid. ses. 21. Can. 4 ap. Bin. Now that it was an Heresie, ap­pears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent. If you say the Pope taught it not; I answer, How then durst the Church be­lieve it, and for so long a time? whereas the faith of the members must be con­formable to the belief of the Churches Head: Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessa­ry truth? It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infect­ed. 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Pri­viledg of the Church representative, or a Ge­neral Councel; for according to Papists it hath [Page 30] no infallibility in it self, but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope, which I have shewed to be a Chimaera. Azorius tells us,Azor. iustit. Moral. part. 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it's agreed upon by all Catholikes, that a General Coun­cel may err in faith and manners, if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome: And he instances in the Council of Ariminum, of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius; The Council of Constantinople, of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor. This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive,Lorin. in Act. 15.7. p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith, Wise or learned men are to be consulted with, but all the in­fallibility is in him alone. Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Coun­cil the Pope should be infallible, and out of it should be as other men. But Councils call­ed and confirmed by Popes, have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible. The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius, and had the Popes Legates sitting in it, yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session, That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council. This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople, which notwith­standing was called by John the 24. and con­firmed by Martin the 5, two Popes. 3. In­fallibility [Page 31] is not subjected in the body of the faithful: for it's a clear truth, which Dr Feat­ly observed, Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church, they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church. In­deed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world, it's not possible that all should err, for then Christ should want a Church: but for parti­cular Churches, it's most evident they are sub­ject unto error; Papists profess it openly of other Churches, and sometimes confess it of the Roman. The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church, and there was great need so to do. Cassander ingeniously ac­knowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church,Cassand. Cons. Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline, and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine; and further saith, that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis er­roribus & vitiis, with her many errors and vices. From all this it's most infallibly true, that the Roman in none of their Considera­tions is infallible. I will now come to examine his Arguments.

Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition, say­ing, Supposing it for granted, that Christs know­ledg of Gods revealed Truth, and his power to [Page 32] convey the same to belief, raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians; it can­not in reason be denyed, he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles, and in them to the succeeding Churches (as appears by his own words, Joh. 15. Joh. 20.) but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians: whence it follows, that all matters of Belief (as well other Points as Scrip­ture) are to be taken up upon her account and credit; and that whatsoever comes upon any other score, is to be reputed Apocryphal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief. In answer hereunto I will first consider the Sup­position, and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them. There are divers things herein questionable, if not simply false. 1. 'Tis said, Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief. Ans. If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam, the matter of his preaching, viz. the Scripture or Word of God; then it's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith, i. e. that which he taught and disco­vered to them was the Rule of Faith: but if you understand it of his transient preaching, as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith (for so your words seem to im­port,) it's false; for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith, but did [Page 33] onely reveal that rule of Faith which was be­fore laid, and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Hence it was, that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures, John 5.39. and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures, Luk. 24.25.26, 27, 44. &c. Luk. 4.16. and that for this end, as Beda notes, that he might ma­nifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets,Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegi­ous conceit, that there was one God of the Old, another of the New Testa­ment. Yea further, Thus did the Apostles af­ter him, Act. 26.22. they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law, and Psalms, and Prophets. 2. 'Tis said—was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian [...]. Ans. And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians? Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith, and we another? If there be one Faith, why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians? why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians, and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule? In eadem regu­lâ fidei; Phil. 3.16.Gloss. interl. If there were one rule, doth that blessing, Gal. 6.16. extend only to the Primitive Churches, and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked? The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule, and [Page 34] of the Apostles another, but both reflect up­on, and explain one and the same rule of Faith. 3. Whereas you say, Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth, and his power to convey the same to belief, raised his preaching, &c. Pon might have done well to have explained what know­ledg and what power this is you speak of, which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propound­ing a rule of Faith: I conceive its requisite (1.) that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief; for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact, containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief; hence it will follow, the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith. This universa­lity of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention, viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you. Here is first an universal knowledg, and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg. 2. That this knowledg be most cer­tain and infallible; no teaching can be a rule of belief, but that which is grounded on in­fallible knowledg: conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion, not of Faith: Hence is that expression, Joh. 19.35. He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he know­eth that he saith true, that ye might believe. Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth, either 1. from the Divine Nature in [Page 35] the person: Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible; and for this cause it is that ma­ny learned Papists do deny, that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church, and Azorius tells us, that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines, that Faith was ultimately resol­ved into God,Inter Cathol. tres sunt opiniones, una est asse­rentium primam rati­onem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvi­tur esse Deum reve­lantem quae sunt fidei; Deus enim est prima & summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest, ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit. Haec opinio quam sequitur Caje­tanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta. Azor. instit. Moral. parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the re­vealer of the objects of Faith, and that upon this account, because he could neither de­ceive, nor be deceived, being the prime and chief Verity, and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot de­ceive; and for this reason he rejects Du­rand, Scotus, Gabriel, and Almain, for con­cluding that the autho­rity of the Church is the reason of our be­lief of the things of Faith. 2. From imme­diate inspiration of the Spirit. Thus the Apo­stles were immediate­ly inspired; so that [Page 36] in their delivering of the truth, they could nei­ther fallere nec falli, neither deceive, nor be deceived; this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter, 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.21. The later of whom perswades us, to give heed to the word of God, because the holy pen­men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost.

Again, for power which you leave unex­plained, it may be observed, that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belong­ing to Christ. 1. Authoritative, which is his designation or appointment hereunto; this may be understood by that text you cite, As my Father sent me, &c. 2. Qualitative or dis­positive, this is Christs [...] the other is his [...]; the one is his power, the other his authority. Again, this power is exercised two wayes: 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him: Thus its said, All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you, Joh. 15.15. This is his outward teaching. 2. By commanding the heart to believe, and con­sent to those truths he reveals; this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal. 110. Thy peo­ple shall be willing in the day of thy power. Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth, by stamping upon it a divine authority & Majesty, and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it: This way doth Christ exercise his power in [Page 37] bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures, as the rule of its belief.

2. I proceed now to your consequence: He having communicated his said knowledg and pow­er to the Apostles, and in them to the succeeding Churches— but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians. Ans. 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches, but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother, or give other Churches liberty to claim equal pri­viledges with her; whilst you talk of Churches, you neglect construction, and come in with a She may challenge. 2. 'Tis false, that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians, as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them. For 1. There is no need of another rule for them, the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christi­ans, and fully sufficient and perfect, as your self confess: If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule, i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule, what needs another rule? or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height? or have greater ex­tent then that which is perfect? the perfection of Christs rule shews, that nothing can be added to it: If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians, but not for after Christians, I de­sire to know the ground of this distinction, for I am ignorant of it. 2. The succeeding Church [Page 38] hath not communicated to her the same know­ledg and power that Christ had, her knowledg is not universal; there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy, an addition of supposed truths, which the former Age believed not. Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds, as necessary to be believed unto Salvation, which formerly were not so imposed, if once thought of; sure then the Church before the Trent Council, either knew not the whole revealed will of God, and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief, or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit. Again, her knowledg is not infallible, as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter, the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed: Be­sides this, it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before; the same may be said of power, its not the same with Christ they want both his power and au­thority, as I have explained them: Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach, be the same that Jesus Christ and his A­postles preached and taught, then it is a rule of Faith to us; but thus, its not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule, but its identity with the Scriptures, the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching. Thus the assertion is [Page 39] true, otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule, as I have al­ready shewed; and this is my Antagonists meaning, as appears by his next words, All matters of Faith, as well other points as Scripture, are to be taken up upon her account, &c.

2. Consequence, or rather the first conse­quence arising from that, is in these words: Whence it follows, pag. 13. that all matters of belief, as well other points as Scripture, are to be taken up upon her account and credit. Ans. 1. If by other points, you un­derstand other points of Faith then are con­tained in Scripture, you take that for granted which is notoriously false, viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect, and insufficient to be a rule of Faith, and this is most false. For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds, which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them, that was all contained in Scripture; and more was not im­posed as necessary to be believed to Salvation: I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture, even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions; but as it contains more then Scripture, so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it; so that either their Faith was imperfect, having an imperfect [Page 40] foundation, or yours is redundant transgresse­ing the bounds of a right and ancient rule. 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts, Act 26.22. with chap. 20.27.Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation, and yet preached no­thing but what the Scriptures did contain.

Ans. 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and that other fundamental points besides this [The Scriptures are the word of God] are the truths of God, and to be believed, meerly because the Church asserts it; so that the Churches affir­mation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths (as I suppose you mean) this I deny: For, 1. The Scriptures con­tain in themselves arguments that may con­vince a true Christian, that they are the Word of God: Many notes are given by Protestants, which to you pulling them in pieces, and view­ing them singly, seem weak; which conjunc­tim, or all together, have much strength in them. He that reads the Scriptures with a spi­ritually enlightened mind, cannot but confess, that never meer man spake like the Holy Wri­ters, and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare, but God only. 2. Upon what account was this [Page 41] truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ? they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit, for your Authors hold, that its on­ly in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to de­fine which are the Scriptures, and for this time there was no such a Sinod called. The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture, was that of Laodicea, held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Car­thage, both Provincial Sinods only, though af­terwards confirmed in a General Council. 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth, that the Scriptures are the Word of God: Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists, that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations, or Enthusiasms; I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues, or that they had either visions or dreams; nor do I think that you will say, that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture, meerly upon the supposal of former practise, that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical, for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact, in which 'tis confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations: There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils, like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Coun­cil, [Page 42] whereby he maintained his Supremacy; I therefore suppose that your judgment must be, that your Church assisted by the Spirit, doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof. Hence 'tis that Coun­cils proceed by argument and reason, and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree. Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account, that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word, why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes? and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word, upon the same ac­count that the Church takes up this beliefe, though withal he doth, and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church, or Pastors of it, as that which hath a Priority, and is an occasion of Christians pri­vate judgment, and a confirmation of it; yet as I hinted before, it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves, be­ing taught of God, Joh. 6.45. which is for the discovery of divine objects, as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural: This Bellarmine confesseth; say­ing,Bellar. de lu­mine fid. Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes ho­mines, &c. As all men are in­dued with a certain natural light, whereby they understand the first [Page 43] principles to be true, without labour, without ar­guments, nor is there any that demands rea­sons and arguments when those principles are propounded: So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light, do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith, though difficult, and exceeding reason to be most true. Origen in his Book [...], where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments,Origen. lib. 4. [...], cap. 1. as Prote­stants do, hath a notable speech to this purpose; Si quis cum omni ju­dicio, &c. If any one doth judici­ously, and with that reverence that is meet consi­der of the Sacred Writ while he reads, and dili­gently searcheth into it, most certainly (having his minde and senses affected with some divine in­spiration) he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men, but of God, and of him­selfe, perceives (ex semetipso sentiet) that these books are written not by humane art, or mor­tal eloquence, but by the hand of God. Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians, of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God, meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so, but upon other account; this overthrows your Position. What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith, that they are not taken up [Page 44] meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit, and account, but rather because God hath re­vealed them in his Word, wherein they are therefore written, that we might have a sure argument for our Faith. But I come to your next inference.

2 Consequence or Conclusion: Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocri­phal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith. Magna Diana Romanorum, Great is your Roman Goddess, but its only with the Shrine­makers of Rome; your conclusion is very high, but notoriously false. For 1. Its not the Chur­ches definition that makes any book Apocri­phal, but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them; so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles (the Sub­jects of divine inspiration) that is certainly A­pocriphal, whether the Church receive them or not. Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal, which the Coun­cil of Trent declared to be Canonical; the A­postle saith, All Scripture is by di­vine inspiration; 2 Tim. 3.16. the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called [...], 2 Pet. 1.19. read Luke 24.27. 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Ca­non of Scripture; now will you say, that till that time the books of Scripture were [Page 45] Apocriphal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith. 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God, without the testi­mony of the Church (the person for the pre­sent being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points) this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned. Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit,Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27. Ʋbi deficit humana Doctrina. 4. When the Thes­salonians received the Apostles Doctrine, not as the word of men, but as the Word of God,Greg. An­alus fid. lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith? Your Gregory of Valence confesseth, Multa sunt, &c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine, which of themselves, can procure to themselves credit and authority. Lastly, the Greek Church, with the reformed Churches, receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed, because consonant to Gods Word, not because delivered by your Roman Diana; are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal, and no way appertain­ing to the obligation of Faith? Sure you can­not be so impudent as to assert it, though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little.

For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments, I shall endeavour to an­swer [Page 46] them, for the present I understand not what they should prove, and therefore dis­miss them without any answer.

In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility, as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith, and you urge divers Arguments, which I now come to examine and answer.

Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrabi­lity, whereby to convey the truth safely, and with­out danger of miscarrying, by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth, against igno­rance—error—darkness—weakness. For this you urge divers Texts. In these words, though they seem an intention of but one argument, yet there are these two, viz. 1. If the Church can­not convey truth safely, and without danger of miscarrying, but by the gift of inerrability, then Christ hath endowed her with it: But she cannot convey truth safely, and without danger of mis­carrying, but by the gift of inerrability: Ergo, &c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth, viz. ignorance, darkness, er­ror, and weakness, then hath he endowed her with inerrability; but he hath so armed her: Ergo, &c. To these in order.

Ans. First, to the first I answer: 1. By de­nying the consequence of the major Propositi­on, the reason of my denial is this, Christ hath not made the Church the principal, much [Page 47] less the only means of conveying truth safely. Though yoor Pope, Cardinals, Jesuites, Priests, yea General Councils should err, yet there re­mains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying, that is the Scriptures, 2 Pet. 1.19. Beda paraphrasing upon those words, In a dark place, Beda apud Lyran. hath this note, In hujus saeculi nocte, &c. In the night of this world full of temp­tations, vices and errors, where there is hardly one to be found without error, against which this light is necessary. So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations, vi­ces, errors, in the judgment of this venerable Author. It may be you will object, that infal­libility is necessary for the Church, that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is: But I deny this to be true. For 1. It cannot be denied, but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures, Rom. 3.2. yet by the leaven of their Doctors, the Pharisees, the Commandments of God were transgres­sed, Matth. 23.5. Yea, it evidenceth their errability, that they mistook the sense of the Law, and when Christ came,Mariana tract. pro e­dit. vulgát. cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally op­pose and resist him; and yet I be­lieve the Scriptures, yea I had al­most said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from [Page 48] miscarrying. Your Authors confess of the He­brew text, that there is no substantial error in it. 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord, unknown to any, till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah, 2 King. 22.8. Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church, yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them, whilest the error of the Chiliasts, and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to re­ceive the Eucharist, remained in the Church, which was for some 100. of years, yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarry­ing. The truth is, Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books, and that concurring, any means that God useth may suffice, though they were Turks and Hea­thens that had the keeping of them.

2. I answer by denying your Minor, and say, the Church may convey the truth with­out the gift of inerrability bestowed on her, as well as other Churches subject to errour have done. Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds, the Commandments, and Scriptures, though we deny you to be sound members of the Catho­like Church: We admire and adore Gods pro­vidence, not your inerrability; had not a Di­vine [Page 49] hand overawed you, I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done, whose writings you have notori­ously corrupted and falsified, as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Wri­ters.

2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I an­swer by distinction, viz. a subject, and particu­larly the Church, may be armed against igno­rance, darkness, error, and weakness, either in regard of hurts, blows, and lesser foils, or in re­gard of total ruine, or a final overthrow; or if you will, these may be considered either as to­tal, or only partial: It's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance, darkness, er­ror and weakness, but from inferiour degrees hereof, that can prove infallibility in the sub­ject so exempted. So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils, so as they cannot at all hurt her, then your Argu­ment is good, but this exemption I utterly de­ny: Christ hath only so far armed his Church, (whilst Militant) against these, that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance, and obstinate error, the forerunners of ruine can­not happen to the Church, but lesser degrees of these may. This is confessed by your own Authors, of each of these 1. Ig­norance. Lombard saith,Lomb. l. 4. dist. 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium, [Page 50] &c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church, which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance. 2. Dark­ness;Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith, Circa illa, &c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly, its not necessary that the Churches judg­ment be alwayes certain. Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness. 3. Error. Thus Picus saith, Fieri potest, &c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural, Franc Pi­cus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour, so that may diffuse into the body unsound opini­ons. Stapl. Re­lect. c. 1. q. 4. Art. 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth, That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places, because great men may not only doubt, but err in some points of Doctrine, and yet the true Church remain with them. 4. Weak­ness. Thus Turrecrema saith, Quamvìs ecclesia, Turrecr. sum. d. Ec­cles. 2. c. 112. &c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority, yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men, some­thing through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine. Thus it's con­fest, that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies. But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause, let us see [Page 51] whether it speak for you.

1. Against Ignorance, you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven. Ans. 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text, all that they con­clude from it is this, That to the Apostles, and such as have the guiding and teaching of others, deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is gi­ven, then to the common people, as also to Christi­ans generally, that which was not given to the ob­stinate Jewes; which makes nothing from a to­tal exemption of them from ignorance, if it did, much more would that place of St. John (1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 'tis said, The anoint­ing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, &c.) Prove such an exemption for private Christians, and so lay a foundation for their in­fallibilitie, which would derogate from the Ho­nour of his Holiness of Rome. 2. It is most evi­dent, that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them, and that of such things as were needful to be known (See Mark 9.31.32. Luk. 9.45. Joh. 12.16.) viz. the Death and Resurrecti­on of Christ, &c.

2. Aagainst Darkness, you urge Matth. 6. but 'tis Matth. 5.14. You are the light of the [Page 52] world. Ans. 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light, that they have no darkness in them, you are no better then a blasphemer; for it's said of God (and cannot be spoken of any other) God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, 1 J [...]h. 1.5.Aug. in Ps. 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place, compares the Church to the Moon, which you know hath her dark spots, though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared, be altogether transpa­rent and bright. 3. They are called a light, not so much in regard of their inward qualification,Lyran. in Mat. 5.14. as of their office, which is to instruct, and direct others in their way, as Gre­gory, Burgensis, and Cyran [...]s note. 4. Learned Cameron conceives, that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles, which is probable, because our Saviour speak to them, as related to an A­postolical or Universal charge; and thus it proves nothing for your present Church. Last­ly, I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability, your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie, which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence. But then why did you not bring in the next words?Ro. 17.3. A City set on a Hill, which would more directly, with a little variation of number, have pointed at your Ho­ly [Page 53] Mother on her seven-headed Beast.

3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth, to remain with you for ever: And Isa. 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken. To your former I answer, it makes nothing for you, for it's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth, to lead into truth, and another thing to have it making us infallible. I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites, but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth, yet are not infallible: Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth, and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul­ruining error, yet who would say they are in­fallible. It's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists, to say, That the Spirit for many o­ther causes is given to divers private men, and to all good men to sanctification; but to teach all truth, and to preserve in truth, and from error, he is promised and performed only to the Church, and the chief Governour and General Councils there­of. The contrary to this is affirm­ed by themselves in another place,Joh. 17.17. saying; Christ prayeth that the A­postles, their Successors, and all that shall be of their belief, may be sanctified in truth, i. e. may have the Spirit of truth, and be freed from error. The Spirit then may be had, and yet inerrability be wanting to a person. To your other Text: It seems to be put in to [Page 54] make up a number of Texts, not of Proofs; I believe you neither considered Text nor Con­text when you brought it in. I profess, I can­not see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie, it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations, and there­fore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness, which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition.

4. Against Weakness, you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth: And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her. To the former I answer. 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of, it is not the Roman, but the Church of Ephesus, where Timothy go­verned, which by your own confessions might err. 2. The words may be refer'd to what fol­lows: It's not said expresly, She is the Pillar, &c. as you abusively read it. Cameron doth refer them to the next verse, and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd,Verba ista (Columna &c.) sunt conjungen­da cum sequentibus: ratio, 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca & suspensa si lega­mus,— Domus Dei co­lumna, & fundamen­tum veritatis & sine controversia, &c. est [...] non coherent ista. 2, Non solet A­postolus novi Argu­menti tractionem in­cho [...]re à conjunctione. 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos, quum quis profitetur se traditurum praeci­pua dogmata Religio­nis, ut illud pronunciat columnam esse & fun­damentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est: Et so­lent Apostoli uti phra­sibus receptis in ecclesi­a judaica, sed accom­modatis ad rem quam agunt. Cameto. shewing amongst o­ther things, that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use, when they delivered some main and princi­pal points of Faith. [Page 55] And hereunto the A­postle Paul, who was well versed in the cu­stomes of the Jewish Rabbies, being now to deliver the main points of our Faith con­cerning Jesus Christ might well allude. If we take it thus, it's not the Church, but the truth it self, especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses. Thus Irenaeus saith, That the Gospel which was preached by the A­postles, was afterwards by the will of God deli­vered to us in writing, (Fundamentum & co­lumnam fidei nostrae futurum) that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith. 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church,Iten. advers. haeres. lib. 3. c. 1. init. yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and conti­nued in the Church; if God remove his Word from a Church, as from the Churches of Asia, [Page 56] &c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth. 2. In regard of true Believe­ers who are truly the house of the living God, and adhere to the Word of God, others are not, De compage domus, they are not of the House. Augustine hath a nota­ble saying to this purpose,Aug. prae­fat. in Ps. 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints, such whose names are written in heaven, stedfast ones, hear (saith he) and acknowledg that this Church in the Apo­stolical Epistles is called a foundation. 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers, not succeeding Churches (unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter) the Apostle speaks in the Present tense. The authoritie of the Primi­tive Church is greater then of the present Churches. There is a clear testimonie, and much to our present purpose, in your Lovain Doctor Driedo, Dried. lib. de dogm. vari [...]s. who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Do­ctrines of Faith, then the present Church, be­cause of the Apostles qui [...]ccl­siae illius columneae, Gersom de vita spiri­tuali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church, were eye­witnesses of that which they taught. Thus Gersom (expound­ing that Speech of Augustine, [Page 57] you much glory in non crederem Evangelio, and I had not believed the Gospel, unless the au­thority of the Church had compelled me there­to) saith he, taking Church there for the Pri­mitive Congregation of the faithful, who saw and heard Christ, and were his witnesses. Sup­pose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense, what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat? Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the A­tostles, nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs. Lastly, supposing it were meant of the present Churches, particularly of the Roman: It's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth, doth not prove it's infallibilitie: James, Cephas, Gal. 2.9. and John were Pillars, yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible? Gersom is by one call'd, Constantiensis Concilii columnam, a Pillar of the Council of Constance, yet he was not thought infallible. All that can be proved from these titles is this, that God makes use of the Church (both Pastors and faithful people according to their places) to hold forth and preserve the truth, which is ac­complishhd in every particular Church, so long as it continues a true Church of Christ, but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church, or from erring. Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia, and of [Page 58] Rome, that while they continued true Churches of Christ, they held forth and preserved Gods truth; but neither this, nor those were exempt from erring. Adam in the state of Innocen­cie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth, and goodness, holiness, and righteousness; yet Adam was created with a posse errare, a possibilitie of erring, as we know by woful experience.

Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer. 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers. Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25.Aug. de unit. ec­cles. c. 18. See Ly­ran. These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell. There will be a number of true Believers, and these visible, let the Devil and his In­struments do what they can. 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecuti­ons and sins, and will you say that the mem­bers of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin, the contrarie is undeniable.

3. Its one thing for Hell Gates to wound us, and cause us to shrink, another thing to over­come us utterly; our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds, such weakness was in Pe­ter, and the rest of the Apostles, who denied or forsook Christ; such weakness was in your Pope Liberius, when he subscribed to the A­rian Heresie: Though God doth alwayes [Page 59] strengthen his servants against total Apostacie. 4. Tell me Sir, suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints per­severance? would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth, or fall into the least sin?

3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence, Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world. Ans. 1. This promise is made to all the A­postles and their Successors;Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any, it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome, which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears. 2. Its made to the Successors of the Apostles, as im­ployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing; and therefore if it proved in­fallibilitie, the Pope must part with a privi­ledg you ascribe only to him. 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23. where Christ promiseth his presence, and abode with private Christians, even such as love him, and keep his word, whom you account not unerrable. 4. There are three things contained in this promise, a threefold effect of Christs pre­sence, with the successes of the Apostles. 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties. Thus Chrysostome saith, Quia magna eis injunxerat, &c because [Page 60] he had laid a great task upon them, to comfort them he saith, Chrysost. Hom. 91. in Matth. [Behold I am with you, &c.] q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult, I will be with you, who make all things light. 2. His protection of them, that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world, Ephes. 4.11.12.13.14. 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction; I say ordinarie, to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumi­nation which the Apostles had, and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written, and the Churches first founded, but is ceased with them; so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading, meditation, &c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto: Here­upon your inferences fall to the ground, in that you say, Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings, or that he wanted fi­delity to make good his word. Christs power is larger then his will or promise, and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised: Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie; whatsoever he hath promised, he will perform it to his Church, but he never promised her inerrabi­litie, she is not therefore to expect it from him.

4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words, The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be [Page 61] built on, is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie; ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain, if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible? The Argument is reducible to this form; That which Divine Faith doth build up­on must be certain and infallible (else Faith it self could not be certain) but it's the Church that [...]ivine Faith doth build upon, therefore the Church must be certain and infallible. Your ma­jor I easily grant, but deny your minor Propo­sition, which being only questionable, you should have brought some proof for it, as well as for the other, which no man doubts of; but it hath been observed to be the practise of Je­suites; Probare concessa, leviter pertransire du­bitata, whom you are pleased to imitate: The reasons of my denial are these. 1. Its the pri­viledg of the Word of God written, or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith. These things are written that ye might believe, Joh. 20. ult. i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation, revelations, or traditions, being more uncer­tain, and easily pretended where they have no existence or being. Compare with this, 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie, that is, In quo magis confirmetur au­ditor; whereby the hearer may be more confirmed. So that the word is more sure, and that to us, [Page 62] inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed. Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures, that therein they might finde what they have to believe, Joh. 5.39. So doth the Prophet, Isa. 8.20. and Abraham in the parable, Luk. 16.29. which your Lyranus comments thus upon,Lyran. in Luk. 1 is. 29. Habent Moysen, &c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions, and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith, and these suffice to salvation; therefore it follows, let them hear them. This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith, Act. 26.22.Act. 17.10.11. By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preach­ing, and for its conformity there­to,Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief, 'tis said; therefore many of them believed, i. e. because of the testi­mony of the Scriptures: So that we may truly say, that if the Apostles had preach­ed any thing beside, or contrary to Scripture, the Bereans would not have believed their preaching, and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein, Gal. 1.8.9. On which Text Augustine hath this note, Qui praeter—greditur, Aug. apud Lyran. in &c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith, doth not walk in the way, but de­parts from it—Neither would the Apostle himself [Page 63] have us found our hope on him, but on that truth which he declared: That which was spoken by him was better, then he by whom it was spoken. From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that. 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith: And 2. That faith is not re­solved into persons preaching the truth, but in­to the truth preached by them, contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition. 2. Ans. Supposing it true, that the Church must be the ground of Faith; yet I affirme that this is not yours, or any other present Church, but only the Primitive Church, which as I have al­ready shewed, is of greater authority then the present Church, which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church, or that Church which contains the Prophets, Apostles, &c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foun­dation of the Apostles and Prophets, whose te­stimony, because of their visible converse with God and Christ, becomes efficax ad credendum, effectual for the grounding of Faith. Its ob­serveable, that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man, that his Brethren had a pre­sent Church to hearken to, yet he only menti­ons Moses and the Prophets. 2. I affirm, that if your Church be a foundation of Faith, yet this would not be a Divine, but only an hu­mane Faith. And indeed this is the very rea­son why your Doctors commonly held, that [Page 64] Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth (as Azorius observes) be­cause Divine Faith must be resolved into a Di­vine testimony, which the testimony of the Church is not, and they prove it by divers ar­guments, especially by foure, which I have transcribed out of Azorius: And though he do not altogether ad­here to their opinion,Ratio: 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est qui­dem divinum sed par­ticipatione non per se & sua naturâ: at Dei testimonium est divi­num per se & suâ na­turâ, & fides divina resolvi debet in testi­monium quod sit per se non autem partici­patione divinum. 2. Quae sunt fidei reve­latione Divinâ, non naturae lumine sunt patefacta, at Deus est qui revelat ac pan­dit res fidei, non ec­clesia. 3. In Angelis, Prophetis, Apostolis & caeteris Librorum Ca­nanicorum Scriptori­bus fides non resolve­bat, in ecclesiae testimo­nium, sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem: at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa. Ergo in eandem ra­tionem credendi reduci­tur. 4. Quamvis eccle­sia sit testis—non tamen Condit aliquem articu­lum fidei sed declarat & explicat quae sunt fidei, &c. Azor. Instit. Moral. Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church; yet he ac­knowledges that it's ex accidenti, by accident, that our Faith is resol­ved into the Churches authority. Again: 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach, that it's onely an humane Faith, whereby we be­lieve, that this, or the other Pope is Peters Successor, and Christs Vicar on earth, because it depends on this Pro­position, that this, or the other Pope, is or­derly and Canonically chosen to the Pope­dome, which is also ob­jected [Page 65] against Gene­ral Councils. Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith, when its onely an humane Faith, whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor. Becanus clearly re­solves, That if any stay in the resolution of the Church, and as­cend not to the Scrip­ture his assent, who be­lieves, because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith, but of an other inferiour order, viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith, and saith, is only con­ceived by the Churches testimony, which in­deed is nothing else but an human faith, for its such a Faith whereby we believe one, that may both be deceived himself, and may de­ceive us, although we believe that he will not deceive us.Sot. lib. 2. de Nat. & grat. c. 7. Hereup­on Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane; than which, what can be more contradictory [Page 66] to your assertion. 3. Ans. I grant that the te­stimony of the Church is an external motive to belief, as is also consent of people, con­formitie of the things believed to natural light, accomplishment of Prophecies, Miracles, Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth, &c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief, not the formal cause of it; so the preaching of Godly Ministers, is a means whereby men are brought to believe, yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them, and they infallible: It is the Church by which (as a means) not for which (as the formal ground) we do be­lieve.

Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature,5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words, Look on the Churches composure and nature, and her strength will appear yet more, by reason she is framed, and made up of men, Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world, Act. 1. who by this means being of several Nations, Ps. 11. different tempers and interests, Luk. 24. neither could, nor can meet, or conspire to cheat themselves or posteritie with a lie. Which may be reduced to this Syl­logism; If the Church be composed of men of se­veral Nations, different tempers and interests, then it's infallible; but it is so composed, &c. therefore infallible. A. To your minor I shall [Page 67] onlie say, that if I were not otherwayes per­swaded to believe it, then by your proofs of it, which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bot­tle of Hey, I should doubt of the truth of it: Sure you intended your proofs for your Ro­mish Catholiques, who you know read not Scripture: But what needs all this ado, this sensless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men, men of seve­ral Nations, different tempers and interests. But leaving this for your bruitish admirers to ruminate on, I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition, which is this, That society that is framed, and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world, &c. is infallible. What Schoolboy that knows what infallibilitie is, would assent to this? Who knows not, that Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Jews and Ro­mans, men of several Nations, of different tempers, and interests, yet conspired in resist­ing the Gospel, and crucifying of Christ? Are not the Mahometans men of several Na­tions (yea more then true Christians possess) different tempers and interests, yet damnable erroneous? What do you think of the 72. Interpreters,Oyril. Caled. 3. pag, 99. who were sent by Eleazer the Priest to Ptolemy, to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek, which they did with­out any discrepancie, eirher in sense or words, [Page 68] though kept asunder one from another? Do you think they were infallible? The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world, of different tempers and interests, yet most dangerously erroneous: Yet further, when our Saviour suffered some of your Do­ctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin; how would this your argument have proved the Churches infallibilitie at that time? Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps. 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose. Once more, shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications, yet damnably err? 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests? Is it that some are godly, some wicked, some promoters of Christs inte­rest, some advancers of the Devils? By your tempers mean you, that some are hot, others cold, and a third sort lukewarm? And by your different interests, that some promote the Popes interest, others the interest of Councils against the Pope. This is your Churches com­posure, but proves no infallibilitie. 3. If the verie seeming contradictions in Scripture over­throw the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authoritie from its concent and harmonie (which Vane in his late books labours to prove) Why do not your real differen­ces which Bellarmine declares to the world,Vane's Lost Sheep. p. 16. [Page 69] much more conclude against your infallibility? But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient, of your Argument, and therefore before the end of your Section, you flie to Gods assist­ing and strengthening of the Church, whereby she becomes infallible. But this I have answer­ed before, and avoid repetitions.

CHAP. V. Of the possibility of keeping the Com­mandments.

J Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book, and how this Chap­ter should come in next to the former. When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church, which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness, what rati­onal man but would have thought, but that you should have said somthing of the confor­mity of hope to the Lords Prayer; which you laid down as a second means, and not have leapt to the third in such haste. I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature, the Church of Rome; for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error, here you free her from sin; for if any be free from sin, it must be [Page 70] the Roman Church: And your next Chapter is about Religion, or religious worship: But seeing I have begun, I will continue to follow you. In this chapter you weave Penelope's Web; what you say in the first and second Se­ction, you clearlie unsay in the third, which will therefore help me in answering your form­er assertions. You begin with exceeding con­fidence, wondering that any can make questi­on of the possibilitie of keeping the Command­ments; But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures, as I shal through Gods assistance make it appear in my answers to you. You urge Scripture, examples, and ar­guments: The Scriptures you mainly urge are these, Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21. 1 Deut. 30. They are not above, but very neer us, in our mouths, and in our hearts to do them. Its the Ar­gument of your Donatists, but makes not for you to prove possibilitie of perfect obedience; that which it proves is, the perspicuitie of the Law, as to the Jews knowledg of it.Vatab. An­not. in Loc. That word which you ren­der above, is by Vatablus ren­dred Hid, non est occultum à te. Its not hidden from thee. As if he should say to them, you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law, seeing its not hid from you, but published to you, being in your mouths, i. e. in ore Levitarum, &c. in the mouths of the Le­vites, [Page 71] who are of thy people—that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good l [...]fe, Id. ibid. and that they may teach them thee without delay. This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note, Praeciditur hic, &c. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law. 2. These words do mainlie intend the words of Faith (Rom. 10.8.) i. e. the application of Christs righteousness to us by Faith. Thus Lyranus explains it, saying;Lyran. Ostenditur, &c. Here is shewed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law, Phil. 3.9. Vata­blus is verie clear in this point, understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestow­ed on Faith; his words at large are these, Si de sola lege, &c. If this were spoken only of the Law, his argument were frivolous, in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done, by being before our eyes, then if it were far off: Moses therefore in this Chapter, as in the fourth, doth commend unto the people Gods special good will (as appears by that place of Paul, Rom. 10 8.) in bringing them under his tutorage, which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law: Nor doth it hinder, that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law, for the free righteousness of [Page 72] Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompany­ing it; therefore one is infer'd from the other, be­cause the observation of the Law is through the Faith of Christ. This righteousness of Faith is easie in regard of Law righteousness, which was to be done by us, whereas it is rather ful­filled in us by Christ, Rom. 8.3.4. This is fur­ther confirmed by the Jews, who unanimously affirm, that this thirtieth Chapter belongs to the Kingdom of the Messiah. 3. If they be spoken of the Commandements, and prove that they may be kept, it remains yet to prove, that this keeping of them is an exact and per­fect fulfilling of them, indeed to those that are regenerate, the Commandements are said not to be grievous, 1 Joh. 5. but this is only because they keep in them in such measure, that God is pleased freelie to accept and reward them for it. 4. These words are spoken to the people of the Jews in general, even to all, and therefore to each of them, amongst whom there were many unregenerate. Will you say now, that unregenerate and graceless ones can keep the Commandments of God perfectly?Concil. Tri. dent. Sess. 6. Can. 18. This were to oppose your unerring Coun­cil of Trent, who limit this possibilitie to the regenerate only.

2. Text. Matth. 11.21. 'tis v. 30. My yoke [Page 73] is sweet, my burthen light. A. 1. By Yoke ma­ny understand the Gospel, not the Law; and by burthen, Christs Discipline. Christs yoke, saith Chrysostome, Gloss. ordin. & Chrysost. apud Lyran. is the Gospel which unites Jews and Gentiles in one Faith. Ly­ranus and Emanuel so call it, Lex Evangelica. Now this is Faith working by love: This is the work of God that we believe on him whom God hath sent, Joh. 6.29. This is most suitable to the context, for our Saviour is speaking to poor souls, burthened with sin, or the Lawes yoke, as your Glosse and Lyra who calls the Law Onus patribus antiquis im­portabile) speak. Now can we think Christ should send them to the Law again? This were to deliver up a poor oppressed servant to his rigid Master, which the Law forbids. Is it not rather more suitable to Christs temper to ad­vise them thus, Poor souls, the Law hath ter­rified you, by exacting of you perfect obedi­ence, or in case of defect subjecting you to the curse: Come therefore to me, believe on me by a true Faith accompanied with love, apply­ing my perfect obedience for the covering of your disobedience; look upon my stripes, see me become a curse for you, and rest upon my promise of application of my obedience to you; this is sweet and profitable, whereas your own righteousness is unprofitable, as to [Page 74] the acquitting of you from subjection to the curse. (See this Phil. 3. init.) And though you meet with a burthen of afflictions and suf­ferings, these are but light, and they work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glorie. 2. If it should be understood of the Law, it cannot demonstrate a facilitie of exact and perfect obedience: This is most difficult; so as its hard you say, to name any particular man that attains unto it; but of an inclination of the heart to, and an endeavour of obedience, this is easie to one that comes to Christ, the Apostle shews this in his own experience, saying; To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not, Rom. 7.18. Which is nota­bly confirmed by S. Augustine, Aug. apud Lyran. Semper bonus vult, &c. A good man hath alwayes a will not to sin; but he never attains to this perfection in this life, that he should not sin. There is a kinde of Emphasis in the Apostles word [...], he did some good, but he did not throughly do it, he was not altogether free from concupiscense,Athan. apud. Eund. as that Father shews. Thus Athana­sius propounding the question how the Gospel is lighter then the Law, see­ing the Law condemns evil works, and the Gospel concupiscense, he answers; In Lege [Page 75] multa jubentur, &c. In the Law many things are commanded, which the Apostle saith cannot be done; in the Gospel there is required the will —which alone may suffice, and be rewarded. Certainlie where Grace is, there is an inclina­tion to good, yea a delight in the Law of God according to the inward man, yet there is no perfection. And hereupon the most godlie have their sighes, groans, tears, complaints, for their weakness and miscarriages.

2. Your examples are many, some of them (say you) out of the Old Testament, others out of the New; to which I say: 1. Those you mention of the Old and New Testament, (viz. Noe, Ezekias, Josias, Josephat, Asa, Jo­tham, J b, Simeon, John Baptist, Zecharias, E­lizabeth, the B. Virgin) were all of them god­ly and holy persons, and did keep the Com­mandments in such measure, that God in his mercie did accept of them. But I denie that a­ny of them did so perfectly fulfil the Law, that they were able to stand the trial of Gods exact Justice: And therefore read the lives of the most holy men that the Scripture menti­ons, and you shall find their blemishes and sins, which are inconsistent with exact and perfect obedience. David is said to be a man after Gods own heart, yet committed two mortal sins (to use your word) Murder and Adulterie; Noe was a just man, but guiltie [Page 76] of drunkenness, Gen. 9.21. a sin that excluded from Heaven, 1 Cor. 6.10. Zecharias is taxed with unbelief, Luk. 1.20. It's easie to instance in the rest, but for brevities sake, I desire you to find your own quotations and peruse them; that which the Scripture asserts of these is, that for the main of their lives they were blameless before men. This is fully propounded by S. Augustine, in answer to your Fathers the Pelagians, whose argument this of yours was: For speaking of Zacharias and Elizabeth how they were blameless,Aug. de Grat. Dei Contr. Pelag. & cae­lest. l. 1. c. 48. he hath these words; Dictum est, &c. It's spoken (as it seems to me) of their conver­sation, which was approved, and commendable in the sight of men, and which none could justly accuse or complain of, &c.

2. There is one example which you bring in amongst the crowd of Scripture examples, and if it were one of them, it is of Tobias, men­tioned Tob. 2. I shall answer this particular­lie, because fetcht out of an Apocriphal book. 1. Therefore I say, in the place you quote, I read nothing of Tobias that can prove your as­sertion; to argue from one or two particular acts of charity, to an absolute perfection of charity, is no good Logick. But sure Sir you were in love with his name, and thought he [Page 77] was perfectly good, because his name was To­bias, rather then because the second chapter of Tobit saith any thing of it. But what fault had good David made, that he could not have a room in the Old Testament as well as Tobias? I believe he should, but then you could not have told us, that Tobit was a Canonical book of the Old Testament, which now you affirm: So that in this example you kill two Birds with one stone; Ecce duo gladii. I pray Sir who told you that Tobit was a part of the Old Te­stament: 1. The Jews told you not, for they (and to them were committed the Oracles of God) received it not, but cut it off from the Canon, as Hierome in his Prologue to this Book,Hierom. ad Chrom. & Heliod. in Tob. Prolog. and the Annotator upon him doth also confesse. 2. Nor ancient Fathers; Bellarmine observes, that many of the Anci­ents, as Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hiero­nimus, Ruffinus, to whom add Cyril of Je­rusalem, in their deliver­ing the Canon of the Old Testament,Cyril Catech. 4. p. 99. Stapl. princip. Doctr. Christ. l. 9. do clearlie follow the Hebrews. Sta­pleton also confesseth, that this and other such like books, were ac­counted by the most ancient Christians, but as doubtful and Apocriphal. 3. Did the Coun­cils [Page 87] affirm it to you: I know Trent did, but she is a Novice, and of no great authoritie in this point. The Council of Laodicea (confirm­ed afterwards in a General Council) omits this book, when she delivers the Canon of Scripture. Ans. Divers later writers do refuse this book, as Lyranus, and as I remember,Lyran. prae­fat. ad lib. Tobit. Sixtus Senensis. For a conclusion of this, I shall tell you, that there were some adjudged Heretiques by the Ge­neral Council of Vienna, amongst whose er­rors this is the Leader, as mentioned by Ca­ranza, Quod homo in vita prae­senti, Caranz. Sum. Concil. p. 434. &c. That man in this pre­sent life may attain to such and so great a degree of perfection, that thereby he becomes altoge­ther impeccable. I pray shew us the difference betwixt this error, and your supposed truth of possibilitie of keeping the Law.

3. Your Arguments now come to be consi­dered of. The 1. is, Gods conditional promises to David and his Posteritie, could be tearmed no bet­ter then jeers, unless the Commandments were possible. A. I deny your consequence: For 1. God may accept of that which man can per­form; though he do not perform what he should: You know Hezekiah's prayer occasi­oned [Page 79] by a multitude of people that had not cleansed themselves, and came to eat the Passe­over; The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek the Lord God of his Fathers, 2 Cron. 30.18 19.20. though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the San­ctuary; and the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah. Here was a defect in their obedience, and yet Gods acceptation and performance of his pro­mise to them, which was the benefit of this Sa­crament, as Lyranus tells you: God did fulfil his promise to David and his Posteritie, as So­lomon acknowledgeth — Who hast kept with thy servant David my Faiher, that thou promised'st him; 1 King. 8.24. thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day. Yet you cannot say that David or his Posterity yeelded exact obedience to Gods Commande­ments, for they fell into grievous sins, but the main of their lives was holie, and this God was pleased to accept of. The Falls of the Saints do not nullifie the Covenant of God, though somtimes they bring Gods Rod upon them.Ps. 89.28. &c. I should suppose that your self hope for an accomplishment of Gods pro­mise, yet I hardlie think that you dream of yeelding exact and perfect obedience to Gods [Page 80] Law, before you can obtain the promise. 2. God doth not jeer men by exacting obedi­ence which they cannot yeeld: For 1. He re­quires nothing but what they owe him. 2. He requires nothing, but what he gave them once power to pay him. 3. He requires nothing but what Jesus Christ is able to pay for them, and God therefore exacts it of them, that they may seek unto him on whom he hath laid help. This is clearlie taught, Isai. 55.3.4. I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David, saith God. But Jesus Christ must be given, or else this Covenant cannot be sure. See Rom. 8.3.4. a most plain text for this purpose.

2. Argument is this. To what purpose is so much perswasion in books and Pulpits to live well, if the Commandments be impossible? Is living well, any other than keeping of the Commandments? It is assuredly as ridiculous, as impious, to term him a good liver, that steals, murders, and com­mits adultery, &c. A. 1. Those perswasions are regulated by Gods command; God com­mands men to live well, which, as you say, is to keep the Commandments, and Ministers in books and Pulpits perswade men thereto. But to what purpose, say you, are these, if the Commands be impossible? I answer, it is to much purpose: As 1. To shew men what they ought to do. It's a noted Speech of that great [Page 81] Anti-Pelagian St. Augustin O homo in praecep­tione cognosce &c. O man in the precept know what thou oughtest to have. You perswade ma­ny to joyn themselves to your Roman Church, as the way to salvation, which its impossible for many of them to do, if you consider ei­ther Gods decree, or their stability. They should deceive if it were possible the very Elect: but its impossible: thats implied. Now if we ask why you perswade such? I know no better reason you could render then this that you shew them what (according to your judg­ment) they ought to do. 2. To beat down pride and conceit of justification by works: whilst we see that there is more owing to God than we can pay. This appears in the Apostles speech. Rom. 7.9. I was alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I dyed. This the Law is a worker of fear and bondage, and a killing letter. 3. To drive them to Christ and the Grace of God through him. Propterea enim mandatur (saith devout Bernard) There­fore God hath enjoyned as to ob­serve his Commandments, Bern. in vi­gil. Nat. dom. Ser. 2. that seeing our weakness and defects, and that we cannot do what we ought we might fly to the mercy of God. Thus the Law is a School-Master to lead us to Christ, making us ready to hearken to his in­vitations [Page 82] to lay hold upon his promises: me­ditate on that text. Math. 11.30. If this end were not in it I know not why it should per­swade those in an unregenerate estate to obey the commands, for its impossible they should keep them as all except Pelagians will grant. 2ly. Whereas you say, Is living well any other then keeping of the Commands? I Answer, Living well, and absolute perfect obedience to Gods Commands are not convertible. You say of many that they live well, but confess you cannot name one man that perfectly keeps the Commandments. It would be a harsh note if I should tell you that I know not one Papist in England that lives well. Or if some Traveller should affirm that he met not with one man in all Popish Dominions that he could say lived well. You are abundant in mentioning the good lives of Catholiques, and their holiness of life is become a note of your Church. Sure you do not mean that Papists absolute keeping of the Commandements is your Note. The truth is, he lives well who for the main of his life endeavours to conform himself to God, sorrowing for his failings and inability to do what God requires, and flies to the mercy of God for the remission of all the miscariages of his life: he that lives thus, lives well, and if he dies, he dies well. Blame­lessness before men sometimes, yea usually [Page 83] denominates a good life. The perfect life wherein is no sin is the life of Angels and Saints in Heaven, where there is perfection of knowledg and grace: This perfection the A­postle Paul aimed at, but confesseth he had not attained, Phil. 3.12.3. Whereas you speak of tearming him a good liver that steals, &c. I know not who asserts it, nor to what end you urge it. Its one thing to live directly contra­ry and another thing to live according to the Law, though it come short of Angelical per­fection.

3. Argument is this, The justness of Laws that inflict severe punishments upon the breakers of the Commandments are n [...]t at all consistent with the impossibility of keeping them: Necessity is a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge. Supposing you to speak of humane Laws: I answer, 1. No humane Lawes take hold of any for want of exact and perfect o­bedience: Exact obedience refers to thoughts, which human Laws reach not to, either to re­ward or punish. 2. They suppose a possibili­ty of outward conformity to them before men: this was in Paul before his conversion, who as touching the righteousnesse of the Law was blameless, but this was no more but out­ward conformity, for he wanted grace where­by only your perfection is attainable. 3. What you say of necessity is vain, for 1. There [Page 84] is no necessity of coaction whereby man might be forced to transgress the Law: the will of man is free from this necessity. 2. If there be any necessity to transgress, its contracted by our selves through our own fault, and therefore is not a good and forcible excuse a­gainst the strongest charge. Do you think when God shall ask natural men at the last day why they did not keep his Command­ments, that their necessity will be a good and forceable excuse against Gods charge? And your self cannot deny but that natural men as such are unable to keep Gods Commands un­less you professe Pelagianism.

4. Argument, you say, The very light of reason gives testimony to the Commandments pos­sibility, they being all grounded upon reason, and suited to her bent and inclination: the wickedst man alive cannot say that he breaketh any Com­mand without some secr [...]t check of conscienco. Answ. 1. What could Pelagius have said more for his error? Doth not your argument prove his opinion? to say the Command­ments being grounded on natural reason, its in the power of nature to keep them, is the grossest Pelagianisme. 2. I will grant to you that the commandments are suited to reason as it was in its primitive purity, but not as de­praved. The Commandments therefore were not impossible to Adam in whom reason was [Page 85] pure and right, nor should they have been im­possible to any of us, if we had stood innocent but now they are impossible to us, because reason in us is depraved, and they are not suit­ed to depraved reason, there are neither few­er nor easier Commandments given to us then to Adam, but the very same. If you say grace supplies reasons defect. I answer, 'tis true that Grace doth reform Nature, but brings it not to its primitive purity: there is no man reacheth to that height of reason that Adam had, and to that consonancy of it to Gods Law. Adams posse non peccare is in no son of man. 3. Whereas you say the wickedst man alive, &c. I question the truth of it, when your Church through the hypocrisie of lyers brings in Doctrines of Daemons, forbids to marry and commands to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Do your conscience check you? Are they not rather seared with an hot iron according to the Apostles prediction? Do wicked mens consciences checks them for eve­ry thought of their hearts that is evil. It may be, the commission of the grosse external act of theft, or adultery, or murder, and the like is usually atended with some check in most men: but the commandments reach further then to the outward act, to mens thoughts and words, [Page 86] and gestures, and few men will know that these are sins; now there must be science be­fore conscience. 2. Suppose it true, all that it proves is this, that there are some footsteps of reason and conscience in men, which we deny not: but it proves not that reason hath its perfection in them, or that the Law might be kept by them, though its probable that they might break it lesse then they do. See Rom. 1.18, 19, 20, 21.

4. Having ended your Arguments, you come in the next place to answer some seem­ing objections against you.

1, Object. God only requires mans endea­vour: To this you Answer, 1. This is repug­nant to Christs expresse words, which are not, Math. 19. If thou wilt come to Heaven endea­vour to keep, but keep the Commandments. Ma­ny a good endeavour, as many a good purpose, burns in Hell. Heaven is rhe reward of doing not of endeavouring.

Reply 1. (Not taking notice of the objecti­on which is your own figment) I say God doth require endeavour (which by urging that text, Math. 19. you seem to deny) yea there are as many Commandments of endeavours, as of actual obedience in the New Testament: yea further there are promises and those of Hea­ven made to endeavours. L [...]ke 13.24 Strive to enter in at the strait gatte, &c. Mat. 7.7, 8. Ask [Page 87] and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find, &c.

Reply 2. Though God do not require on­ly endeavour yet God accepts of endeavour where there cannot be action. God com­mends & accepts of Davids intention of build­ing him an house though he built it not. If a good intention may be accepted instead of action which your Rhemists assert, why not a good endeavour.

Rep. 3. Endeavour is the utmost that is at­taineable in this life according to the judgment of your best School-man Aquinas Aquin. 22. q. 24. 7. c. who shews that that perfection of cha­rity whereby the whole heart of man is continual­ly and actualy carryed towards God is our per­fection in our Countrey, but not p [...]ssible in this life, in which because of human infirmities its impossible always actually to think of God or to love him: but there is another kind of perfection, which is, when a man doth wholly endeavour to devote himself to God and Divine exercises, omit­ing other things, unlesse so far as humane neces­sity doth require, and this is possible in our way, &c. Whence I infer that seeing charity reach­eth only thus far that a man should endeavour to devote himself to God, and divine exercises omitting other things so far as he can. It can­not therefore extend to perfect and absolute obedience to Gods will. This endeavour was all that St. Paul attained to Philip 3.11, 12, [Page 88] 13, 14. Its most false and an uncomfortable Doctrine to true souls to say many a good en­deavour burns in Hell. For either such en­deavours were not real or not seasonable and so not good. But prove that a real a season­able endeavour burns in Hell.

2ly. You answer Its equally unnatural to endeavour impossibilities, and to desire things unknown, Who would chose but smile to see one leap and skip as aiming to soàr and fly in the aire, knowing it to be possible only for birds that are fitted with wings and feathers for the purpose. Reas. 1. There is a twofold impossibility, 1. Natural or simple impossibility when a thing cannot naturally be done. 2. Moral, when the thing is in its own nature possible; but there are divers intervening obstructions which for the present make it impossible. 2. therefore I answer, things that are simply or naturally impossible are not to be endeavoured; we are not to endeavour to be Gods to make a hu­mane body without the quantity and qualities of such a body, to place one body in two places, or two bodies in one, or as your in­stanc is to fly in the aire as birds (though per­haps art might make this possible.) But if the things have only a moral impossibility, there is no question but they may be endeavoured. And this way only are the Commandments of God impossible to us: they are not contrary [Page 89] but according to right reason, only reason be­ing crazed its unable to be conformed to this rational Law: this is asserted by St. Paul, Rom. 8.3. What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, &c. The impossibility is not in it self, but in our flesh: that is, our corrup­tions. It were not unnatural for a poor man that owes a summe of money to endeavour to pay it, though at present he be unable to pay any considerable part of the summe: Nay it were wickednesse in him to lay aside endea­vour because of present impotency: qui non potest quod debet, debet quod potest. Hereafter we shall be able to do Gods Will, at present we rather endeavour to do it, then actually do it; only here is our comfort we have a grati­ous father who will accept of his childrens en­deavours, as if they actually did what he com­manded them.

2. Obj. There are no particular persons can be pointed out of whom you can say, these keep the Commandments.

Answ. 1. Indeed to point at any particular, that doth keep the Commandments is hard, no man knowing Eccles. 9. whether he be worthy of love or hatred. Reply, You have but word­ed it all this while, now you come to speak in­deed, and now you are rather with then a­gainst us: The Commandments (say you) may [Page 90] be kept but its hard to point at any particular, &c. 1. Hereby you tell us that your self have performed a very hard work, for you have given us divers examples of particular men and women that have kept them. 2. You com­ply with old Pelagians whose answer you bor­row: for when they were bid to instance in a­ny that kept the Commandments they answer­ed that they said not who did but who might keep them: to which Hierom replyed Egregii Doctores, &c. Brave Doctors who say that may be done which they cannot shew us was ever done. Hierom. You are the posterity of these Brave Doctors, and the same weapons that slew your Fathers will kill you. 3. The text you urge shewes only that by outward events none kows whe­ther he have the love or hatred of God, out­ward events coming alike to all.

Answ. 2. But that all in general may keep them Christ himself assures it, 1 Tim. 2. Wil­ing all to be saved. God wills no thing impossible, and he that wills the end, wills the means. Rep.. You ventured very far in your last an­swer even to the wounding of your cause, and therefore do wisely to come off and apply a plaister to your wound before you make a fresh assault. This assertion is as wicked as the other is vain. Can all in general keep the Commands? Is not faith a branch of the [Page 91] Commandments? Yet the Scripture express­ly saith of some that they could not beleeve. John 12.39. Is it possible for reprobates vessels of wrath to keep the Commandments? Aquinas in that place I lately mentioned shewes they cannot? How then can all in general? 2. The Text you urge as the words of Christ himself,Aug. En­chir. c. 103. do not prove any thing but that God would have some of all kinds of men saved, Kings, Private men, Noble, Ignoble, High, Low, Learned, Unlearned, as Augustin tru­ly expounds it. 3. You falsly suppose that perfect personal obedience is the means of sal­vation. If you had spoken of man under a co­venant of works you had said truth, teaching that as God wills mans salvation; so he re­quires as a necessary means thereunto that man in his own person should perfectly obey Gods Commandments: But blessed be God who hath made a New Covenant with us through Jesus Christ who is become The Lord our righteousnes. 4. If this perfect obedi­ence be the necessary means of salvation, then its not only possible that some may keep the Commandments but its certain that all that are saved do keep them, and then it were not such an hard matter to name such as have and do keep them. You that can Canonize Saints, [Page 92] can tell who are saved; your hope having the Keys of Heaven at his girdle can tell who goes in, and consequently who hath kept the Com­mandments.

3. Object. Our condition excludes capa­city of perfect obedience. Answ. Its in the power of men to love God so far forth as the ca­pacity of their condition reacheth—this is suffici­ent to denominate, and render the subject it is in perfect. Reply, 1. The former part and in­deed the main of your assertion is the same with what Protestants say against you. We say and professe it that so far as the capacity of our condition reacheth, its in our power to love God, and hence we infer, that we can­not keep the Law perfectly, because we are in an imperfect condition our knowledg is but in part, and our love is no more. Adam could have loved God perfectly, for the capacity of his condition reached it, so shall we do in Heaven,Aquin. 12.9.109. when that which is imperfect shall be done away: But its not thus with any man at present: regeneration is not perfect, there are seeds of corrouption as Aquinas confesseth. 2. The later part of your asser­tion is clearly false, That power which is ac­cording to the capacity of our condition is not sufficient to denominate or render the subject, it is in perfect or an exact keeper of the Law [Page 93] of God. If a debter owe twenty pound, and hath but five pound, which he pays to his Cre­ditor: doth the payment of this five pound (which is as much as the present capacity of his condition reacheth to) denominate and render him a perfect payer of his debt, I trow not, and pray Sir shew the difference betwixt this and your assertion.

CHAP. VI. Of Religion.

1. YOu assert that Religion consists in belief not humane grounded upon reason but re­lying on the Churches au­thority and the assistance of the Holy Ghost, Religio est virtus perquam homines Deo debitum cultum & reverentiam ex­hibent. Aquin. 22. q. 81. 1. c. religio est quae cultum & hono­rem Deo tribuit. A­zor, instit. mor. p. 1. l. 3. c. 26. & l. 9. c. 5. p. 23. Answ. 1. The proper act of Religion is to worship and bring ho­nour to God, with rela­tion to whom only, Re­ligion is defined by your Schoolmen and others: This worship is due to God only, and is that whereby we give up our selves unto God, as the supream Lord of all, and do place our hope [Page 94] and that in him, as Azorius defines it. Ac­cording to this, faith is a part of divine wor­ship, an act of Religion, but relating to God the supream Lord of all, not to the Church, which is only a servant under him, or if you will, an assembly of his servants, and indeed its reason that faith should refer to God, it being the principal act by which a creature honours God, and therefore is more pressed then any other Evangelical duty, and besides its requisite it have a settled object to rest up­on, which is Gods authority, for the Church­es is not always visible Abraham beleeved, but his faith relied not upon the Churches au­thority. The Blessed Virgins faith could not rest upon any authority of the Church, especi­ally at Christs death, when your men affirm that the Church was in her only: but even then the Word of God, the material object of faith had a visible existence, and the fidelity of God faiths formal object was present with her to lean upon. The Scriptures you urge to prove that faith relies on the Churches autho­rity (viz. Mark 16. John 14.) make nothing for you, the later speaks only of the Disciples instruction by the Spirit of God. The for­mer proves that we must beleeve the Gospel, the material object of faith, but saith not a word of the Church: it saith not, he that re­lies upon the Churches authority shall be sa­ved. [Page 95] Whosoever beleeves the Gospel whe­ther he receive it from the Church or not, shall be saved. I challenge you or any that dotes on the word Church, to give me any Scriptures that teacheth to beleeve in or on the Church: and think you not the Apostles knew how to speak as well as you.

2. I have already shewed that the Church­es authority is but humane in the judgment of learned Papists, and that the Spirits assistance makes her not infallible, nor a guide, or rule of belief. Your self do in effect confesse at least of the present Church, For you say, pag. 16. To be the guide of belief requires further ability and skill, to lay open immediately to belief Gods reveled truth, a prerogative belongs to the Church, and no other; as to whom alone revela­tion was made. Now this ability is not in the Church she laies not open immediately Gods reveiled truth, whether hereby you mean that the Church speaks to the heart the seat of faith, or that she doth it not by means of the Scriptures: the Church lays open divine truths by the means of Scripture. Besides the Church is not the subject of revelation which you say is the foundation of this prerogative. Your Logical proceeding in councels shew your want of reuelation. Your consciousness hereof makes you say revelation WAS, made it was, but is not so now.

[Page 96]3. Your inference hereupon is, 1. Thus, The Religion of sectaries is vain their b lief being grounded on some humane respect, not upon the warrantable authority of the Church. ibid. Answ. There may be belelief gounded neither on the authority of the Church nor on humane respects. Consult Azorius, and he will tell you that there are Cath [...]liques who ground not their faith on the authority of the Church, and yet ground it not upon humane respects. The Word of God revealed unto us by the light of faith wrought in the soul by the spirit is no humane respect: and this Or­thodox Christians build their belief upon. 2. Inference: For them to deserve the name of true Christians, and to be stiled of the right Re­ligion, their only way is to level at perfection, that takes its rise from an absolute resignation of their wills to the will of God in order to the Church, which is to become spiritually little ones. Matth. 18. Answ. 1. Where do you learn that this grounding our belief upon the authority of the Church is the way yea the on­ly the way to be true Christians and of the right Religion. Are not those Papists who differ from you in this point (and such there are as I have shewed) true Christians, and of the right Religion. I am sure they are Papists for the main, and therefore cannot be of a wrong Religion if popery be the right. 2. Who [Page 79] told you that that Text of Matthew was to be so expounded. I have seen divers exposi­tions of the fathers on this Text different from yours; but I find not one that from it doth teach us to ground our faith on the Church, as the only way to true Christianity and the right Religion. 3. Its a good lesson to teach us to submit our wills to the Will of God: but it doth not appear that we should ground our faith upon the Churches authority: the Scrip­tures are altogether ignorant, and destitute of expressions of such a duty.

CHAP. VII. Of the unity of Religion.

JN the beginning of this Chapter you assert that True Religion is One, but presently fal upon the unity of persons in this one Religion, and to the means whereby they come to be u­nited, which means you propound in these words; viz. Experience shews that this unity of Religion is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief, it being visible to the eye that all that square their belief to the Church are one in religion; whereas they that take to themselves other rules discent and jarre &c. p. 28. Asw. 1. Whether those who [Page 98] acknowledg the Church for the rule of belief, be so one in Religion, as that they neither dissent nor jarre, I refer it to any mans judg­ment who hath but ordinary insight into the writers of Popish controversies. I wonder whose experience it is that finds it? Or what Alseeing eye it is that discerns All acknow­ledgers of the Churches authority to be one in Religion. Have you seen All Papists? If you have, are mens judgments and thoughts visi­ble to the eye? Or did they all write their judgments, and give you them that your eye might see them? But I shall confute this here­after. 2. Why do you vary your phrase: for first you say this unity is an effect of acknow­ledgi [...]g the Church for the rule of belief. And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church. There is a great difference betwixt these. A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith, yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause, he may not square his belief to the Church. Experi­ence tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of be­lief; yet its hard to find one that doth not in some point or other, differ from the Church: I have found many that in some points dissent from her. Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not a­gree [Page 99] what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification, but wrote one against the other of those subjects. So that though both of them might acknow­ledg the Church to be the rule of faith, yet they could not both square their belief to the Church, unlesse she be a maintainer of con­trary Doctrines. 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures, and shew that they are the rule of faith, for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion. Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures, and were unanimous. Its mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies, or building their faith upon changable, and unstable men that makes dis­sentions and jarring. The Word of God be­ing always the same, there cannot be dissenti­on where is conformity to it.

2. You give a reason hereof saying, Of which no other reason can be given, but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain; other rules subject to uncertainty and change. Answ. 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain? is it in regard of existence, I grant it of the Catho­lique, but deny it of your Roman Church. God had a Church before there was a Roman Church, and when Babylon the great is fallen, [Page 100] there will be the Church still. I know no war­rant you have that your Church shall always continue: there is much in Scripture to per­swade the contrary. Or, 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth, but this way it hath not been always constant. Time was when it was Arian under Liberius, and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it: time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years: Time was when the Bible of Cleme [...]t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical: now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger: Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be be­lieved to salvation as now they are. Again, Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not, would not, or durst not manifest the truth: Where was then its certainty? The question about the effic [...]cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair (forsooth) and after many years disputation, in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficul­ties & in determination wherewith it came thi­ther. Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly deter­mine them What certainty is here, when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations, Your decrees concerni g the virgins impecca­bility [Page 101] in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty. 2. Its f [...]lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change. The Scriptures are more certain and unchang­able than your Church: they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take he [...]d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say, True it is that Scripture in itsel, that i [...], as it is the Word of God dictat [...]d b [...] the Hol [...]-Ghost is certain and in­fallible; but to us, 2 Tim. 3. to wi [...], as it is liable to this and to oth rs priv [...]te interpretation it is as uncertain, and [...]allible as man, witnesse the many contrary interpr [...]tations, &c. Answ. 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe, but even to us, and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians: 2 Pet. 1. saith, We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light, &c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us. Prov. 8.9. All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth: they are plain, ob­vious,Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal. 19.7. The testimony of the Lord is SƲRE, making wise the simple. Psalm 1 [...]9.130. The en rance [...]f thy Word giveth li [...]ht: it giveth und [...]rstanding un [...]o the simple. 2. Th u h particular men may mak [...] wr [...]ng in­terpre ations of some plac [...]s, y [...]t th [...]s is when they [Page 102] use not that diligence, and those means that they ought to use, as viewing antecedent and subse­quent Scriptures, comparing like places, con­sidering what words are figurative what pro­per reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned, bringing all to the rule of faith, i. e. plain places wherein the arti­cles of faith are clearly propound­ed,Tertul. l. de veland virgin. or if you will the Apostles Creed, which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith. And your selves grant that the vir­tual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture, be. said of your Popes Decretals, Councils, Ca­nons, &c. may not these have wrong inter­pretations? No doubt but they may: witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus. Certain it is that the Scriptures in points neces­sary to salvation, are more clear than your Decrees and Canons. Lastly, I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For, I find nothing for you in that Chapter, but rather against you. Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child, and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Here is study of the Scrip­tures note of the Churches Canons. Here is faith in Jesus Christ; not in the Church. The [Page 103] Scriptures, as I said, or ignorant of such ex­pressions.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Spirit of Spiritists.

WHen I had read this Title and com­pared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter, I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons: But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew, that in the language of the beast they are the same. Its strange you bring not in Scripturists, and Christians, they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE: but why do you use these names. Is it that be­ing Priests you tell the world (though against your minds) that in your contention with us, you are Anti-spiritists, Anti-scripturists, Anti-christians, which is your name given you in Scripture. In your Chapter after a subtile distinction betwixt the spirits virtue which you say is in all, and the effects of it, which are confined within narrow limits, you come to shew who they are that have the gracious ef­fects of Gods Spirit or his favour in them, in order whereunto you say—To know and dis­scern who they be, the only way is to see their [Page 104] warrant, and examine their works. If their warrant prove that of miracles, and their works good, doubtless they have the favour of Gods Spirit; if otherwise, they are at the best but pretence-makers, and ush [...]rs of innovation. Answ. 1. How, or upon what ground you distinguish warrant from works as marks of Gods Spirit, I know not, this is a warrant for my belief, that I have the Spirits favourable presence with me, because I have good works which cannot proceed from any other foun­tain. And hereby Christ and St. Paul (as you say) taught us to try men by, and it stands with reason upon those accounts that you give. Yet, 2. Its false that they that want miracles have not the favor of Gods Spirit. Amongst all the marks of a reprobate or enemy to God I do not find want of miracles to be any: nor is the having of miracles a sign of one pe [...]tak­ing of the Spirits favour; have all your Ca­tholiques the gift of miracles, or have none of them that want it the favour of Gods Sp rit? You had need to arm them with a cordial E­pistle against this uncomfortable doctrine▪ Nay further Are all your Popes workers of miracles (if we should suppose their works good) I have read of the miracles of many of your Saints, but I find little of the miracles of Popes. Monks and votaries carry away the bell for miracles, and dare you say your Popes [Page 105] have not the favour of Gods Spirit? Lastly Sir, are your self and companions workers of miracles? If you be, pray what are they? Can you drink poison and not be hurt (why then did not your Monk of Winstead Abby live after his potion?) Can you tread upon scorpions, and they not sting you? Can you speak with strange tongues which you have not learned? Can you raise the dead, make the lame to walk, and the blind to see? I know not that any of you claim a power of doing these. Your pretence of casting out devils is a Jesuitical delusion of poor credu­lous ideots, as I shall perhaps hereafter shew. 3. I suppose your meaning is this, they that hold their doctrine to be true (which truth of Doctrine is an effect of Gods Spirit) must prove it by good works and miracles; so as that Doctrine that is not thus confirmed is false Doctrine, as you assert in your next secti­on. But this is also untrue. For, 1. Mira­cles are not absolutely necessary for confir­mation of Doctrine, or of their calling who deliver it. Unlesse, 1. That which is taught be such as cannot be believed without miracles, in regard of the strangness and new­ness of it. Such was that Doctrine or teach­ing that Jesus the son of Mary was the Mes­siah promised, that the Jewish ecclesiastical policy should see altered. The ceremonial [Page 106] Law cease and that such and such events should happen in after-times, these were our Saviours and the Apostles Doctrines, and being such as I have shewed, they needed confirmation by miracles. 2. Unless those who Preach pretend to extraordinary inspiration and mission: thus the Apostles and Prophets (though not all of them) shewed their extraordinary calling by miracles. 3. When the Gospel began to be first planted, and a Gospel Church gathered out of the World, which did not acknowledg the Scriptures for true, and therefore needed conviction some other way. Hence 'tis that miracles were common in the infancy of the Church, but are not so now. Sedulius (upon 1 Cor. 14.22. where 'tis said,Sedul▪ apud Lyran. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that beleive, but to them that believe not) hath this note hic ostendit, &c. Where­as it said that signs were given in the behalf of infidels, its manifest that faith encreasing, they cease: to which your Rhemists consent saying that the extraordinary gift of Tongues was a miraculous sign in the primitive Church, Rhem. on 1 Cor. 14.22. to be used especially in the Nations of the Heathen for their conversion. Gregory saith What, shall we not beli ve if we do no miracles? [Page 107] These were necessary in the beginning that faith might be cherished with miracles, Greg. & Theoph. apud Lyran. in Mark 16.17. but now faith being confirmed they are not necessary, but it sufficeth that Doctrine be confirmed by the good works of those who preach and publish it as The­ophilact speaketh.

I conceive your conscience check'd you for speaking of miracles, and therefore your proofs in the next Section make only for good works, which we grant.

2ly. From your Doctrine you make this inference—whence it is plain that the Spirit of Spiritists is a false imposture, a meere figment and delusion. Answ. This is nothing but a Jesuitical goundless imputation raised upon three grosse lies.

1.—Inasmuch as its destitute of miracles. Answ. 1. The Doctrines we teach being the Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles hath been confirmed by miracles in the pri­mitive times, both in them that taught, and in them also that beleived it, Mark 16.17. and this sufficeth to intitle us to miracles to this purpose is that of Chrysostom Si quis dicat, sed non vid [...]us haec signa nunc fieri, &c. If any say, but we see not these signs to be done now: Chrysost. Tom. 5. de resur. ser. 33. p. 521. c It may be answ [...]red, there [Page 108] is no difference whether they be done now, or were done in time past. Indeed for present miracles as we have them not, so we need them not. Our ministers pretend to no extraordinary in­spiration, nor to any Prophetical or Apostol­lical mission; we make no alteration of the state of the Church from what it was by Christs institution, nor teach any thing but what we ground upon the Word of God. When you ask us to shew miracles, we answer you in the words of your St. B [...]net when he was urged to raise up a countrymans son. Re­cedite fratre [...], recedite: haec nostra non sunt &c. Go your waies brethren, Gaz. in Cassian Collat. 15. c. 2. Aug. apud Gaz. ibid. go your waies from us, miracles belong not to us, b [...]t to the holy Ap stles: why do y [...]u lay burdens upon us which we cannot bear? Its no lesse than a tempting of God now to attempt them. Notable is the speech of Augustin to this pur­pose Quando tibi hoc suggerit inimicus, &c. When the enemy suggests this to thee: what a man art thou? What a Christian? Hast thou wrought so much as one miracle? Hast th [...]u by thy prayers raised up the dead, or r st [...]red them tha [...] have been sick of f [...]a [...]ers? If thou wert of any worth, th [...]u wouldst do some miracle. An­swer and say, 'tis writ [...]n thou sh [...]lt not tempt the Lord thy God: I will not therefore tempt [Page 109] God, as if I belonged to God if I did a miracle, or did not belong to him if I did it not. This is our answer when you demand of us miracles as evidences of the Spirits favour.

2. You say, The Spirit in us induceth to ill, it perswading a disloyal de [...]ection fr m the Lords prayer, the Commandments and church. This is a most grosse and impudent slander: we nei­ther teach nor practise defection from the Lords Prayer, the Commandments, or that faith which the Apostles preached, and the primitive Christians received from them. We reverence and use the Lords Prayer as the most exact and perfect pattern of Prayer. We insert it in our Catechisms, teach it our chil­dren, earnestly seek after those blessings it contains, we have honourable and precious thoughts of it, as of whatsoever Jesus Christ delivered to us. We receive the Command­ments as the rule of our obedience, the guid of our way, and as the Lord enables us do conform our selves thereto. The like we say of the Church. We reject no Doctrines that we know to be Apostolical (Its our cleaving to the Apostolical Church which makes us to be hated of Papists.) What Creeds the anci­ent Churches of Christ have received, we free­ly own, and beleeve all things written therein, though we ingeniously professe our dislike and rejection of your late coyned articles, as not [Page 110] being received by former Churches: Finally the Spirit that is in us doth not induce us to a­ny ill: we have indeed corruption in us which induceth us to ill, but we pray and strive a­gainst it. I dare affirm it (and disprove it if you can) that our reformed Ministry is as ho­ly, if not more than your Priesthood, our peo­ple that receive the truth into their hearts walk as closely with God and as free from sin as most of your Catholiques: yea its observa­ble that the more free any parts are from po­pery and papists, the more zealous and religi­ous they are, and more carefull sanctifiers of the Lords day. Since it pleased God to set me in the place where I now live which is in the midst of Papists, and popish persons, I have given my self to observe their waies, and I find the best of them notorious profaners of the Lords day, spending it either in drinking, or walking about from house to house, or sport­ing: and if they have Protestant servants, im­ploying them about their worldly businesses as much as on any other day. But Sir▪ I may say of your self and such like as Hiero. of some, Q [...]um bona imitari non queant, &c. Hierom. When they cannot imitate the good is in us (which they can only do they envie us, & in this think themselves verie learned that they can detract from us. You cannot imitate, therefore enuy; its one peice [Page 111] of Jesuitical learning to slander. What you bring those names of our Authors in your margent for, I know not I am sure were they a­live, they would accuse you of slandring them.

3. You say This Spirit in us prompteth things contrarie and inconsistent each with other. Ans. The Spirit in us is the Spirit of truth, and leads us into truth not universally and infallibly, as if we knew all truth and erred in nothing, for its not given fully and perfectly, though there be light in us, yet its not without darkness, if it were we should be Angels rather than men, comprehensors rather then travellers. This spi­rit keeps us from the destructivenesse of error, not from error: yet I say the confessions of the reformed Churches are most harmoni­ous, our Churches teach not things contra­ry, nor inconsistent each with othea, though particular men in our Churches may dissent in some points, as in all Churches.

3. In your last section you bring in and an­swer two Arguments formed (as I suppose) up­on the anvile of your own brain. 1. God is no accepter of persons, his Spirit being free may breath on whom he pleaseth. To this you answer, This is out of the matter in hand; here being no dispute of Gods power, what he may do, but of his will what he doth. Reply When I know whose argument this is, and see the form of it I shall vindicate it from your answer, if I [Page 112] like it: at present I shall shall only desire you to remember your answer when you come to the point of transubstantiation. 2. Arg▪ and Answ. their other ground for ins [...]iration upon the assurance of Conscienc [...], St. Paul and St. Augustine convinced long since of weaknesse and coufinage. Reply, This argument came out of the same mint with the other: for which of us lay any claim to inspiration? 2. 'Tis true we say that the Spirit bears witnesse with our spirits that we are the Children of God, and doth not the Apostle say so, Rom. 8.16. Your Rhemists confesse that by this testimony the Children of God have an attestation of his favour towards them. 3. Whereas you ob­ject the example of St. Paul and Austin, pray tell me, can conscience never tell true because sometimes it erred? there is an erring consci­ence, is there therefore no rightly informed conscience? You make notable inferences. 4. May not conscience mistake in its judgment about works as to their goodnesse or badness, nay was it not about works that St. Paul and Augustines conscience did erre; you acknow­ledg it was the one persecuted the Church, the other the Truth. Why should not the Spirit when by conscience it testifies of it self be re­garded, as when it testifies of works? You say conscience can have no greater certainty then the understanding that gaue it being, and [Page 113] the understanding often misseth. I grant that the understanding of it self is errable and sub­ject to mistakes, but being guided by the spirit its certain, and so is conscience. The Apostle saith, We know th [...]t we dw [...]ll in him and he in us, 1 John 4.13. because he hath given us of his Sprit, and we see and do testifie &c. Upon which words your Glosse saith, Per hoc, &c. Hereby we prove that he hath given us of his holy Spirit, be­cause we see, that is through the Spirit of inspi­ration by faith we know, and by the testifying spirit do we witness, &c.

CHAP. IX. Of the Spiritists rule of Faith.

YOu begin with a distinction about the rule of faith, which (you say) may be con­sidered in it self, or in r spect of us: In it self, its Gods reveal d truth; in respect of us, its the same truth expressed to us. Thus far (say you) Catholiques and S [...]iritists agree: their diffe­rence i [...] about the expression.

Answ. 1. I conceive your distinction is vain (and can hardly beleeve that Spiritists a­gree with you thus far) For, 1. I conceive the rule of faith as such cannot be considered but [Page 114] as to us, it being a relative tearm cannot be considered without relation to beleevers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself, or in respect of his Child. A father abstract from relation to his child is no father, no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to beleeve in a rule of Faith. 2. You are extream quick and witty in distingishing betwixt Gods truth revealed and the same truth expressed. I won­der whats the difference; doth not God when he reveales his truth expresse it to us, revelati­on is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown. Spiritists say Gods truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to beleev­ers.

2. You say, Their difference is about the ex­pr [...]ssion; These (Spiritists) holding that it is that of their private Spirit, joyned to to that of Scipture only, those (Catholiques) that it is that of the Ch [...]rch, Scripture bearing witness to her truth.

Answ. 1. If Spiritists (for I use your own word) and you agree about the rule of Faith both in it self and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth, and the same truth ex­pressed to us: Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith? as if we had one rule of Faith, and you another: [Page 115] whereas you assert that the difference is not a­bout the rule but the expression of it. You explain the difference thus, Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is Gods reveal [...]d truth ex­pressed to them by their private Spirit joyned to the expression of Scripture only. Catholiques teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church, Scripture bearing wirness to her truth.

Ans. 1. For your opinion, I say, 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth? I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture, for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only, and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next secti­on.

2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God? Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too? The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion. Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine, and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God.

3. Hath the Scripture no use or imploy­ment with you but to come in and bear wit­ness that the Church is true? Doth it not wit­ness for Gods truth as much as for your Churches truth? Is it not the testimony of [Page 116] the Lord Jesus? But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth, so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors, and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam. 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse, or like the wicked in the Psalms, (Impii nmbulant in cir­cuitu.) You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith (at least partial) as the Church express­eth, that is expoundeth it, and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right, you answer, by the Scripture which bears wit­nesse to the Churches truth. The Scriptures bear witness to the Churches truth, and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth. But your tenet is so clear with you (though most grosse and wicked) that you add no con­firmation of it but what ariseth from the op­position of ours as you have delivered it. Therefore, 2. I come to defend ours against you, but first I will lay it down in other tearms, 'tis this, we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture, the means whereby we understand it is principaly the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and e [...]ab [...]es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use (amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age) for the find­i [...]g out of the Scriptures mea [...]ing. Now if this be t [...]e private Spirit you speak of, we ac­knowledg [Page 117] it and own it, and account what you say against it to be sinfull and foolish, as will presently appear. Against us, 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious. Answ. 1. Is the Spirit of God in private per­sons false and spurious? Or have they not this Spirit? Take heed of blasphemy, for you are at the brink of it. The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others, and doth testifie as truly, though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in publique persons convened in Council. I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church pre­ferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers; but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons learned Apeal lib. 9. c. 29. I will only say one thing for your self, that in your expositions of Scripture (so much as it is) especially in your reading of it you follow nei­ther Church, nor Father, nor honest Christi­an: witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion, 1. text. 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit. Excellently read, you have found private Spi­rit in expresse words, yet let me tell you, had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judg of Assise, your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging. 2. Text, Math. 18.17. To bel [...]eve the Churc [...]. Admi [...]able! He [...]e is faith i [...] [Page 118] the Church in express tearms, which none e­ver saw before. 3. Text, 2 Cor. 10. Where (say you) St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith. Yet more falshood! The Rhemists as well as we, and all men that are in their right wit, and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ. I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church. And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church, which in time might have procured you a Cardinal­ship, 4. Text, Luke 16. None can serve two Masters. This reading is tolerable: I will briefly now answer these Texts. 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpr [...]tation, and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture (not of private Interpreters,) who did not use their own wills and counsels, vers. 21. but were in­spired by the Holy Ghost. The Rhemists read­ing shews that it belongs to the Prophets, —Ʋnderstanding this first, that no prophesie of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n: It's spoken of the Composure, not of the Ex­position of Scripture. 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered. 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation, subjecting [Page 119] them to Christ. Your gloss, by All under­standing conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of Christ which they had before resisted. 4. Your fourth text shews (if it be any thing to our present purpose) that the Spirit and your Roman Church are two Masters that cannot both be served, and therefore its not strange you have opposed the Spirit whilst you have stood for your Churches interest. But Sir, know that the Spirit of God and the true Church are not contrary Masters; much lesse the Spirit of God in private persons, and the same Spirit in publique Ministers. The Spirit of God is in the Church and in every particu­lar and reall member thereof, revealing him­self to each according to the capacity and need of every member.

2. You affirm concerning the Scriptures that the Scripture is deficient, which you prove by Scripture and by Reason. 1. By Scrip­ture, for Scripture attesteth it in that it refers to the Church. Answ. 1. The Scripture ne­ver refers to the Church for the perfecting of it, that so it may become a perfect Rule of Faith,Azor. instit moral. part 2. l. 5. c. 24. ad finem. if it do shew me where, for I know not. 2. Your own Authors confesse that the Church cannot make an article of [Page 120] faith, how then can she supply the Scriptures deficiency? 2. You attempt to prove it by reason, saying, reason makes it good, because it declares not all points that Christians are bound to believe, which they acknowledg themselves bound to beleeve. Answ. 1. I could bring many testimonies to prove that Scripture is a rule, your selves grant it to be a rule, when you call it Canonical, with exclusion of other writings: now its no rule if it be not perfect, for the rule that faith requires ought to be as full and ample as the duty of faith. 2. The Scripture asserts that whatsoever we are bound to beleeve as necessary to salvation to be beleeved, is contained in Scripture: that noted place, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. makes it evi­dent: the abundant utility shews its sufficien­cy to instruct any to salvation: that speech of Biel, Quomodo anima ho­minis, In Can. miss. lect. 7. f. 146. &c. How can the soul of man live the life of Righteousn [...]sse and Grace, unlesse it know Gods will, and those things which according to it are just or unjust, to be done, or to be left undone, to be loved or to be hated, to be fear'd or to be attempted, and what are to be be­leeved, and w [...]at to be hoped for, with what ever else is necessary to our salvation all which (sola docet sacra Scriptura) the sacred Scripture alone t [...]acheth. Indeed we grant that all things to [Page 121] be beleived are not expresly set down in Scrip­ture, nevertheless what is not expressed may be deduced from that which is expressed, or analogically reduced thereunto. But I come to your instances of points of faith, which Scripture declares not.

1. Instance concerning Scriptures. You say they declare not that those books of Scripture which are received for Canonical are so indeed; that some are Canonical, other some Apocri­phal; that they are determinately these or o­thers.

[...]nsw. 1. They do declare that those books which are received for Canonical by Protestants are such, and the Apocryphal books are not such. For, 1. One part of Scriptures gives testimony of another. The New Testament bears witness of those books that go under the name of Moses, the Pro­phets, and Psalms, again they give testimony to the New Testament. Yea the whole Scrip­ture doth bear witness to it self that it is the Word of God, haveing those intinsecal notes whereby it may be known: thus it is with the book of the creatures which sets forth the wis­dom, power, and goodness of God, and is therefore a witnesse thereof. Now if it be asked whence it appears that this is a witnesse? it must be granted that it appears by that order which is in the Creation together with the [Page 122] profitablenesse and usefullnesse of all things in their places. The harmony, consent, spiritu­al profit, &c. of Gods Word in Scripture doth evidence that it is Gods Word and sacred Scripture. If it were not thus that Scripture gave testimony of it self, how doth the Church it self know Scripture to be Scrip­ture? She cannot plead Enthusiasme, and the humane testimony of Fathers is no suffici­ent ground for infallibility.

2ly. All things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to be beleeved by all men,Bellarm. de suffis. script. c. 11. (these are Bellarmines words) but to beleeve the Scriptures to be the Scripture is necessary for all men (say you) therefore it must needs fol­low that its written by the Apostles that the Scriptures are Scriptures.

3ly. By way of retortion: I pray Sir how do you know that this or the other is the true Church, for this Bellarmine saith must be cer­tainly known in as much as all opinions depend upon his testimonies. The same way that you say the Church may be known, even by it self, the same way do we know the Scriptures, they give evidence to themselves.

4th. The exact knowledg of what books are Canonical is not absolutely necessary to be beleeved. I deny not but the knowledg of [Page 123] Gods Word is thus necessary, and this may be where that knowledg is wanting. It can­not rationally be denyed that Christians for some hundred years after the Apostles did know the Word of God yet wanted exact knowledg of what books were Canonical, nor was the knowledg of them judged necessary to salvation.

2. Instance, concerning the Jewish Sab­both: You say The Scripture declare not that the Jews Sabboth [...]s to be neglected and laid a­side, and the sunday solemnized.

An w. The Scriptures declare both. The first Col. 2.16, 17. Let no man judg you— in respect of the Sabboth days which are a shaddow of things to come, but the body is of Christ Azorius saith the precept of the Sabboth,Azor. inst. tuor. p. 2. l. 1. c. 1. if you consider the deter­minate and set time did belong to the ceremonial Law, and therefore was abolished by the death of Christ. Now the Scriptures are most clear and full for the abolishing of the ceremonies. For the second the Scrip­tures expresly teach the solemnization of Sun­day. 1 Cor. 16. Apoc. 1. Calling it the Lords day.Rhem. amot on Gal. 4.10. The Rhemists say In the Apoc. c. 1. There is plain mention of the Sunday that is our Lords [Page 124] day, unto which the Jewes Sabboth was altered.

3. Instance, Concerning the Creed, you say, The Scriptures declare not that the Creed is authentique and truly the Apostles.

Answ. 1. If you consider the matter of it the Scriptures declare that it is truly authen­tique and the Apostles: for the articles there­of are Apostolique Doctrine contained in the Scriptures. Every article may be proved by them.

2ly. If you consider the form or compo­sure of it, that the Apostles made it, each one of them addding an article to it, this is not necessary to be beleived being but grounded on humane fallible testimony.

4. Inst. Concerning things indifferent, you say the Scriptures declare not that its lawfull to eat strangled meats and blood.

Answ. 1. The Scriptures declare that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving, 1 Tim. 4.4. And that Christians are not to be judged for their eating of any meats, Col. 2.16. So it be not with the offence of our brother who is weak: thus Lyra on that de­cree of the Apostles concerning strangled meats and blood, saith, Those who were newly con­verted from Judaisme did ab­hor these meats, Lyran. in Acts 5.20. and ther [...] ­fore [Page 125] although it was meat that lawfully might be eaten yet for their sakes the Gentiles were com­manded to abstain from, as a man is to abstain from that meat which is hateful to his companion; but afterwards the cause ceasing, through the clear discovery of the Gospel, the effect ceased. And this Gospel light he fetcheth from Math. 15. and 1 Tim. 4. both which are Scrip­ture.

2. It may be questioned whether it be ne­cessary to salvation to beleeve that things strangled, & blood may be lawful to be eaten. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, we are not justified by meat. Its weaknesse to think any meat unlawful, Rom. 14.2. but not heretical, the eating or refusing of meats is of that kind of things, quae dubium est quo animo fiant, not of those, quae non possunt bono animo fi [...]ri, as Augustine distinguisheth. Thus much for answer to your reason and its confirmati­on.

Lastly, In the close of your Chapter you bring an argument to prove that Spiritists do not make the Scriptures a rule of their belief, 'tis this, Were Scripture the rule of their belief, though it contain divers truths, yet those truths meeting and becoming one in revelation, they wo ld all perfectly agree, not only Lutherans amo g themselves, Zuinglians among themselves, Calvenists among themselves, but likewise Lu­therans [Page 126] with Zuinlians, &c. It being the pro­perty of unitie to unite and make one all that con­form to the same.

Answ. 1. You suppose that all they who acknowledg one Rule must perfectly agree a­mongst themselves which is evidently false: an exact walking according the same rule is not at­tainable by any society on this side heaven. For 1. All have not the same measure of knowledg whereby they should understand exactly every point in Scripture, many things are Scriptural by consequence which must be found out by argument, and are hardlier understood than other things. Though in some places of Scripture a Lamb may wade, yet in others an Elephant may swim. The Apostle saith, Let us as many as be perfect be thus minded, & if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless where­to we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule &c. Phil. 3.15.16. Its a perfecti­on, an high attainment for Christians to be perfectly one. Yea its a priviledg of another life,Rhem. annot. on Phil. 3.15. where knowledg becomes perfect, Eph. 4.13. with 1 Cor. 13. The Rhemists acknow­ledg this as the judg­ment of Saint Paul— acknowledging that in this imperfection of mens [Page 127] science in this life everie one cannot be free from all error, or think the same that another think­eth, whereupon may arise difference of under­standing, opinion and Judgment in certa n hard matters which God hath not revealed, or the Church determined, and therefore that such di­versity is tollerable and agreeable to our humane condition, and the state of the way that we be in. 2. All have not the same measure of grace, and freedome from corruption and passions, which prevail to draw men from a conformity to the same rule. Some are of a crosse, and peevish temper, subject to a spirit of contra­diction, maintaining errors, lest they should seem to be overcome by others, or not to have been so sound as others are. Passion had a great influx upon the differences of our first reformers: nor are you free from this evil, this Spirit of contradiction. You reject clear expositions of Scripture because we ap­prove of them. When Augustine, compar­ing the Jewish and Christian Sacraments saith, fuerunt, &c. they were divers in the signs, but alike in the thing signified, grounding his speech upon 1 Cor. 10.3. Maldonate answers —I am perswaded if Augustine had lived in our age he would have thought otherwise, especi­ally perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of of his opinions. And he further adds, I rather approve my own exposition than that of Augustin, [Page 128] because this is more contra­dictory to the Calvinists. Mald. in Joan. 6. 2. Your selves acknowledg one Rule the Church, yet cannot truly say that all Papists do perfectly agree. I shall shew the contrary hereafter. 3. Though Protestants differ about particular truths, yet they all agree in this, that whatsoever God re­veals to them in Scripture they are bound to beleeve it. Herein Lutherans, Zuinghans, and Calvenists (as you name them) do fully agree. 4. You falsly and ignorantly suggest to your seduced followers, that the Protestant Churches are full of divisions and disagree­ments Calvenists differing amongst themselves and from Lutherans &c. Sir I pray you read the harmonious confessions of Protestant Churches, and if by them you be not con­vinced of error, in your next give us some ca­talogues of those divided and sub-divided dif­ferences you generally mention, till then we shall suspend our belief of you.

Your reason in these words, It being the property of unitie to unite &c. is a piece of non-sence: If you had mentioned Rule instead of unity, it had been most true, but nothing to purpose. It is the property of a rule to u­nite and make one all that conform to it. So that to the making up of this unity there must not only be an exact rule, but a perfect con­formity [Page 129] to it in them whom it doth concern: which perfect conformity canot be yeelded by any living man to the Word of God, because of ignorance and corruption which remain in the very best of men.

The conclusion of your Argument needs no answer, the Premises being overthrown. What you say of our doing homage to Luther, Cal­vin, and Zuinglius's fancy, is simple and false. You know we abhor a blind obedience, and an implicite faith. The books our peo­ple read ordinarily, are not Luther, Calvin, or Zuinglius's works, but the sacred Scrip­tures, by which we examine all writings, even theirs you now mention, if we meet with them. We look upon Luther, Calvin, and Zuingli­us as eminent lights in the Church of God, not as Gods. We say not Dominus Deus noster Calvinus, &c. as some of you have said of your Pope. We acknowledg them indued with the Spirit, but not infallibly inspired, as hold­ers forth of an old light, hid under a Romish bushel, not as introducers of any new one, as reformers, not innovators. We reverence them as pious men now with the Lord, but nei­ther pray to them, nor keep holidays for them: our homage we do is neither to men, nor their fancies, but unto God himself.

CHAP. X. Of the Protestant Church

AFter an unconceivable distinction be­twixt Protestants and Spiritists, is Luther­ans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, in the first words of this Chapter, you tell us That this Chapter pre­tends to lay open the many shapes Protestants put their Church into, to make her passe for true.

Answ. 1. The shapes you lay open are not many: 'Tis true you mention five, but there are two distinct ones only to which al the rest may be reduced (viz. lawfull Pastors and true Doctrine.

2ly. The shapes (as you call them) of Pro­testants, or the notes of the truth of their Church, as themselves propound them are not many, but very few.

3ly. You lay not open what Protestants they are that form these several shapes, that so your Reader might examine them himself, and see what they say for themselves, and whether you deal candidly with them in reporting their opinions. Your dishonest dealing with Gods Word, makes us suspect you deal no better with men.

Before I come particularly to the shapes, I [Page 131] shall premise (for the Readers information) that there are ordinarily two only notes whereby Protestants prove their Church true; viz. the pure preaching of Gods Word, and the right administration of the Sacraments, to which some few add as a third, the use of right Eclesiastical Discipline. But this man, as if he had known nothing of Protestants judgment, or had no mind to encounter with them in their way, wholly omits the plea of right ad­ministration of the Sacraments, and brings the other but in the last place, spending the most of his Chapter about personal succession of Bishops; thinking himself (probably) best able to encounter with us in this point, both because of their bead-roll of Popes, and Pa­pists general conceit that there were no Pro­testant Pastors in the World before Luther's days, which is also this mans misconceit so far as I know. But I shall do him the favour to re­duce his five shapes to the former of our notes, supposing him to say as Sta­pleton, Stap. princ. doc. l. 1. c. 22. That the preaching of the Gospel is a very clear note of the Catholique Church, so it be done by lawful Ministers. The questi­on then is concerning the lawfulness of our Mi­nistry which is asserted and confirmed accord­ing to the divers times in which it hath been questioned and contradicted particularly in [Page 132] the days of Luther, and Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory together with the times pre­ceding them. Notwithstanding I will follow you in your method, viewing the shapes and your answers to them in that order wherein you propound them.

SHAPE I.

PRotestants are a company of Christians un­der the government of Bishops and Pastors, that have power and authoritie from Christ, and his Apostles to administer the Sacrament, and preach the Word of God. but such a companie is the true Church, therefore Protestants are the true Church. To which you answer, Neither Christ nor the Apostles confer'd any power or au­thoritie on Protestant Bishops and Pastors, they were dead and gone long before these had any be­ing: to give power and authoritie requires pre­sence of the giver, &c. Rep. 1. The founda­tion of it is sandy, its not universally true that to give power and authority requires the pre­sence of the giver, for it may be otherwise, especially in two cases. 1. If the giver shall deliver some rules or directions for persons receiving power, &c. a person after his death by his will or testament gives power to another to be his executor. A King by his Patten, (though himself be personally absent) gives [Page 133] power and authority to his Commissioners, who therefore acts by the Kings authority. Your Popes derive not their power and au­thority from any but from Peter, every Pope professeth he hath the keys from Peter, that is by Peter's will or testament, or some directi­ons and rules of his, for he is not (I know) al­ways present when the Pope is ordained. 2. If the prime-giver do invest some person pre­sent with him, with power to give the same unto others his successors: A King doth in­vest a Town or Justices of peace to ordain a Constable or some other officer in their cir­cuit. Its the Kings power that invests him in his office, and by oath he promiseth fidelity to him, yet the King is not present, but as re­presented by his ministers. Should I upon this ground infer that neither your present Pope, Cardinals, Priests, Jesuits, no nor pre­sent Church hath any of its power from Jesus Christ, or his Apostles, what could you say to it? If you grant it, you prejudice your Church for whatsoever spiritual power is not from Je­sus Christ, or his Apostles, is usurped & tyran­nical: if you deny it, you cause an earthquake in your argument, shaking yea overthrowing its very foundation that to give power▪ and au­thority requires presence of the giver. For Christ is not now present with your Pope, &c. as God was present with Moses, Exod. 3. Or [Page 134] Christ with the Apostles, Math. 28. To say they have a mediate presence will not serve your turn, for you require personal presence like that Exod. 3. and Math. 28. where God and Christ did confer power immediately, by themselves, and not by others. To apply this to our purpose, by way of reply to your answer, I say, Protestant Bishops and Pastors have their power and authority from Christ both those ways I mentioned. viz. 1. By deed and testament, Thus Christ by himself and Apostles in Scripture authorize those who are qualified with gifts and abilities for the Ministry to exercise their gifts, which they may do upon some occasions, and in some times, even without a solemn installment by Bishops and Presbiters, as when God doth cast them amongst a people where the Gospel hath not before come, or where Presbyterial ordination cannot be had in regard of the cor­ruption▪ and wickedness of such as have power to ordain, or where Pastors are few and una­ble for the service of Christ in his Church. Up­on these and such like occasions that respect each one should have to the promoting of Christs Kingdom puts him (so far as God qua­lifies him for it) upon the exercise of this duty, provided there be not a contempt, or wilfull neglect of that tryal of these gifts which Christ hath committed to the Ministers of his Church [Page 135] whom he hath also intrusted with the power ordination of those who are gifted. Thus it may be supposed to have been with Apollo's Acts 18.24, 25, 27. and you read of divers persons preaching whose ordination is not ex­presly mentioned thus, though we should grant you that our first reformers had no or­dinary exernal calling, yet had they their au­thority from Christ, being by him furnished with inward abilities (which ordination is but a solemn reflection upon, and an acknowledg­ment of.) You confess that Luther was a man of learning and parts. pag. 47. Surius affirms of Bucer, Sur comment. in An. 1526. p. 152. An. 1531. p. 214. that he was non pa­rum doctus, not meanly learned. The Epitaph, this same Author mentions to be written upon Oe­colampadius shews him to be a man of great learning the rest of them were men of good parts, and indued with a Spirit of zeal for Gods truth: besides, with those gifts the pre­sent necessity did much concurre, those who had the key of order neither entring in them­selves, nor admitting others into it who sought the advancement of Christs Kingdom.

2. By meditation of others who received authority from the prime-giver, thus the Pro­testant Bishops and Pastors after the Apostles time received their power from the hands of [Page 136] those whom the Apostles had before invested therewith; yea if we speak of the first Pro­testant Bishops and Pastors they had their au­thority immediately from the hands of the A­postles. The Waldenses who had Bishops and Pastors amongst them are supposed by some of your side to have continued from the Apostles & upon this account are judged more pernici­ous to you than any other Sect. But to omit them:Rainer. de vit. & morib. Waldens. apud Ʋsher. de aec­cles. Christ. success. & stat. p. 151. The first and ancients Fa­thers of the Church were Protestants in their Doc­trines. You have been often challenged to shew that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church for many hundred years after Christ were not Protestants, but Papists maintaining the ar­ticles of your Late Creed. It were easy to shew that those Doctrines of Protestants that you anathematize as heresies were with the ancient Fathers received truth, thus were com­munion under both kinds, prayer in a known tongue &c. by your own confessions. Its therefore false that the Apostles were dead and gone long before these had any being. So then, we have power and authority from Christ by meditation of others, succeeding the Apostles. But against this I have said you object thus,

Object. By this is implyed a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops and Pastors, ever since Christ and the Apostles; it is not con­ceiveable any other way how power could be transmitted from one hand to another, as is a­verred,

Answ. 1. Here is not implyed a continua­tion of succession, &c. if thereby you under­stand such succession as admits of no interrup­tion, and that in particular Churches. The succession of Pastors in particular Churches may cease through the violence and tyranny of enemies, yet the violence being over, there may be a reestablishments of the Ministry, and that in succession to the former, though the means of the new establishment be only the peoples choice, which in some cases is most valued.

2ly. What if there hath been a continuati­on of succession in the Protestant Bishops, &c? You answer, They must then be visible, for as much as it was their parts to preach the Word of God, and administer the Sacraments.

Rep. I grant it, who ever denyed that the Pastors of the Church were visible? We hold indeed that sometimes they may lie hid from their enemies, but they are visible to their friends: though they be not seen in the streets of Rome, they are visible in the mountains and woods, &c. when the Church is in the wilder­ness, [Page 137] her Pastors are not visible in Cities and Courts.

2. But what if visible: You answer, If vi­sible they may be produced, they ought to be pro­duced: they may, because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act, Mat. 5. They ought, because Bishops and Pastors in case of con­troversie are to give an account of their calling, Luke 7. as well to settle the wavering, as to bend and make supple the stifnesse of stubborn misbeleevers, 1 Pet. 3.

Rep. 1. They might be visible in their times, yet now not producible. You know what rigor hath been used against Protestant books, you burnt Wicklif's works, and have extinguished others▪ You deal with us (as Doctor Featly shews) as if a theif should steal our purse, and make away our money, and then demand of us what is become of our money, if we had any such summes of money in what bag, and where those bags are.

2. There are of [...] our Authors who have produced Protestant Bishops and Pastors (i. e. such as have maintained Protestant Doctrine) in every age since the Apostles.

3. Whereas you say They may, because that power is vain and fictitious that is not redu­cible to act. Math. 5.

1. Your reason is a piece of nonsence, and having no relation to what it should prove, [Page 138] the question is about the power of naming them, not the actual naming them, if we had granted the power and denyed the act, your Say had made somewhat for you, as when you say the Commandments may be kept, but can­not name one that keeps them, it makes a­gainst you.

2. Its a tautology, your word Reducible de­notes power not act; so that its as if you had said that power to act is vain and fictitious, that is not in power to act.

3. Your quotation is impertinent so far as I know I have searched Math. 5. and I find not any thing that may make for your purpose and I'm sure your axiom is not there. Sure you mistook Matthew for Aristotle.

4. Its false, that there is a necessity of pro­ducing Protestant Bishops and Pastors, we look more at succession of doctrine then persons, and think this sufficient to denominate us the true Church, for which we have Tertullian's judgment (in that book you even now cite) affirming That those Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their first planters are notwithstanding A­postolical for consent of faith, and consanguinity of doctrine. When our Authors bring in Ca­talogues of Protestant Pastors it is to stop the mouths (it may be) of unreasonable men that demand them of us. Your reason to prove [Page 140] this necessity is this, Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling. For, 1. It's one thing for a Pastor to give an account of his calling, and another thing to give an account of his predecessors. If you were a Bishop in some City, and were de­manded of the lawfulness of your calling, were the way to give them a beadrol of your prede­cessors in that City? This would come short of giving satisfaction, for they might be law­ful Shepherds, and you who succeed them no better than a ravening wolfe.

2ly. The Text Luke 7. proves nothing for you, if you point at the account our Saviour gives of his calling to Johns Messengers, v. 19, 20. You shall find no naming or producing of his predecessors, but of his Doctrine, and works. Go tell John (saith he) what ye have seen and heard. So we, when you demand how we prove our selves true Pastors, send you to what you hear and see, our Doctrines and works conformable to the Word of God, the Law of Moses, and Gospel of Christ.

3ly. Few that have a desire after truth, and regard our Doctrine, will waver because of supposed want of succession, and for stubborn mis-believers, the proof of succession will not bend, or make them supple, they that will not believe Moses and the Prophets speaking in Scripture, would not believe though one [Page 141] should rise from the dead, Luke 16.31. But to what purpose bring you the Text, 1 Pet. 3. there is nothing in it for succession in order to the bending of the minds of mis-believers, un­less you understand the wives being in subjec­tion to their own husbands (whereby they that obey not the Word, may without the Word be won) to be the wives proving their Episco­pal succession. But for the necessity of pro­ducing succession, you urge testimonies and reasons, which I shall now in order exa­mine.

The testimonies are these, viz. of Tertul­lian, Bidding the Sectaries of his time let him see the beginning of their Church, and unfold the order of their Bishops and Pastors. Likewise Optatus, lib. 2. Contr. Parmen. The Origin of your chair shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church. St. Augustine (de vit. credend. ep. contr. Faust. manich) came not behind these in pressing the necessity of succes­sion and derivation, where he ingeniously acknow­ledgeth them to be of force to hold and keep him in the bosome of the Church. There keepeth me said that great Saint in the Church, the successi­on of Priests from the very sitting of St. Peter, to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his sheep even oo this present Bishop.

Answ. There is no necessity of producing [Page 142] succession. for there may be true Apostolical Churches without personal locall succession as I shewed out of Tertullian and its confirmed by Azorius who gives these two only reasons why the Church is called Apostolical because it was propagated by the Apostles,Azor. inst. moral. p. 2. l. 5. c. 21. 9. 4. and holds their faith and doctrine: the former reason points out the primitive, this latter succeeding Churches though without personall successi­on.

2. There may be succession where there is no true Church, as I shall shew hearafter.

3. If the Fathers do demand succession of Bishops or Pastors, its in order to Doctrine which they account the main yea the founda­tion of the other; thus doth Tertullian in the words I quoted, and Gregory Nazianzen, who saith that the succession of faith is the true suc­cession: for those that professe the same Doctrine of faith, are partakers of the same Throne. Naz. Orat. de Laud Athanas. So Tertul­lian and Optatus, the one requiring from Sectaries the beginning of their Churh, the other the Ori­gin of their Chair, both which phrases refer to their agreement with the Apostles, not to per­sonal succession. Fathers urged succession of Doctrine as necessary, but not the successi­on [Page 143] of persons. 2. Its of such, as being an in­considerable party, yet excluded all others from being of the Church of God but them­selves, such were the Valentinians opposed by Tertullian, and those whom Optatus speaks of. Thus we might demand of the Romanists and say, The Origin of your Church shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church: When did you begin to be such? When had your Pope his universal power as Emperor of the World, &c. Or, 3. Its of some Churches, not of all. viz.

1. Of such as had begun with the Apostles, not others which began long after, and there­fore could not shew such succession.

2. Of such as were in their times, not of after ages, their demands extend not to us: Present Churches are not so able to shew suc­cession, as those were in whose times hereti­cal Bishops had no place in the Church, as Austin shews, for having reckoned up the Roman Bishops from Linus to Anastatius liv­ing then,Ep. 165. he concludes, that in the rank of this succession, there was not one Bishop found that was a Donatist, and also whilst there was a short space betwixt the Apostles and them the latest of them living within four hundred years after Christ: in which time there were no expurgatory indices, [Page 144] no [...]opping of their mouths who wrote the truth. The Fathers of the first centuries were few, and not subject to Popish purgations, whereas the case is now otherwise, we are not much short of the 1700 years from Christ, our Authors that might shew our succession abus­ed by you. Your argument therefore is not good, succession must now be demanded and produced for so it was in the time of Augustine, Optatus, Tertullian, 1300 years ago. 4. They rather demand the Origin and beginnning of Churches than succession of Bishops leaving more to antiquity than to succession.

2. You argue for the necessity of successi­on, thus, Derivation of succession is so proper to the true Church that it can not agree to any false, as St Hierom (in Micam. 1.) observeth, assur­ing heretiques to have no such riches as come to men by plain inheritance from their Fathers.

Answ. This is most untrue: Bellarmine dare not affirm it that its necessarily inferd that where there is succession, there is the Church to whom Mr. Hart consents,Hart. confer. c. 7. div. 9. saying, Indeed succession of Bishops in pla [...]e is no good argument, unlesse it be joyned with succession of Doctrine. The reason is, this derivation of succession may agree to a false Church, ex. gr. to the Church of Constantino­ple, who reckon from Andrew the Apostle to [Page 145] the Bishop that sitteth now, which Church notwithstanding you account unsound. Sta­pleton pronounceth of the Greek Churches in general that they can shew a personal successi­on from the very Apostles, yet you account them not true Churches for they are not under your Roman Pope, but against him.

2. Your testimony of Hierom makes no­thing for you. For,

1. It grants that hereticks may have fathers, whose children they are, and what is this but succession?

2. That which it denies is that they have such riches as come by spiritual inheritance, i. e. divine and wholsome truth, the riches of the Apostles successors. Its a simple conceit to i­magine that succession is the riches that men have by inheritance from their fathers; their inheriting of their fathers riches is not succes­sion, but succession is the cause of their inhe­riting, they are but poor children that have only this that they can tell you they proceed from their fathers, and succeed them. Such children are your Popes, they can tell you who was their father, grandfather, and great-grrandfather, and this is their riches; much good may they do them, Whilst Protestant Pastors have true doctrine, the true riches of the Apostles.

To this Testimony of Hierom you add a reason to prove that derivation of succession is proper to the true Church, saying Its evident in it self; by reason the true Church was planted and established before any false began—therefore must need be a non plus ultra, a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ to keep off the like continuation of succession.

Answ. 1. If it be so evident in it self, why do not all Papists agree with you, but rather oppose you.

2. Your reason is most ridiculous, 'tis this, The true Church was before any false one, therefore succession is proper to the true Church. If you had been speaking of anti­quity, your argument would have had some force in it, but antiquity and succession are different things, constituting two distinct notes of your Church. Antiquity properly points at the beginning of Churches, successi­on only at the continuation of them. But I think your mind was upon antiquity, for in your fifth Section you purposely handle it; and your meaning here is this that false Churches cannot derive their succession to the first foundation thereof which is Christ, for you say, There must be a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ, &c. To which I answer,

1. Heretical Churches as such cannot derive [Page 147] their succession from Christ, or the Apostles for then they should derive their Heresies al­so. But, 2. Those Churches that are now, or have lately been Heretical, may yet derive a personal succession from Christ, in as much as at first they were planted and established in the truth by the Apostles; but have since de­generated: Thus it is with the Greek Church­es, and your Roman Church, and probably was with the Arians, who though they want­ed doctrinal succession, yet might have perso­nal there being Bishops of note who maintain­ed that Heresie. In the former regard its true which you say, that the Arian derivation climbeth no further then Arius, there's a great difference betwixt succession of Doctrines and persons, though you seem to take no notice of it.

Lastly, you return to the Protestant Church, and whereas its said, There have been named in several ages the Albigenses, the Apostolici, Wickliff, Hus. You Answer, None of these were Protestants, &c. Rep. 1. Some of these were Protestants, the Albigenses (otherwise called Waldenses) were Protestants: Parsons, confesseth that they devised and framed out of Scripture the whole platform of the Protestant Gospel.Pars. 3. Con. part. 3. Hist. of France Book 1. pag. 15. edit. an. 1595. Id. p. 67. A French Historian writes thus of them— Who in spite of all the Potentates in [Page 148] Christendom sowed about the year 1100. and even since their Doctrine smally differing from the Protestants at this day; For the further clear­ing of this, take this extract of their confession of Faith which they delivered to Francis. 1. Of France, about the year 1540. and which they said was taught unto them ever since the year 1200. It contained the Articles of God the Father, Creator of all things: of the Son adv [...]cate and Intercessor for mankind; of the Holy Ghost, Comforter and Teacher of the Truth of the Church, which they said to be assembled of all the chosen, having J [...]sus Christ for Head; of Ministers, of the Ma [...]istrate whom they confessed ordained of God to punish Malefactors and defend the good, to whom it sufficeth not only to carry honor, but also to pay Taxes and Imposts without acception of state whatsoever; and that at the example of Christ who did likewise practice it: Of Baptism, which they maintained to be a visible and extenor sign, represe [...]ting unto us the Regenerati n of the Spi­rit and Mortification of the Members: Of the Lords Supper, which they hold for a thanksgiv­ing and commemora ion of the benefit received by Christ: Of Marriage, which they say was not forbidden to any; by h w much it was Holy, and ordained o [...] God: Of good work, wher [...]in they ought to imploy themselves continually: [...]f [Page 149] Mans tradition, which they ought to shun, pro­testing in Sums, that the Rule of their Faith was the Old and New Testament, and that they believed all which was contained in the Apostles Creed. This positive Confession I have taken verbatim, out of the French Historian, to which I may add a Negative one out of Aeneas Silvius and others, viz. they held that the Bishop of Rome, was not above other Bish­ops: That prayers for the dead and Purgatory, were devised by the Priests for their own gain. That the Images of God and Saints were to be defaced; that confirmation and extream uncti­on were no Sacraments: That it is vain to pray to the Saints in Heaven, since they can­not help us: That auricular confession was a trifling thing: That it was not meritorious to keep set Fasts of the Church, and that such a set number of Canonical hours in praying, was vain? That Oyl and Chrism were not to be used in Baptism: That the Church of Rome was not the Holy Church nor Spouse of Christ but Babylon the mother of Abominations. If you desire to see more of them read Calverii Epitom. Historian, page 555. where you have a large Catalogue of them, and now let the reader judge whether they were Pro­testants or no. But you object two things to prove that they were not Protest­ants.

[Page 150]1. They hold not in all points with them. For this you cite divers Authors. But I answer.

1. I confesse the Authors you mention do severally attribute divers errors to them, but these witnesses agree not amongst themselves. Guido Carmelita chargeth them with saying that Masse is to be said once only every year. Aeneas Silvius contrarily saith, that they hold that the Priest may consecrate at any time, and minister to them that require it. The same Guido saith they held that the words of conse­cration must be no other but the Pater noster seven times said over the bread, but Aeneas Sylvius, Antonius, and Luxemburg say the contrary, affirming that they thought it suffi­cient to speak the Sacramental words only. Prateolus chargeth them with Manicheisme, but Reinerus, the French Historian and others free them from it.

2. Their confessions shew that there is ve­ry small difference betwixt them and the Pro­testants.

3. Though they should not hold in all points with Protestants, yet they might be Protestants: perfect complyance is not abso­lutely necessary to constitute a person, a mem­ber of the Church. Many of the members of the Church of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, &c. did not agree in all points with those Church­es, yet were members of them. The French [Page 151] Papists go under the name of Catholiques, yet agree not in all points with the Church of Rome, for they deny the Pope to be above a general Council, and that the Council of Trent was Oecumenical and Lawfull. The books of many named Catholiques have been censur­ed for unsound speeches, and because they have not held in all points with your Churh, yet are Catholiques still. The Apostle suppos­eth that though those who are perfect do walk by the same rule, yet some may be other­wise minded, Phil. 3.15. which the Rhemists in their note on that place clearly grant.

2. You object that they hold not in all points with themselves.

Answ. 1. We are beholding to you for your good opinion of Protestants; the argu-is this, They that hold not in all points with themselves are not Protestants. The Wal­denses hold not in all points with themselves, therefore are not Protestants. The ground of your Major must needs be this, Protestants hold in all points with themselves. We grant and thankfully accept of your Major propo­sition, together with its foundation, and de­sire you would remember it when you come to tell us of our divisions.

2. For your Minor. 1. Its verified of their adversaries, the Authors you mention, as I have particularly shewed. 2. There is [Page 152] reason to think they held at least in all main points with themselves. 1. Because of the Testimony of Rainerus who saith they believe rightly concerning God, and all other articles of the Creed. 2. because they were men of good parts, and very pious. 3. Because your assertion of their dissent is only general. When you shew the particulars I shall endeavour their vindication.

2. You answer, (supposing them Protest­ants) There was a great distance between them and the Apostles, in which they could not be men­tioned; forasmuch as they were not begun, or were quite extinct.

Answ. 1. If you speak of them as Wal­denses, that is, particular persons followers of Waldus I grant there was a distance betwixt them and the Apostles. Thus if you consider of your present Pope, its as true that he is none of Peters successor—there being a great dist­ance between him and the Apostle Peter, in which he could not be mentioned, forasmuch as he was not then in being. But,

2. If you speak of them as to their professi­on of the reformed Religion, not confining your speech to those particular persons, but extending to all that professed the same Reli­gion with them, then there is no distance be­tween them and the Apostles, as I shall shew when I come to your fourth Shape.

[Page 153]3. What you mean by their being quite ex­tinct, I know not, sure you do not take them to be Jewish heretiques that were extinct be­fore the Apostles; and let me tell you that after their rise (notwithstanding the fury of Papists) which brought many miseries upon them they could never be extinct, as the French Historian above mentioned shews. But thus much for your first Shape.

SHAPE II.

LUther descended from Catholiques, Catho­liques from the Apostles, therefore Protest­ants had their Original from the Apostles; they deriving themselves uninterruptedly from Lu­ther. To this you answer,

Answ. Protestants derivation from Luther is frivolous and of no weight; Luther wanting E­piscopal authority, without which all ordinations are null and frustrate by the confessions of the cheif Protestants themselves: See Saravia, Sut­cliffe, Bilson, Andrewes, White, Mason, Mountague, Hall, and others.

Rep. 1. Protestants derivation from Luther is of weight for any thing you do say against it. Its most false that without Episcopal au­thority all ordinations are null and frustrate. For,

[Page 154]1. Ordination it self is not of absolute ne­cessity for the constitution of a Pastor. In some cases a man may preach the Word without it. So did Origen whose practise was justified by divers Bishops. Cameron fully asserts this,Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 20. Cam. Myroth. in Eph. 4.11. that private men without formal ordination may teach and feed others with the Word of God.

2. Supposing ordination to be of absolute necessity, yet that it must be done by Episco­pal authority (as distinct from Presbyterial) is not absolutely necessary, so as that it should be null and frustrate without it, nor are there any Protestants that I know of that affirms this with you; not those who are named by you Sut­cliffe, one of them speaking of our first reform­ers hath these words— Neither is it material that the first Preachers of the Gospel in these Coun­tries were not Bishops, Sutc. review of Kell. Survey. c. 1. p. 5. and so called as it was in England, for suppose no Bishop would have re­nounced the heresies of Popery, nor have taught sincerely: should not inferior Ministers teach truth, and Ordain other Teachers after them? Furthermore they wanted nothing of true Bishops but the Name and Title. Finally the right and [Page 155] imposition of hands by such as are called Bishops, is not so necessary but that in a defection of Bishops of a Nation, and in case of other extream necessity Ministers may lawfully be ordained by other Ministers. And he gives divers reasons for it.

The rest of them are of the same judgment, to whom we may add Dr. Prideaux, and Dr. Field who shews that not only Protestants,Prid. falac. controv. Theol. loc. 4. sec. 3. q. 2. Field of the Ch. book 3. c. 39. but Papists in former times were of opinion that in some cases, and at some times Presbiters may give Orders, and that their ordinations are of force, and he further shews that your Suf­fragens who are but Presbiters do give Orders. All judicious Protestants have honourable thoughts of the reformed Churches beyond Seas, and of their Ministry though they want Episcopal ordination. See a Book of Master Baxter.

But you bring us in objecting, Luther re­ceived Episcopal power immediatly from God. To which you answer.

Answ. Such a power being extraordinary is always accompanied with that of Miracles, as appeared in Moses, Exod. 3. And the Apostles Act. 2, 14. Luther never wrought Miracle.

Rep. For any thing I see this might have made another Shape for its independent on this, [Page 156] you lead us, as the Devil our Saviour into the Wildernesse to be tempted, but as he evaded the Devils, so we shall do your temptations. We say then. 1. A power received immedi­ately from God is not always accompanied with that of Miracles. The Prophets were cal­ed immediately by God, so was John the Bap­tist, and probably Phillip the Deacon, Act. 8.14. and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, Act. 11 Yet all of these were not invested with power of Miracles. It was so with our Reformers, they did not work Miracles, nor (as you say) did pretend to that gift. Yet had they suffi­cient testimonies of their calling, as their true Evangelical Doctrine, seconded with the holi­ness of their lives, and the wonderfull success of their Preaching. These did evidence their divine calling.

You object—Luther's drawing so many af­ter him maugre the Pope, Emperor, and other Potentates, shews only a strange itching in men after novelties. and pronenesse to libertinage. A­rius in a shorter space led away far more.

Answ. 1. I speak not of his successe only, or by it self but as accompanied with truth of Doctrine and an holy life, and this doth evi­dence a lawfully called Pastor. Thus it was not with Arius or any other heretiques who have been erroneous in their Doctrine, and profane in their lives, or else successes, or if they [Page 157] have had successe they have but been short lived with it, none of which can be affirmed of Luther or his adherents.

2. I deny that Arius was more succesfull than Luther, there is a great disproportion betwixt them herein. For, 1. Arius had not that opposition that Luther had. Arius's opposers were no inquisitors nor cruel Empe­rors, nor cursing Popes, nor cut-throat Jesu­ites, but a milde Emperour and some modest Bishops; the weapons wherewith he was as­saulted were meek exhortations, perswasions, entreaties, not bulls, curses, racks, tortures, that holy age knew no such Ecclesiastical cen­sures as Luther and his followers were ac­quainted with. The French Historian gives this account of Protestants persecutions.page 38. The Doctrine of Luther seemed to encrease by the greatnesse of persecutions which might be seen by the hot persecutions in the year 1534. for searches and informations were no sooner made of the prisoners, but they were as speedi­ly burnt quick, tyed to a stake, after swinged into the aire were let fall into the fire, and so by a pullise pul'd up and down untill a man might see them all roasted and scorched by a small fire without complaining, not able to speak, by reason that they had taken out their tongue and gagged them.

[Page 158]2. Arius did not set himself against the vi­ces of an usurping lordly power, which might have procured him hatred and revengefull op­position, but Luther did, whose two vices, as Erasmus told Fredrick, were that he touched the bellies of the Monks, and the Crown of the Pope.

3. Arius his heresy was not constantly maintained and stuck to; Arius recanted and subscribed the Nicen Creed as did others his followers: but Luther's Doc­trine was constantly maintained by himself and followers without any recantation or counter­feit compliance.

4. Arius his heresie did not seem crosse to reason, but rather conformable, but Luther's did crosse carnal reason, the ground of Popish heresies. In these regards, Luther might more truly becompared with the Apostles than Arius. And indeed his Doctrine (though you are pleased to slander it as being acceptable and pleasing to the depravednesse of Nature, and so contrary to the Apostles Doctrine) is the very same for the substance of it that the A­postles taught, being no way contrary to mortification of wills, religious fasting, chasti­ty and the like. And therefore it was not itch­ing after novelties, and pronnesse to libertinage, that drew many after him, but a desire of re­formation both of Doctrine and Discipline, [Page 159] which were exceeding corrupt in the Romish Church, whereof very many were sensible, and under which they groaned, waiting for free­dom, and this is that which a great Papist saith—Neither did Luther in this age come forth a­lone, Alphons. de Castro ado. haeres. epist. nuncup. but accompanied with a great troop, as with a guard waiting for him as for their Captain and Leader who seemed to have expected him before he came, and upon his coming did cleave unto him.

SHAPE III.

PRotestants received their mission from Ca­tholique Bishops in Queen Elizabeths daies and since. You answer,

Ans. If some did which is to be proved, nay the contrary seems to be proved by Doctor Champney it is evident the greater part did not, and what a Church must that companie make of which most are judged fit to preach the Word of God and ad­minister the Sacraments without Autho­ritie.

Repl. 1. We had Protestant Bishops in England before Queen Elizabeths days emi­nent oppugners of Popish heresies then in the time of Queen Mary, whom, notwithstand­ing [Page 160] your fiery rage God preserved making them to survive her bloody raign, by these were others afterways ordained as Bishop Parker who was consecrated by the impositi­on of hands of Bishop Barloe, Bishop Cover­dale, Bishop Scory and two suffragans. So that I know no Protestant that needs to use the shape you impose upon us, nor do I think any doth, but you set up moments and then shoot at them which is a very learned and in­genious prank, But,

2. Supposing it our Shape. I say to your answer.

1. Divers Popish Catholiques in Queen Maries days, were Protestants in Queen Eli­zabeths, and these might have an hand in Or­dinations afterwards.

2. Though the greater part of our Pastors, received not Mission from Popeish Bishops yet they might have authority. You beg the questi­on, when you tell us that they are not ordained by Popeish Bishops, have no authority: We had lawful Bishops, & Pastors in England before your Pope or any of his gowned Factors knew Eng­land. But you answer, 2ly. Admit the calling of Protestant Bishops and Pastors were right in all of them, it would not follow that the Protestant Church is true, so long as she advanceth Protest­antism contrary to the meaning of the Catholique Bishops, who never impow [...]red any; but in relation to the setting up and upholding of Catholique Re­ligion.

Rep. 1. If you admit this, it will follow (ac­cording to your principles) that there is personal succession, and consequently a true Church inasmuch as derivati n of succession is so proper to the true Church that it cannot agree to any false as St. Hierom in Nucam. 1. Ob­serveth, Sir you remember the words, they are your own, page 41. but oportet mendacem esse memorem.

2. True Religion is not to be measured by mens meaning, but by the Word of God. So then if according to Gods Word protestant­ism be the true Religion, its no great matter what your Catholiques Bishops meaning be.

3. Catholique Bishops ought to ordain men in order to the setting forth of the unsearcha­ble riches of Christ, Eph. 3.8. To preach the Gospel. Col. 1.25. Mark. 16.15. This is contained in the Scriptures. If your Bishops ordain men to preach any thing else, they are abusers of their power, their ordination is im­pure and unlawfull and so far to be frustrated. Thus our Protestant Bishops and Pastors that have been ordained by you retain that which is pure, viz. power to preach the word, and administer the Sacraments, but reject that which is evil in your ordinations; we retain the power which is good and from God, but reject those circumstances of yours which ac­company [Page 162] the conveiance of it, and are evil.

2ly. You say, Communion with the true Church being as necessary a requisite to the make­ing up of a true Church, as union of parts to the compleating of a natural body; what colour for truth in the Protestant Church that is at vari­ance with the Catholique of whom she glorieth to have her power, and which she confesseth to be a true Church.

Repl. 1. I grant that communion with the true Church is necessary, but your inference hereupon is vain. For,

1. We deny that the Popish Church is the Catholique Church. You appropriate that name to your selves, but who gives it you? Indeed the Roman Church in her purity be­fore shee was infected with the Leeven of Popery was a Catholique Church,Euseb. eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. & l. 10. c. 7. Socr. schol. l. 2. c. 2. but so were other Churches called as well as shee, with whom you hold no com­munion now, nor they with you, as the Church of Smyrna, Alexan­dria, Carthage.

2. Its not necessary to the constitution of a true Church to have communion with you. The Eastern Churches were as much at variance with you as Protestants are, yet they were t [...]ue Churches. The Affrican Bishops did oppose [Page 163] divers of your Popes, one after another, tell­ing them they should have nothing to do with the causes of men in their Provinces, nor re­ceive any such to communion, as they did ex­communicate, yea Saint Cyprian, and a com­pany of Bishops with him did dye out of the communion of the Church of Rome, Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. for any thing ap­pear to the contrary: yet they were true Bishops and their Church­es true Churches. Yea further, supposing Communion had then been necessary, it is not so now, the corruption of your Church being greater then it was in Cyprians time; so that Gods command doth take place with us, 1 Tim. 6.3, 5. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, &c. Apoc. 18.4. and the example of the Apostles, Acts 19.8.9.

3. Protestants have Communion with the Catholique Church, viz. that Church which hath ever since our Saviour maintained the Doctrine of the Gospel, our fellowship is with the Apostles and primitive Churches, whose Doctrine we receive and profess; yea so far as there is any remainder of true Doc­trine amongst you, so far we have communi­on with you also.

4. You deliver two palpable Lyes, 1. That we glory to have our p wer from the Popi [...]h Church: We look upon it not as our honor, [Page 164] but as their misery who could not otherwise receive their power, We account it our hon­our and glory in it, that we are out of your Bethaven, and that we have the ordinances of God within our selves.

2. Lye, that we confesse you to be a true Church. We deny the Church of Rome to be a sound member of the true and Catholique Church. We say you were once Bethel, now Bethaven. Rome was once a faithfull City, but now become an harlot. Her name is giv­en her by God, and acknowledged by us, as belonging to her, Apoc. 17.5. Mistery Ba­bylon the great, the mother of harlots and abo­minations of the earth.

3ly. You answer, Pro estants derivation from Catholiques is not proo [...] for a personal suc­cession of Bishops and Pastors agreeing in all points with Prot [...]stants, which ought to be the scope and aim of that derivation, i [...] being not re­quired of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and h s Apostle [...] of men meerely sent, but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England.

Reply, 1. I thought personal succession had been the main with you, it being proper to the true Church onely, as Doctrine, you say, is not. But I see now succession of Doc­trine is the more principall succession. So un­stable are men, maintaining errors.

[Page 165]2. In derivation of succession its not neces­sary that those we derive from, agree in all points with us; If it were, I know where your succession from Peter would be, you not be­ing able to name one Bishop that for above 1000 years after Christ did agree in all points with you Sometimes the Bishops and Pastors of the Church who have the power of ordination may be corrupt, holding some er­rors which the ordained may be free from, ei­ther altogether, or in some measure, or if not when they are ordained, yet afterwards. Now what rational man can question the calling of those who are thus ordained?

3. We can shew a derivation of succession, though not without some interruption of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles profess­ing the main points of the Doctrine of the Church of England. I deny not but there might be differences in lesser points, but these could not nullifie our claim to them, nor make that they should not be called Protestants. Your rule therefore is not a very good one that Doctrine being in Nature much like unto number, the least addition or Diminution al­tering its kind, and grounding a new deno­mination. But supposing it good and true, we may thence unanswerably infer that your Religion is not the same with the Religion of the Apostles or Primitive Christians, nor yet [Page 166] with those who lived but a little while ago, your Church making frequent additions to former Doctrines.

4ly. You answer, Protestants could not be mingled amongst Catholiques inasmuch as there is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and Idols, no concord with Christ and Belial. 2 Cor. 6. The Ark of God and Dagon may not stand together 1 King. 5. &c,

Rep. 1. Its one thing to be amongst wick­ed men, another thing to approve of them. A good man may be in a corrupt Church in regard of presence, who notwithstanding ap­proves not of it. When Israel was most cor­rupt and overspread with idolatry yet there were seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal. Rom. 11.4. When our Saviour came, the Jewish Church was very corrupt, yet there were some few in it, who groaning under the evils of it waited for the consolation of Israel. The Prophet Isaiah speaks of a remnant that were left in the midst of a corrupt Church. Isay 1.9. Yet none of these did approve of the cor­ruptions but rather mourned for them Ezek. 9.4. If God had not his people in Babylon to what end doth he say, come out of her my people, Apoc. 18.4. God had a people in Babilon a people like corne among chaffe, good fish a­mongst bad ones. These till God gave an op­portunity of delivering themselves did dwell [Page 167] with the daughter of Babilon. Zech. 2.7. They had external communion, but wanted inward affection to her, they had no concord nor a­greement with her in her grosser errors. But you say It were a strange example if the Church should receive into her company lyers and innova­tors, this would leave a stain upon her reputati­on, make her sinceritie be suspected, h [...]r Doctrine contemned and despised, but she who is all fair, Cant. 6. without spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5. is free from any such guilt.

Rep. 1. Its no strange thing that a true Church may have in it those who are errone­ous. It was thus with Rome, Corinth, Gala­tia, Philippi, and the Churches of Asia. Rev. 2.14, 15, 20. There is no Church can claim exemption, The Popish Church hath had those in it whom you call lyers and innovators and upon that score have come into your ex­purgatory judices.

2. You assert that of the Church of Rome, which never any but Novatus and his followers did attribute to the visible Church, viz. to be all faire, without spot or wrinkle (a priviledge belonging to the Church as triumphant or but imperfectly agreeing to the true members on­ly of the visible Church in this World) and herein you shew your self to be none of that society of Christians who generally maintained & professed that their commission and power was to [Page 168] preach and inculcate, that the Church of God militant was not without mixture of bad. p. 81.

2. You take that for granted (which we constantly deny) that your Romish Synagogue is the true Church and all fair and without spot or wrinkle, &c. and that Protestants are ly­ers and innovators, which you are yet to prove. 3. Yet granting both these for Argument sake, I affirm that maintainers of false Doctrine may be in the Church, without all that danger you talke of while they lye hid, and conceal their opinions, and whilst the Church doth what she can to cast them out of her: These would be a plea for your Church, if the supposition were true: But you urge further thus. Pro­testants, Bishops and Pastors, if mingled with Catholiques, did neither beleeve nor profess their Doctrine; but only concealed and covered their own, for fear of the formidable rigour of Catho­liques; and such could neither be true nor make a saving Church▪ Not true because the mission of true Bishops and Pastors, being founded upon persecution and suffering, Mat. 10. Luk. 11.) it is proper to them to fear no Colours, nor make up a saving Church, by reason profession of faith is necessary to Salvation, Rom. 10. Mat. 10. Repl. 1. It must not be granted that Protest­ant Pastors did meerly conceal and cover their own Faith and Doctrine: there was much crying out against errors and disorders in the Popes Church by many, though not without [Page 169] sufferings. Gersom, for speaking freely against the disorders of the Roman Church, was de­prived of his goods and dignities by the Pope, and expulsed the University by the Sorbonists, Laurentius valla, was exiled by the Pope. John of Vesalia a preacher at Worms, was sharply handled by the inquisitors, for op­posing indulgences, auricular confession, Pil­grimages, Merit, &c. Berengerius openly de­clared against Transubstantiation, for which he was not well handled: Read our Martiro­logies, and it will evidently appear that Pro­testants did not only not conceal their own Doctrines, but opposed yours. 2. Its not simply unlawful, nor altogether unsuitable to the true saving members of the Church to con­ceal or hide the truth: Confession is a duty, but the precept binds not ad semper; there are some cases wherein its not necessary, viz. 1. When we are not brought before authority to be examined about our Faith; but if we be brought before them, our Sauiours precept, Mat. 10; binds us to Confession. 2. When by our profession there is no hopes of doing good, or bringing any advantage to the truth, Hos. 4.4. Mat. 7.6. Thus Protestants might conceal the truth, when they saw their Con­fession was not advantageous to the Truth, or the Salvation of those with whom they were, although when brought before authority they did still profess it, and dye for it. 3ly. They [Page 170] might be lawful Pastors though they might con­ceal the truth from their enemies for a time; else what think you of Peter, who did more then conceal, even deny his Religion: Of Li­berius, who accepted of Arianism: Certainly, if these were not true Bishops, your Chain of Succession will be a broken piece: Your Priests in England at this day hide their persons, and with them the open confession of their sup­posed Truth, they preach not openly, they administer not the Sacraments openly, they exercise not their mortal Devils openly, and that for fear of apprehension and punishment, due to such Vagabonds: and yet your igno­ramusses depend upon their Benediction, as Spiritual Fathers. 4ly. Your reason is divers ways peccant. 1. Its improper to say, the Mission of true Bishops is founded upon persecu­tions and sufferingse. 1. Are persecutions the Bases of pastoral Mission, then if persecution cease, the Bishops and Pastors cease to be true Bishops and Pastors, the building cannot stand when the Foundation is fallen: then your Popes or Cardinals &c. are no true Bishops or Pastors, for they live in great pomp and ease, and suffer nothing, unless that by their intemperance they get bodily diseases, which is nothing to Truth. Indeed since (through your freedom from persecutions) your Chal [...]ces were of gold, your Priests have been but wooden [Page 171] Images. 2. You mistake the cause of their concealing the Truth, which was not a di­stracting and a distrustful fear, which looks mainly at torments as you imagine; but their fear was a sober fear. 1. Lest the Church of God should be deprived of them, by reason of their profession of truth at such a time when there was no visible advantage accruing to it. 2. Lest they should incur the guilt of their own deaths, by unreasonable profession. See Mat. 7.6. Whence Lyranus, infers,Lyran. in Mat. 7.6. that the secrets of Faith are not to be revealed to obsti­nate unbeleevers, because hereby may ensue the derision of the Catholique Faith, and the murder of the Ministers: Our Saviour gives liberty to his Disciples, if they were persecuted in one City, to fly to another, Mat. 10.23. Yet bids them not fear, Ver. 26. Clemens Alexandrinus sets this forth very well, speaking of flying in time of persecution. Swadet fugere, &c. He perswades us to flee, not as if it were evil to suffer persecution, nor that we should fear death; but he would not have us authors, or abettors of evil, either to our selves, or him that persecutes, or him that kills us; for he warns us that we be cautelous: but he that obeys not, is audacious and rash, and unadvised­ly casts himself, upon manifest dangers; now if he that slays a Man of God, sins against God, [Page 172] he also is guilty of this murder who doth not avoid persecution, but through audacity offers himself to be apprehended; for in as much as in him lies, he helps on the wickedness of the persecutor: Otherwise, our Protestant Bishops and Pastors, have as couragiously professed the truth and for it undergone with patience and constancy, as great torments from Popeish hands, as ever any in any age of the world did: So that were you not blinded with rage against Protestants you could not but blush to charge them with fearfulness of professing the truth. For a conclusion of this: I desire you look home to your English Priests, those Hedghogs, whose appearance is mainly in the night and in dark­ness, who are so far from a voluntary and o­pen profession of their faith, that I do not know of any one that ever suffered upon this account, viz. the open and publike professi­on of his faith, though they pretend them­selves guarded with power of miracles, which might make them more valiant. 5. If your self were of that stout Spirit you charge us with the want of, what needed you to write Paris for London, or L. B. for your concealed name.

5ly. You conclude your Answer to this Shape, with an exposition of the parables of the Wheat and Chaff, Mat. 3. and of the Fishes, Mat. 13. to which you say, The [Page 173] comparisons are ment of private men for matter of manners, and not of any mixture of true and false doctrine, Orthodoxal and Heretical Bish­ops and Pastors t [...]gether.

Rep. 1. Its most certain that these compa­risons do set forth the mixture which is in the visible Church; which your self even now contradicted. Yea, 2. These mixtures ex­tends to mixtures of Doctrine and Teach­ers, as well as of private Christians in manners, the ordinary gloss understands Mat. 13.25. Of the mixture of Heretiques with the Elect. Augustin also by Cockle, doth understand Here­tiques who in this world are mingled with the Orthodox, his words are ful against you.Aug. Ap. Nec consequens est ut omnis Hereticus, &c. It follows not that eve­ry Heretique, or Schismatique be corporally separated from the Church, for the Church car­ries many in her, &c. The Apostle tells the el­ders of Ephesus that of themselves men should arise, speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them, Act. 20.29. and these are within the Church.

SHAPE IV.

THe Fourth Shape is this, In all ages since Christ and is Apostles, there have been Protestant Bishops and Pastors; but through the [Page 174] negligence of men, and hard fate of times, their names have miscaryed and perished: And as it is no Argument, many famous Romans and Grecians are not named, therefore never were any such men; so it is no less false a Sequel, Pro­testant Bishops and Pastors are not mentioned all the way from Christ and the Apostles, there­fore they were sometime wanting: To this you answer.

1. Its not the same of private men, and of Bishops and Pastors; these have Christ [...] war­rant and assurance of visibility, so have not those Mat. 28. Bishops and Pastors are as Aqueducts, and Limbecks, through which the verifying Waters of Christs holy Doctrines are derived into our ears, and distiled into our Souls; So are not private men: should they be at any time clouded and obscured, Christ would be worse then his word, his Doctrine fall short, and not come home to us.

Rep. 1. Its the same of private men and Bishops and Pastors in this case: Its a false Se­quel (speak of whom you will) to say they are not named, therefore never were. Mel­chizedec's Parents are not mentioned, there­fore he had none, yea thousands of Popish Pastors and Bishops are now unmentionable; for I suppose you cannot reckon up all the Bishops and Pastors that have been in every Country, Town and Village since the Roman [Page 175] Church had its beginning (as you say in the Apostles) yet you would not like the conse­quence, if I should therefore conclude there were no such Bishops or Pastors in such places. The instance that is given in the Shape will not be nullified by your distinction of publique and private persons; for the persons menti­oned are publique persons, men of Renown and famous, such as Histories sometimes make mention of, and you have no more but Histo­ry to enable you to count your Bishops.

2. Your proof is most idle, and fitter to pro­cure laughter then an answer; 'tis this, Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, Mat. 28. therefore all Bish­ops and Pastors for 1600. and odd years past, may be mentioned and named: Gallant Lo­gick. Prove your consequence Mr Doctor, you say, They have Christs warrant and assure­ance for a continuance of visibility, so have not those, Mat. 28.

Answ. 1. Here is no assureance of a conti­nuance of visibility. Christ is with his Church when she is hid in the Wilderness, the Rehmists acknowledg it: yet at that time she shall be hid, Apoc. 12.6. inhabiting in Mountains and Dens and Caves of the Earth, as Andreas ex­pounds it.

2. If it assure personal visibility its not con­tinued, but successive, not of the same per­sons [Page 176] for ever; but of a succession of persons, who in the several ages wherein they live, shal be visible: The Apostles, nor their successors for 1500 years, are not now visible, 'tis so with our Bishops and Pastors, in their times, wherein they lived, they were visible to their friends at least, though they might hide it from their persecutors. But,

3. What is this to our naming of those who have professed the Apostles doctrine ever since their time, is this in the promise? or is it a necessary dependent on the Churches visi­bility in succeeding ages? you cannot for shame say it, lest you condemn your selves whose Catalogues are of Popes not all inferior Bishops and Pastors, who notwithstanding have as much interest in that promise as any Pope, if not more.

2. You say, Bishops and Pastors are Aque­ducts and Limbecks, if these should be at any time clouded and in obscurity, Christ would be worse then his word, his doctrine fall short, and not come home to us.

Answ. 1. You shoot very far wide of the mark: we are speaking of the naming of those that we confesse had a real existence, and you are proving a necessity of their existence. Are entity and nomination reciprocal, so as while you prove one, you prove the other also?

2. Doth their being Aqueducts and Lim­becks prove that they may all be named? You [Page 177] may as well demand the names of all the pipes or troughs whereby waters have been convey­ed to such a place for 1000 or 1600 years; and say this is necessary because they are pipes, &c.

3. Though all Bishops and Pastors of the Church should be corrupt, and cease to be true Pastors of the Church, as it was in the Jewish Church when our Saviour came,Occh. dial. p. 1. l. 5. c. 28. yet if you will believe your Schoolman Occham, God can prevent his Doctrine from fall­ing short, or not coming home to us, even by raising up Lay-men, and illiterate persons for the edification of the Church, grounding it upon, Matth. 3.9.

3. You say, Visibility is not peculiar to Bish­ops and Pastors, but necessity of visibility is Pri­vate men in this way of visibility being contin­gently visible.

Answ. 1. Your distinction is excellent, but I wonder you missed telling us of being visible Archipodialiter and reflexive which would have suited you as well as this of necessary and contingently. Are not private persons ne­cessarily visible as well as publique? Doth not visibility agree to corporal substances, and that necessarily? If private persons be but contin­gently visible, then they are ordinarily invisi­ble and consequently Spirits, unlesse their vi­sibility [Page 178] be in this, that your great Dons are pleased now and then by chance to look upon them, which they do not ordinarily.

2. Your instance of whiteness in fowls is simple. For whitenesse is not common to all fowls as visibility is to all men. As you say, there are swans therefore white, or there are bishops therefore visible, so may you as truly say they are men and therefore visible, but what is all this to the meaning of Bishops and Pastors though we should grant what you say for visibility?

4. You say Bishops and Pastors are necessari­ly visible either determinately or indeterminately. Excellent, yet more fine beyond sea distincti­ons, but what follows? Ergo, Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible, and private men but contingently: that is, Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible, Ergo, Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible But are not private Christians necessarily visible, either determinately or indeterminately. Indetermi­nately all, for some are necessary to make a visi­ble Church; determinately so many, without which there could not be a suff [...]cient number to make a true visible Church. I'm sure private Christians are necessarily to the constitution of a visible Church, as well as Bishops and Pastors.

Lastly, You tell us That its necessary that [Page 189] Bishops and Pastors should be visible after they are dead, for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose, it not providing the the Church of means to defend a [...]d make good her right in case of opposition. &c.

Answ. 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidentall and withall strange unless to a popish ear, or a necromancers eye, but supposing charitably, that you mean that their names should be visible. I say, 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned. Its suf­ficient that it be shewed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ, and that the Apostles professed and preached it. Thus we shew the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple. Its a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ, and was professed by the Apostles, had pro­fessors of it in all ages, and these must needs be true Pastors, though without exact succes­sion. Your self formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles, not of men meerly sent, but withall professing the Doc­trine maintained in the Church of England, though now (forgetting what you had before said) you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermis­sion [Page 180] its euident they are true and Catholique, but this I have confuted before.

3. Your reason with its comparisons an­nexed to it, do not prove your assertion, you say—It not providing the Church of means to de­fend and make good her right in case of opposition —the question of the Churches right is to be de­cided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by vertue of some pretend­ed descent from a certain Prince.

Answ. 1. It is unlike, if by discent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption. For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be theeves and robbers, John 10.8 The Churches plant­ed since the Apostles days could not have this lineal discent from Christ and his Apostles, yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus. Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ. You seem to grant (pag. 56) that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a con­stant succession. How then will you prove the truth of those Churches, for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for.

2. Supposing them like, yet its not the un­interruptednesse of succession, for which they lay claim to the principality (for it may have been in the hands of usurpers) but dis­cent, [Page 181] together with the qualifications required in him, who is to inherit, which are found in one, but not in the other: thus it may be said of the Church whose discent from Christ together with her qualifications, viz. inves­ture with true Doctrine and right administra­tion of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth.

2. Or to a river, whether it hath its off-spring from such an hill or mountain, the surest way is to trace the river up to the head.

Answ. 1. It may be probably known by other means than this, viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the ri­ver, by the ascent of the water of the rivers, &c.

2. Tracing it is not always a sure way; it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain, it may run through a dead sea, and then you may be at a losse whilst you seek an uninterrupted deriva­tion of it from its head. Yet,

3. I grant that when the head is near, and there is no mixture of impure and different waters, your course is very good, thus the fa­thers who lived within a few years after Christ, and before heretiques came into Bishopricks and Pastoral Churches, did make use of deri­vation of succession. But the case is other­wise [Page 182] with us, we living many hundreds of years after them, and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church.

Lastly, You say, The truth of Doctrine is discernable much after the same manner, if it be found to have no way varied, but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles, doubtless its Orthodox, if not, most certainly its new and false.

Answ. 1. The former part is most true, but not the later, that Doctrine is true, which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine.

2. Granted is true, what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confesse is not the same with Christs and his Apostles Doctrine, certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kinde, prayer in an unknown tongue &c. are new and false. The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetorick not worthy a re­ply.

SHAPE V.

THe fift Shape is this, That Church is true and Catholique which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture, but the Protestant Church doth so, therefore, &c.

You answer, 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church, it being often to be seen among [Page 183] schismaticks who for want of communion cannot make a true Church.

Reply, 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other, which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions.

1. True Doctrine is the Churches insepera­ble mate. p. 40. But it could not be her in­seperable mate, if it could be seperated from her, and brought into society with a schismati­cal Church.

2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with trueth, and ordained her keeper and preserver of it, and what comes upon any other score, than upon the Churches account and credit is to be re­puted Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief. p. 13. Therefore what­soever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths. For that which is beleeved by men out of the Church comes not upon the Churches account, and therefore with you is Apocriphal.

3. True Doctrine is Her (the Churches) Doctrine, p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others.

4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols, no concord with Christ and Be­lial. You urge these words to prove that pro­fessors of error cannot be in the Church, and [Page 184] it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church, where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church.

5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schis­maticks that did not either adde to, or dimin­ish something of the Doctrine which the A­postles taught in Scripture, hence 'tis that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schisme which doth not invent different Doctrines, and new heresies. Seperation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judg­ment in them that seperate. The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your ar­gument go under the name of heretiques, and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines.

To these arguments grounded on your as­sertions I will adde two more.

1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doc­trine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church, a note of the true Church, this is Bellarmine's sixt note, but it seemes Pa­pists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not.

2. The Doctrine (say some of you in an­swer to us) is the form of the true Church; [Page 185] therefore (In inferre) it cannot agree to any false one, the form being intrinsecall and pro­per to that which it doth inform, not com­mon to others: as Rationality cannot be pre­dicated of beasts, so neither can Profession of the true Apostolicall Doctrine agree to a fals and unsound Church according to your judge­ments. But you urge two things, viz.

1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches: and so not affording any de­terminate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth.

Answ. 1. The question is not whether do­ctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth (as you propound it) but whether true Doctrine that is, the doctrine of the Apostles clearly decla­clared in the Scriptures, and professed by Christians, be a mark of the true Church, we affirm it is.

2. Though Doctrine in generall be divers, yet true Apostolicall Doctrine is not divers, but one and the same: as there is one Lord, one Spirit, one Church; so is there one faith, which the Scripture reveals unto us.

2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors, as the means whereby it is conveyed to us,—there­fore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before, may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary, passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle.

Answ. 1. But that your memory is weak, you might remember that we have been men­tioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine. What else is the sub­ject of the four precedent shapes. 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement, you might find that when we say, True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church, we explain our selves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine, and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers. 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church, and more necessary than Bi­shops and Pastors. That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is alwayes true; but Pastors that succede them are not alwayes true Pastors, but sometimes Wolves; and therefore if you had not misled us, we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy.

2. You answer, It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine de­livered in Scriptures, they professing a Doctrine clean contrarie and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formall tearms expressed.

Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory, but I know you cannot do it, your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scri­pture; others not the Apostles Doctrine, which you were to have proved, not by con­sequence but expresly in plain and formall [Page 187] tearms. Lastly, some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully joyn. But I will particularly examine your Instances.

1 Inst. Traditions. 2 Thess. 2. Hold the tra­ditions, whether it be by word or Epistle.

Answ. 1. Its most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preach­ing or writings; (Tradition being then of a larger talent than now it is) and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach, was nothing but Scripture, Act. 26.20.22. Espe­cially see Act. 17.1, 2, 3, 13. where you finde what Paul preached at Thessalonica, even no­thing but the Word of God con­tained in the Scriptures.Annot. on Deutr. 4.2. Your Dowaists say, unwritten traditions are contained, implied, included, in the Scriptures; such the Apostle preached.

2. True and Apostolick traditions we wil­lingly imbrace, yea, we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them. That which Clemnitius saith, is the judgement of Protestants. Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce, &c. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth, which their immediate successours received from them,Exam. Concil. trident. p. 1. d. trad. p. 68. and delivered to their Disciples: but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to [Page 188] Scripture, and we reject none of them, but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture, we re­ceive and reverence. So another saith, if Pa­pists will prove their Traditions by the anci­ent and Apostolick Church, and the universall Church since even till our time we receive them; and this is Apostolicall Tradition ac­cording to Hierom. for conclusion, I appeal to Medina, Medri. l. 6. de sacr. hom. Continent. c. 106. whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolicall Traditi­ons of 84. Canons (saith he) gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apo­stles, the Latine Church scarce observeth 6. or 8.

2: Inst. Reall presence, Joh. 6.51.55, 56, 57. Luk 22.19. Matth. 26.28.

Ans. This is a Jesuitical slander, for pro­testants do not deny the Reall presence, nor is the Controversie between the Papists and us about it,Rivel sum. Contr. Tan. 1. Tract. 3. q. 18. Inst. we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacra­ment, as learned Rivet ob­serves: this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher, who objecting that Pro­testants hold not a true or reall presence, but onely a presence by imagination and conceit, is answered in these words: His most excellent [Page 189] Majestie, and all his orthodoxall people believe reall presence. Tis true, we hold not a gross i. e. (as the same Author explains it;) When the thing signified and presented, is according to the naturall substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signes, and together with them conveyed into the mouth, stomack and bo­dily parts; but we maintain a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ; so as man receiving the externall signes by his natu­rall parts, receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie, to wit, by an operative faith; and this is most evident by that 6. of John.

3. Inst. Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun, to the going down, great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation, Mal. 1.

Answ. 1. This Text, is in none of the Apo­stles writings, however being Scripture, I an­swer:

2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formall tearms expressed in it: Its your fals reading that brings in the word sacrificing; Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered. Pagnin and Arias Montanus speake to the same purpose.

3. It may be more probably understood of persons brought unto Jesus Christ from among [Page 190] the Gentiles, (Rom. 15.16.12.1. Isa. 66.20.) and of their religious services as praise, Psal. 50.13.14. Hebr. 13.15. Prayer, Rev. 8.3. The ordinary gloss understands Thymiama o­rationum, the incense of Prayers; so doth Paulus, Burgensis, Orationes, &c. The Pray­ers of innocent and holy persons are acceptable to me in every place. Thus Irenaeus—Hos quoque offerre vult, &c. He will have us to offer our gift at the Altar without ceasing;Iren. ado. haers. l. 4. c. 34. ad fin. Now the Al­tar is in Heaven, thither our Prayers and offerings are di­rected. Remigius calls these spirituall sacrifi­ces which succeed the Jews carnall ones, than which what can be more plain against the sa­sacrifice of the Mass, which is a carnall sacri­fice, 1.3. We grant the Eucharist is a sacrifice in those respects that some of the Ancients call it so.

1. In respect of the prayers and praises which we offer to God in the administration of it. Thus Eusebius saith, Itaque & sacrificamus, Euseb. a­pud Lyran in Mal. 1. &c. Therefore we sacrifice and offer incense cele­brating the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us, giving thanks unto God for our Redemption, and offering to him Religious Hymnes, and holie Prayers; we Sacrifice there­fore [Page 911] to the most high God the Sacrifice of Praise, &c. Hence is the name Eucharist given to the Lords Supper. 2. In respect of Christs Sacri­fice which is there represented, and as it were renewed by the memory of it.Cassand. Con­sult. Act. 24. p. 999. Thus Christ is said to be cruci­fied before the Galatians eyes, Gal. 3.1. Cassander sets it forth thus, according to the judgment of Antiquity, Non hic novum Sa­crificium, &c. Here is no new Sacrifice, but the same which was offered on the Cross, and a my­stical commemoration of that Sacrifice which was performed on the Cross, and a representation of Christs Priesthood and Sacrifice continued in hea­ven, whereby here is not wrought any new expia­tion, or remission of sins, but we desire that Sa­crifice which was oce offered on the Cross, may become effectual unto us. To this purpose he brings in the testimony of Ambrose or Chryso­stome saying; In Christo semel, &c. They once offered up a Sacrifice, Christ sufficient for our sal­vation; Why then do we everie day offer? Al­though we dailie offer, its onlie in remembrance of Christs Death. In respect of the natures of Bread and Wine, which were brought by the people, and as it were presented to God. In this regard, so far as I understand him, Irenaeus calls the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, and he hath divers expressions to this purpose. Lib. 4. c. 33. [Page 200] Christ gave counsel to his Disciples to offer up to God the first fruits of his creatures. If you ask how we are to consider God when we offer to him, he tells us a little after—The Church in the whole world doth offer unto God, who gives us food, the first fruits of his gifts. More fully to this purpose, c. 34. It behoves us to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures, as Moses saith, thou shalt not appear before the Lord emp­tie; and the reason is Gods Dominion over us; in regard whereof the Jewes had their Tythe consecrated to God, and we that have obtained greater libertie then they, ought freely to devote what we have to the Lords use, as the poor Wid­dow gave her Mite into the Treasures. Again, in this same Chapter, we ought to be thankful to our Maker, offering unto him of the first fruits of his creatures, and this Oblation the Church onlie offers to God in a pure manner, offering unto him of his creatures with thanksgiving. Now the Jewes they offer not, because their hands are full of blood, and they receive not the word by whom we offer unto God. Mark it, not said whom, but by whom we offer unto God. Now that this Father was ignorant of Transubstantiation, is most evident by what he saith, lib. 5. When therefore the Wine and Bread receive the Word of God, they become the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, of which our bodily substance is made and increased, which cannot be said of [Page 201] meer species of bread, or Christs body. Eras­mus ingeniously confesseth of him that he saith nothing clearly of Transubstantiation, I have been longer in this Father because you seem to build much upon him.

4. Inst. Altars: We have an Altar where­of they have no power to eat, who serve the ta­bernacle. Hebr. 13. Answ. Although ma­ny Protestants dislike the name Altar. Yet the thing it self is not disliked by any, whe­ther you understand by this text Christ; as The­odoret [apud Lyran] and the glosse, or that which the Apostle calls the table of the Lord. 1 Cor. 10.21. and which is called by Gregory Nissen. [...], an holy table an Altar inviolable. One and the same thing is an Evangelical Altar and an holy Table.

5. Inst. Power in Priests to forgive sins; whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them and whole sins ye shall retain they are retained. John 20. Answ. No Protestants do deny power of forgivenesse of sins to the Ministers of Christ. The differenc betwixt you and us is not about the thing it selfe, whether there be a power in them, but about the quality of it, as whether it be a judiciary or a Ministerial power, whether they properly forgive, or but declare Gods forgivenesses of penitent sinners. We deny them a judiciary, and proper pow­er [Page 202] of forgiveness, which belongs only to God but acknowledge their Ministerial.

6. Confession, Confesse your sins one to ano­ther. Jam. 5. And many of them that believed came confessing their Sins. Act. 19. Answ. Protestants acknowledg the usefulnesse of con­fession, when a Christian is troubled with the burden of some sin, whether it be made to a Christian friend that is able to advise, comfort, or pray for him, or to a Minister of the Word, but deny the absolute necessity of set confessi­on of all known sins in the ears of a Priest. The Scriptures you urge prove not Popish confession. Not the former, for it bids us confesse one to another, i. e. according to the glosse. Coaequalibus, to our equals; but your Priests would be loath to be numbred among the common people as their equals only. Nor the later: for that speaks of some only that came, and of their confession of their Deeds (as the Rhemists) only. And its very proba­ble, only their sorceries and witchcraft which they manifested their dislike of by the burning of their books whereby they had learned to practise their wicked deeds.

7. Inst. Justification by works. Do you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Jam 2. Answ. We own and subscribe to the truth of St James's assertion, yet be­lieve it must not clash with that of Saint Paul, [Page 203] Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. They must therefore be reconciled, which they may by saying that faith only doth pro­perly justifie us before God, and Works do justifie our faith to be a true faith, for as much as true faith is productive of good works: for we abhor those mens conceit, who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works. Or, 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification. Aquinas confesseth that works [in c. 3. ad Gal.] are not the cause that any man is just before God, but they are rather manifestations of Righteousnesse and Justifi­cation. Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God, before he offered up his son Isaac, which is the foundation of Saint James's speech. Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine (at least seemingly) they invent a distinction of a first and second justification, from that they exclude all works, and attribute it only to faith, and the other is not properly personal justification.

8. Inst. Prayer to Saints. The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ. 1. Here is no mention of Saints much lesse of prayer to them, not so much as an implicite hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian [Page 204] Daemon worshippers; who said, it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angells or gods. 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angell of the Covenant, Mal. 3.1. who is true God, and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils: Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it. 3. I think you mistoo [...] this for the latter part of the verse, which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints: But seeing you doe not urge it, I shall not at present answer it.

9. Inst. Prayer for the dead, It is an holy and wholsome cogitation to pray for the dead, 2 Mac­cab. 12.

A. 1. This book is not Apostolicall, nor part of the Canon of Scripture: the Hebrews (keepers of the book of the Old Testament.) received it not as is generally confest; and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read, yet they commended them onely as profitable Treatises, not as Canonicall Scriptures, and therefore advise men to reade them with discretion and prudence; Christ, though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms, he gives none to these, or in speciall to this: besides there are divers things in this render it suspected. 1. The Author of this book (supposed to be Josephus) professeth it to be onely an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene, c. 2.23. and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epi­tomize [Page 205] profane Histories. 2. He makes an ex­cuse for himself, and such a one as the holy Writers never used, nor becomes a Divine Hi­story, c. 15. 38.

Answ. 2. The Text you urge may be di­vers wayes oppugned. 1. The words are not rightly translated by you, the Greek is thus: [...]. A holy and pious cogitation: therefore he made expiation (or satisfaction by sacrifice) for the dead to free them from sin; the words are not to be read without a middle distinction. Vatablus who includes these words, Piam et sanctam cogitationem, in a pa­renthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sa­crifice, but to the resurrection of the dead; saying, its an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country, should rise again and not perish for ever. 2. Supposing, Sacrificing or Prayer (seeing you will have it so (for the dead were lawfull, yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed: For, first they were Ido­laters slain for their idolatry, verse 40. Dying (for any thing appears to the contrary) in a mortall sin. 2. They were not in Purgatory the onely place from whence Prayers bring souls; for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence. 3. Suppo­sing [Page 206] Prayer for the dead, and holy and whole­some cogitation, and might be proved so from this place, yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formall tearms expressed. Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene, yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ, nor yet any of the Prophets of God, the last of whom was Malachi. It is evident that you want spirituall proofs for your chari­table devotion, else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocriphal, and not bring one syllable of Scri­pture; you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees, and then prove our contrarietie to Scriptures in dissenting from them, till then you beg the question.

10. Inst. Extream unction. Is any body sick amongst you, let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and pray over him an­oynting him with oyl in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ. 1. Here are not the plain and formal tearms of extream unction, nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Au­thor; the word Extream shews your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius (otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o­any other) clearly demonstrates in these [Page 207] words; Abusus vocbu­li est, quod dicitur extrema unctio, &c. Its an abuse of the word to call it extream unction For its not a Sacrament of dying men, but of those who are sick, not relateing to their burial, but conducing to their recovery. Whence it was that in the primitive Church, many when they were anointed did recover health. And even at this day many w [...]uld be healed, if this Sacra­ment were rightly used. I observe that these Po­pish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this tearm Extream calling this sup­posed Sacrament either sacra­mentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius; or simply,Cass. consult. Art. 22. p. 985. unctio infirmorum, as Cassander who also shews that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health, 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extream unction. It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark men­tions, [Mark 6.13.] and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased, your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal vertue to heal dis­eases which you will hardly say of your ex­tream oyl. Cajetan expresly denies that this text of James, [Cajet. in cap. 5. Jac.] proves ex­tream unction, and proves it by divers reasons. [Page 208] 1. Saint James saith, not if any man be sick unto death, but absolutely if any man be sick. 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recove­ry of health; If he speaks of remission of sins onely conditionally, whereas extream unction is not gi­ven but at the point of death, and directly tends as its form stands, to the remission of sins; besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person, both to pray with him, and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of ex­tream unction: thus far Cajetan. 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament, it neither pre­tends to the name of Sacrament, nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ, (which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments; but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name, and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie. Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper; and antiquity (when it speaks of pro­per Sacraments) doing no more. Rabanus Maurus, who lived about 800 years ago, ac­knowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper. Hence I conclude that Prote­stants (though opposite to Popish fopperies) are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine.

11. Inst. The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, Feed my sheep. To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of [Page 209] Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven, Matth. 16.

Answ. 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power? for we deny both, and they are alike expressed in Scrip­ture. but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spiri­tuall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed. for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall mat­ters; here is mention of Peter, but few of your Popes have had that name. 2. What is com­manded and promised to Peter, is commanded and promised to him, not as Bishop of Rome, but as an Apostle, and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles. The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter, and I am sure he is not the corner stone. The keyes are promised to them as well as to him, John 20.22, 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he; yea, it is the duty of all Pastors, Act. 20.28. 3. What rea­son can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch. 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship, so as to be the prime Apostle, and have power over the rest: but Apostolike power is not de­rived by succession upon any. The truth is, Peter had no power over the rest from Christ, [Page 210] for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about su­premacy, or would have answered the questi­on, better then those words wherewith Christ did answer. He might easily have said, why do you strive which should be greatest? know you not that I have made Peter your Prince, and have made him Supreme; but Christ thought of no such matter.

Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles, and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them. We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us. Its therefore a most false slander to say that Pro­testants refuse some points the Apostles be­leeved, p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence, we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed. Its true we deny divers points that Papists believe; we dislike the new articles of your late Creed, which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed, nor were they believed by the Apostles. But you object (sect. 5.) It is e­vident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof, as of Scripture; or any other point they believed; and that without which (under a miracle) there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief, to wit, the [Page 211] Churches constant tradition. Answ. 1. Its most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles. For, 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind, private masse, prayer in an unknown tongue, imagined worship, auricular confes­sion, pardons, indulgences, restraint of peo­ple from reading Scripture, or Clergy-men from marriage, Popes infallibility, sumpreama­cy of temporal and spiritual power, purgato­ry, prayer for the dead, or to Saints depart­ed, &c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not men­tion any of these points, (which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had be­leeved them) much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith,See Caranz. de concil. conc. Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant. p. 102. Tollet. p. 131. Ephes. p. 151. Calced. p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles, of the Nicen Fathers, of Syr­mium, Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus (which Caranza calls a summe of all Christi­an Doctrine) of the Ro­mans with divers others, and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them. 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsi­ties, as, 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition, or humane testimony, whereas [Page 212] it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed. 2. That without the Churches con­stant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief. For, 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers, and propagators of his truth. Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obsti­nacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament. 2. The Scrip­tures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy, and these could testifie of the Apostles belief, [2 Reg. 22.8.] as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings. 3. Christians for a long time had not the Church­es Tradition, i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the A­postles belief, or which were the books of Scripture. 3. Those points of yours I men­tioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition, you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doc­trines which we reject, much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or nation­al Councill that will affirm it:Concil. Const. Sess. 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both [Page 213] kinds, and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds. Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull? How then durst he so administer it? Was his practise contrary to his belief? This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle. 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed, but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth princi­pally discover what was the Apostles belief: if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds, or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue, we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them, and it is first to be regarded. But you reply to this, p. 67. As Scripture, so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown, but for the Churches information. Answ. This hath been formerly confuted. Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self, then men can give to it. The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fa­thers or Popes; the same may be said of the truth contained in it. When the error of ad­ministring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church; I appeal to any [Page 214] man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth, better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes: I'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point, and yet there were means of finding out the truth, else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm. It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church, and therefore must be more ma­fest than the Church: But you prove it thus, The knowledge faith requires, must be superna­turally certain, and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts p [...]culiar assistance, which is onely warranted to the Church, and not to every pri­vate reading and reasoning.

Answ. If you speak of the Holy Ghosts in­fallible assistance, we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain, and their writings we ground our faith upon, but this assistance is not now given to any. You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assi­stance, how this is warranted not onely to the Church, but to private Christians. For first Christ promiseth it to them, Jer. 31.34. and assures them God will give it them if they ask, Luke 11.13. 2. Christ invites them to seek it, Apoc. 3.18. 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it, 1 John 2.27. The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable, they [Page 215] (forsooth) and none else have the peculiar assi­stance of Gods spirit to enlighten them. Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pa­stor, that Popish Priests may be the onely tea­chers. But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence, and therefore to evade it in stead of saying, Not to provide persons, you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much a­gainst your Popes and Priests, as private Chri­stians; if those do ever reade and reason in private. I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and rea­soning. No more as I said is he given to every, or any Pope in every private reading or reaso­ning. When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra, he's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession, and he's not alwayes in his chair: But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence, may expect the pe­culiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth, this is clearly pro­mised Psal. 25.9.12.14. upon our asking of him, James 1.5. If any man want wisedom, Spiri­tum illuminatorem (saith the gloss) Let him ask it of God, &c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law, so should pri­vate [Page 216] Christians do: through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not, the vail is upon their eyes, but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail. 2. You prove it by S. Paul; S. Paul is plain, Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ, and dispensers of Gods mysteries, 1 Cor. 4.

Answ. The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood, but I know not how they make for you; they do not prove that the A­postles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spi­rit, much less do they prove that private Chri­stians are not capable of it. All that they prove is this, that the Corinthians ought not to con­temn or vilifie Paul or any, but account of them according to their calling as Christs ser­vants, and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience, saying, Experience con­firms no less in Seperatists, who laying aside the Church, and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings, have vented as many absurd, and extravagant impieties, as they had base and exorbitant passions, p. 68.

A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings, without having respect to the Spirit of God, it's no wonder if they err; Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture. Flesh and blood reveals it not to us, but the Spi­rit. [Page 217] Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit, and this was the cause of their erring. 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary, whereby the sense of Scripture might appear, and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera: Suppose a Christian should de­sire to acquaint himself with Scripture, as that which (you say) contains part of Gods Will, but he dares not venture upon it himself, and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition, now he knows not where to meet with it; I pray Sir, could you direct him where he might find it? The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree, and he finds their Expo­sitions often rejected by your learned Do­ctors, and somtimes they deserve not to be received. Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be (as that Text of James, some understand it of Ex­tream Unction, others deny that Extream Un­ction can be proved by it) and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture, and when they do it, their Expositions are oft irrational, (as that of Rom. 8.6. by Lyricus) and seldom obvious. In this case, either the study of Scri­pture must be quite laid aside, or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church, which can be no other then the Spirit of God, by which we are enabled to judg [Page 218] which is the true sense of Scrip­ture.Ʋid. Can. loc. Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this, when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture, because it dissents from Ancient Fathers, for God hath not con­fined the Exposition of Scripture to their sen­ces, but to Scripture it self. Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by com­paring one place with another, is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally, though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in; as subservient thereunto. 3. Those who have cri­ed up the Church, as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schis­matique: What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be, then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot please God (as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God) or that of Hard­ing, that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power; or that of the Lawyers, that by Cardines terrae, 1 Sam. 2.8. are figured the Cardinals, by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed. (See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine) yea, and such as are ground­ed upon base and exorbitant passion, as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants. See Maldon. in Joan. 9.62. and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr. Ʋnct. [Page 219] c. 2. init. both which reject a generally received Exposition, because the Protestants enter­tain it.

4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judg­ed, gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning, especially in fundamental points, which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it. If it were not thus, to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper? Yea, and write not only to Bishops and Pastors, but to private Christians also: It were a vain thing to write so, as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning; besides, it's more then probable, that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing. To this you give us this answer, The Apostles did set Pen to Pa­per for a greater confirmation of the truth, to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching, and not for e­very one to be his own carver and interpreter.

Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than a­gainst us, for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them, and must have a witness to assure them, that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and can­did? are they not the People who are com­manded to try the Spirits? 1 Joh. 4.1. and are commended for searching the Scriptures, to find whether what the Apostles Preached was [Page 220] the truth? Act. 17.11.12. How can the Scri­ptures witness to them, that the Pastors of the Church teach truth, if they cannot understand the Witnesses language? or what confirmati­on can we have of truth, if we must not med­dle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth? The Apostle Peter commends Chri­stians for giving heed to the Scriptures, 2 Ep. 1.19. calling them a light shining in a dark place; whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto. 2. Your words make much a­gainst your selves, for they imply: 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church, therefore the Church, as to con­firmation of truth, is inferiour to Scripture. 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that ac­count; but because of it's consent with Scrip­ture, it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture, both which are cer­tain truths, but not agreeable to your Positi­ons. 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand, else they cannot be assured of the truth by them, nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teach­ing and preaching. Can an idiot know by A­ristotles Greek works, whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on [Page 221] him, or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one, than their Commentaries: If you have any ingenuity, you cannot affirm it. 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith, whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried. 5. Whereas you say, the Apostles did not set pen to paper —For every one to be his own Carver and inter­preter. reply. 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear, Rev. 2.7.17.29. and give heed thereto, 2 Pet. 1.19. and understand and beleeve, John 20.31. yea, and might teach them their children, 2 Tim. 3.15. wtih 1.5. and others related to them, Acts 18.24.26. Aquila and Priscilla instruct A­po [...]os in the way of the Lord, which was done by interpreting Scripture to him, concerning those points wherewith he was not well ac­quainted, and yet Burgensis saith of them, that they were simple persons, persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church, except­ing for piety. 2 'Tis true, that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it, as the Apostle saith some did, 2 Pet. 3.16. (which may be applied as well to Cler­gy men as private Christians) but they intend­ed an application of it to Christians particular use, and that even by themselves privately, and not onely publikely. But you urge for this you have said; It was ever held an effect of great [Page 222] improvidence, and occasion of intollerable confu­sion for the people in any Common-wealth, to have the freedom of construing the Law; therefore wise Lawmakers, to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick, as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain se­lect persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same: If this be true as it is, &c.

Resp. 1. Its most false that you say, It was ever held, &c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland, Tholos. syntag. juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29, Azor. inst. Mo­ral. part. 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub. 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause. Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advo­cate, do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause. See Tholos. and Ararius, who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence, &c. that they allow it. You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself, Acts 24.12, 13, 18, 19. and 25. and 10, 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself, and that by Law which he interprets for himself. Now he would never have done this, had he thought it an effect of great improvidence, or an occasi­on of intollerable confusion as you suggest it. Advocates do not substantially but accidental­ly intervene in publick judicatories, as Zorius [Page 223] speaks. [Sup. cap. 12. init.] Now that which onely accidentally intervenes, may sometimes not intervene. 2. The reason you give of Law­makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability, to dispence the Laws, its an occasion of intellerable confusion, &c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment; but rather the true and main reason is this: All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law, though some may be able; now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject: If some men should han­dle their own cause, they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the sub­tilty of the adversaries. So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder, as the pre­judice of civil and particular rights, every man not being able to deal with every adversary, nor to understand every case in Law. 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature, which doth not take away private mens liberty of inter­pretation absolutely, but as to such times and places; and there is none of us pleads for pri­vate mens interpretation of Scripture publick­ly. 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason, and by corrupt affection; this lat­ter, no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people, for indeed that would bring confusion: but the former can­not [Page 224] be denyed to any; for the Law is founded upon right reason, and so far as this takes place, the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth, though it be done by private persons. 2. You infer, If this be true as it is, what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing, as the Church is, he hath left in­differently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law.

Answ. 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills. If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God, it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all, a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law. The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick, and therefore you either play the fool or worse, to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for.

2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word. Rom. 12.2. Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law, but this is not op­posite to private study and meditation in Gods Law, the very principal charecter of a blessed [Page 225] man. Psal. 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the inter­pretation of it. The Saints of God have earn­estly studied Gods Law. Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack, nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists, as you wickedly suggest. Misapplying and wrest­ing of Scripture may have those effects you speak of: but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it. Your reason for this your unsavory speech is (say you) clear, because all men are not apt to understand alike; for being for the most part of different tempers and composures, they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ. 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis & frigidum, in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations, different tempers and interests, therefore neither could, nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye, p. 15, 16. But here the same ar­gument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding. 2. I say, If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures, as you re­present them, and that their different temp­ers and composures were the directive causes [Page 226] of understanding: I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians, yea of all men in the World, and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place. Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rab­bies the only interpreters of Scripture, for are not they of different tempers and composures, and so according to your doctrine have vari­ous fancies which of necessity must beget a di­versity of understanding. If you answer, that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding, I reply, so have all true Chris­tians as I have already proved. I deny not but there is corruption in the best, and dark­nesse in their understandings, they but see through a glasse and that darkly, and there­fore may mistake a wrong exposition some­times for a true one, and thus it is not only with Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin (whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them) but with your own Doctors whose ex­positions are not always the same. But we must believe (if we will) that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words, this is my body, this is my blood. p. 70. Answ. 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are, and I am [Page 227] perswaded they may easily be reduced to two; for though Luther and Zuinglius differed a­bout the sence of the words, yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did, and I rather think they did not, for the opinion that some appro­priate to Zuinglius, Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words,Bellarmine saith, the opinion of Cal­vin, reverâ nihil dif­fert a sententia, Zuinglii de Ludib. lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat, &c. It was the Heresie of some, that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body, this Heresie doth Calvin teach. 2. If the words be so plain, how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them, every word almost brings variety of Popish sences. If we were to learn what the Pronoun This, (the very first of those pain words) means, we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you. One tells us it signifies Nothing; another, The Bread presently to be transubstantiate. A third, an individuum va­gum, contained under the forms of Bread. A fourth, the Body of Christ. And now Sir, I dare be bold to say, that there is less agreement a­mongst Popish Expositors, who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions, then amongst Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin: There being but three, (rather two) Exposi­tions of these words given by Protestants, [Page 228] whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words.

For conclusion, you bring us in objecting for our selves thus: Those selected Persons in­trusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes, utter by mouth what they understand; and they understand no more, then what their pri­vate reading and reasoning are able to inform them; so that even this way men would be to seek. To this you answer: 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them, but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law, at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves.

Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish be­twixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts; as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading, whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers them­selves, which hath been propogated from one to another, and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various and so many, that they require strong memories to retain them. 2. Law-makers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen, nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law, unless occasionally in some doubtfull cases; for it is [Page 229] supposed, that the Law when delivered, is clear and manifest, at least in the substantials of it. 3. Judges do not alwayes look so far as to the Law-makers, but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason, which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Lawes. 2. You answer with respect to the Church. The Church besides the Letter of Scrip­ture (which she reads assiduously with watch­ing, fasting and prayer for a right and happie understanding thereof) and her own reasoning, hath the help of a better and sure tradition, and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here, is hard to guess. I fear your commen­dations will not well agree to Popes, and the rest of your Ecclesiasticall Grandees: their o­ther imployments are so great and their affe­ction to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little, and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute, that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assidu­ously, with watching, fasting, Prayer: and for your common people, they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would: so that you must either give us another definition of Church, then you do, page 73. or acknow­ledge that the Church doth not reade the Let­ter of Scripture assiduously with watching, &c.

[Page 230]2. What ever you speak of the Church, may be as truely spoken of particular Christi­ans, they are capable of reading the Scrip­tures, with the use of fasting, watching, Pray­er; they have reason whereby they can discern truth from errour, they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition, and the assistance of the Spirit is as truely with them, as with those you call Church: And therefore I shall conclude with you, leaving what I have said to the impar­tiall Reader, desiring him to judge by it, whether private Christians, being rationall men; yea, men indued with Gods Spirit, and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures, may not accord­ing to the ability given them, and in their places seek for, and deliver the sence of Scripture, and whether this be any underva­luing of Gods Wisedome and Providence, or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties.

CHAP. XI. Of the Roman Church.

BY the word ROMAN (say you) are not only comprised the inhabitants of that par­ticular territory of Rome, but likewise all Christi­ans in the World that acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock. Answ. 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgment you mean, whether an acknowledgment de facto, or de jure only. If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually ac­knowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor, you overthrow its universality, It is not then Catholique, for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgment. The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the West­ern do disclaim his supremacy, and worship not the image of the beast, nor receive his name in their foreheads. Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgment of the Pope as chief Pastor, by all Christian Churches. There were other Patriarchs besides him who had [Page 132] their several distinct limits,Azor. inst. mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5. viz. the Patriarchs of Con­stantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Some of whose limits were no lesse then the Roman Patriarchs, and whose power did ex­tend to the constituting, ordaining and con­firming Bishops, Archbishops and other Ec­clesiastical officers (as your Azorius testifies) yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other, that none of them was to meddle in anothers Patriarchat as its proved out of the Councill of Constantinople (Can 2.) by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixt Canon of the Councill of Nice to this purpose,Scult. Synlag. medul. Theol. Patr. p. 418. and answers the objections that Papists make against it. All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this, Inter Patriarchas, &c. Amongst the Patriarchs the Pope of Rome was chief, to whom as Patriarch, the Western Provinces and many Ilands in the mediterranian sea towards the West, were subject. Here is priority of Order, but no supreamacy of pow­er over the other Patriarches, the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome (as the Nicen Creed hath it) but not over his fellow Patriarchs or their Cities, &c. His power was provincial, not oecumeni­call. [Page 233] 2. If you mean that by Roman are com­prised those who ought to acknowledg the Pope for their chief Pastor, it will remain to be resolved who those are, whether some par­ticular part of the Christian World or the whole. The former you cannot grant but o­verthrow universality, and set Roman against Catholique, which you are use to conjoyn in their predication of the Church: The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossi­bility in proving that in the language of the Ancients, the Catholique Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Anci­ents dignified with a general and common at­tribute, and are called Catholique Churches; but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof, I say, A proper pre­dicate. For I acknowledg that the Church in Scripture is called Sion, and Jerusalem; but these are only figurative expressions of it: it is never called the Church of Sion, or the Church of Jerusalem, though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome, or the Roman Church: the Scripture never takes no­tice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholique Church except as an enemy. 2. Notwith­standing, I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope, and [Page 234] thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whe­ther Protestants or others. This company (say you) together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholique Church. Answer, 1. The truth of this will appear by your argu­ments which you bring for the proof of it: The arguments are these which I shall consi­der of in the order I finde them pro­pounded.

1. Argument, That company of Christians, compose and make up the true Catholique Church, to which the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree; but the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree to the above men­tioned company, therefore they compose and make up the true Catholique Church, p. 72. 73. Answ. If you speak of an exact and perfect definition, wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined, agreeing fully to it, and not to any thing else: I subscribe to your major propositi­on, but deny the minor. For proof whereof you give us a definition, and then apply it to your Church: that is, first you suit your definition to the Roman Church, and then you bring your Roman Church to the definition. The definition is, The true Catholick Church is a so­ciety of men linked together in the profession of one Faith, in the use o [...] the same Sacrament, and un­der the government of Bishops and Pastors law­fully [Page 235] sent, that are able to shew their personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles, without the least interruption.

Answ. 1. It might rationally be expected from you, that when you bring a definition upon the truth, whereof the validity of your argument depends, you should have fetcht it from some Fathers or other approved Authors and not out of your own brain. Its not suitable for the seller to make himself a measure, and then confine the buyer thereunto, or for a sub­ject to frame a definition of Law, and accord­ing to that proceed against his neighbour as a breaker of the Law. If it could be thus, what man could not lay a foundation for suits, yea and carry away anothers right by his new de­finition. I challenge you or any other to shew me this definition of the Catholick Church in any of the Ancients or later Fathers, either Greek or Latine, till which time I might justly defer an answe [...]. The former part I confess is warrantable, but, desinit in piscem mulier for­mosa Supernè. But you seem to say you prove it in every part of it by Scripture. I shall there­fore first examine whether it be in Scripture, and then whether it (such as it is) be a pliable to the Roman Church. 1. Say you A societie of men; and he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, others Pastors and Doctors. A most necessary part of the definition, you did [Page 236] well not to commit the poof of the Churches manhood, because none denies it. 2. Linked toge­ther under the government of Bishops and Pa­stors lawfully sent, Eph. 4. Heb. 5. Rom. 10.4. this we grant. 3. That are able to shew, &c. The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be esta­blished in the top of mountains, and all Nations shall flow unto it. Is. 2. He hath placed his Ta­bernacle in the Sun, Psal. 118. Sir, you are now gotten to Rome, and the Scripture leaves you: what sober man that reads these Texts, would infer that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church are able to shew, &c. but it sticks in your teeth, and therefore you stop at shew. And truly I may well apply to you the words of the Psalmist, (Ps. 39.6.) with a little vari­ation, surely you walk in a vain shew, surely you are disquieted in vain, you heap up Scrip­tures, and know not how to apply them. The Scriptures you urge are not applicable to any thing you say, Isa. 2. Prove the amplitude of the Church under the Gospell by the access of the Gentiles, by reason of whom also it shall be more glorious then formerly: But what is this to the shewing of personall or doctrinall succession of the Churches Bishops? Sure you do not understand by the Mountain of the House of the Lord, onely the Bishops of the Church, and by its being confirmed in the top of the mountains, that all the Bishops of the [Page 237] Church shall be personally visible. Herein you would surpass the very worst of doting Rab­bins. 2. In quoting Psal, 118. you commit two errours, one personall, quoting Psal. 118. for 19. The other vulgar reading after the Latine, He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun, which is a most false reading, as ingenious Papists con­fess. Vatablus reads it thus, Soli posuit taber­naculum in ipsis, He hath placed a tabernacle in them, (i. e. the Heavens) for the Sun: that is as he notes, Domicilium circumscripsit in coelis, &c. He hath made an house for it in the Heavens, that there as in an high Theatre is might be better seen. Lyranus tells us, In Hebraeo, &c. In the Hebrew, and in Hieroms translation according to the Hebrew it is thus: He hath placed for them a tabernacle for the Sun. Now do you think that either Vatablus, Lyr [...], Hierom or the He­brews would infer that, because the Sun is in the Heavens, &c. its able to shew its own, or Bi­shops personall succession? I wonder you are not ashamed to reject the Hebrew, and Hie­rom and produce a false translation to so lit­tle purpose as you do: for suppose in both these Texts it were proved that the Church had a shew or were manifest, yet it makes not for a successive visibilitie of an Hierarchicall Church. Yea they clearly prove that the Church may be sometimes hid, for the clouds may both make the mountains invisible, and [Page 238] obscure the lustre of the Sun as common expe­rience testifieth. 3. Their Personall and Do­ctrinall succession; He gave some Doctors and Pastors, &c. untill we all meet in the unitie of Faith, Eph. 4 Indeed here is proved that there shall be Pastors in the Church till the end of the world: God will still raise up some to preach his truth, though there may be inter­ruptions in particular Churches, nor doth Matth. 28. prove a non interruption of suc­cession of Bishops, but only a non interruption of Christs presence. But suppose, Isa. 2. & Psal. 19. Prove a visibilitie; and Eph. 4. Prove a succession; and Matth. 28. Prove a non inter­ruption: Yet to say therefore, the Church must be able to shew a succession without in­terruption, is fallacia compositionis. And now let any man judge whether your definition be spirituall or no.

2. This definition is not a right definition according to the rules of Logick its not adae­quata definito, not fitted to the Catholick Church: For, first, it may agree to a particu­lar Church as well as to the Catholick, as is evident to any that examines it: And second­ly, it doth not agree to the Catholick, i. e. The universall Church. For first, Bishops and Pa­stors do not shew succession as Governours of the Catholick Church, but as Bishops and Pa­stors in particular Churches. The Popes shew [Page 239] their succession as Bishops of Rome. The Pa­triarch of Constantinople, shews his succession as Patriarch of that place: thus the Bishops of England shew their succession in the Church of England. He that shews a personall suc­cession of government over the Catholique Church must produce not a Pstoral, or Episco­pal, but Apostolical succession, which Papists themselves lay no claim to. 2. There are no such Bishops and Pastors, as can shew a perso­nal and doctrinal succession without the least interruption. 3. This difinition comprehends not Popes and Bishops, who are parts of it: The Catholique Church as visible and distinct from particular Congregations is more truly defined by Lorichius, in these words, Sensus unitatis ecclesiae est, &c. The sence of the arti­cle of one Church, is to believe that all the Con­gregations of the faithful are one Churche, and that is the Spouse of Christ and Mother of all Christians. And he fully and expresly meets with your self, and such like flatteries of the Roman Church, who monopolize the word Catholick to be: —Non tamen ejus sedis, &c. Yet let not the governors of the Roman Church ex­toll themselves, as if that Church only & (as they speak) exclusively were the Catholick Church, and that it behoved us presently without triall of it to approve of whatsoever comes from that See: and that for all Doctrines and pontificall [Page 240] constitutions nothing should be brought but an ipse dixit. If we attribute this to that See, we shall expose the Catholick Church to all errours. And the Church of Rome cannot have any more pestilent enemies, than those flatterers, who do make her not onely the chief, but the onely Church, and extolling her above the Word and Catholick sence of Scripture, above all the Ca­tholick Fathers, yea above the Church trium­phant, and consequently above the spirit of God, do make of her I know not what Idoll. This root of Parasites are overthrown by that of Hierom, The world is greater then a citie. So that it is evident the Roman being but particular can­not be the Catholick Church. But supposing your definition good, I come to examine whe­ther it can rightly be applied to the Roman Church, in the severall particulars of it, as you say it may.

1. You say Its a societie of men, this agreeth to the said companie, for in that companie is to be seen Jerusalem descended from above, Apoc. 4. A goodly Hierarchie, or heavenly order and sub­ordination of sub-Deacon to Deacon, of Deacon to Priest, of Priest to Bishop, of Bishop to chief Bi­shop or Pope, (who is subordinate to none but [...] an exalter of himself above all that is called God, 2. Thes. 2.) and of the Laitie to all.

Answ. 1. I know not whether to pity or [Page 241] laugh at you, seeing you will needs be so exact as to prove that Rome is a society of men, I wonder you do not go more directly to work. Its not a direct proof to say in the Church of Rome there are sub-Deacons, Deacons, Priests, Bishops, chief Bishop, a goodly Hierarchy or chief heavenly order; therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men; for you would per­swade us that the pattern of your Hierarchy was brought by Dyonisius from heaven, and that amongst the Angels there is a goodly Hierarchy or heavenly order, so that we can­not tell by your argument whether the Church of Rome be a society of men or Angels. Why might you not as well argue thus, In Rome there are common whores that bring in great revenues to his Holiness, there are or have been divells incarnate conjurers, Magitians, Simoniacks, Whore-masters: therefore the Church of Rome is a societie of men: I am sure its as good an argument as yours, to prove your Churches manhood. What assurance have we that your heavenly orders are all men; for the Porrphyry chair is only for the Pope, and I have not heard of any other chairs of humanity for inferior orders. But you urge further these degrees are so masterlike set, that they do not hinder and trouble, but as great and less strings musically tuned, make and preserve the melodious harmonie of peace and concord: [Page 242] Ergo the Church of Rome is a society of men: Who that reads these arguments can forbear laughter. I am sure they are neither musically tuned, nor do they make melodious harmony; by this argument you might prove your fidle strings to be a society of men, but I grant your assertion to be true without your reasons. 2. The second part is—Linked together. This a­greeth to the said company, for in that company there is no diversitie of belief, but one as Monarch swayeth in Europe, Asia, Africa and America; where one and the same belief is imbraced for one and the same motive, Gods revelation proposed by the Church.

Answ. 1. If to be linked together be the main thing applyed to your Church in this second part, it may agree to Heathens and Jews as well as Romans. If the faith wherein they are linked together with the use of the same Sacra­ments (which you seem to forget) this may al­so agree with the Greek and Eastern Churches or to the Protestants, who (as is evident by their confessions of their Faith) do as nearly agree as any Churches subjected to the Ro­man.

2. What you say of the same beleef, that its received upon the Churches account, I have before confuted it, and for further answer to it, refer you to Lorichius in my last quotation of him. Lastly, your talk of your Monarchiall [Page 243] sway, &c. is but a Popish brag, or if reall, tis an usurpation, for which you cannot plead Law nor antient possession, as Aronius will inform you if you consult him about the Popes dominions.

3. The third part is lawfully sent. This a­grees to the said company, for in that companie no man clarifieth himself, but one receiveth power from another, the sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest from the Bishop, the Bishop from the chief Bishop or Pope.

Answ. 1. I hope you will not make the whole company of Popish Catholicks Preach­ers, though no man can inferre any thing else from your words; for you say, To be lawfully sent agrees to the said company, which com­pany you define to be under the government of Bishops and Pastors, p. 73. 2. Supposing you meant it of Bishops, &c. yet there receiving of power one for another, the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priests from the Bishops the Bi­shops from the Pope doth not prove that the Bishops and Pastors are lawfully sent, unless it were made manifest both that the power of sending were in the Bishops and Pope, and that they used it lawfully; the latter of which especi­ally wil be difficult for you to prov, considering that your Priests, &c. are ordained not to an Evangelicall imployment, as preaching the Gospell, and administring the seals of the Co­venant [Page 244] of grace, but rather to offer sacrifice and such as the Gospell knows not.

4. The fourth part is able to shew, &c. This agreeth to the said company; for in that company an exact succession of power and doctrine is faith­fully and with clearness deduced, Writers of se­verall ages and nations having put forth and published to the view of the w [...]rld authentick Schemes and Catalogues of Popes, Bishops and Pastors, succeeding each other from Christ and the Apostles, and from time to time laid open their doctrine.

Answ. 1. Personall succession (as I have shewed) is no mark of a true Church, its agree­able to other Churches: and this is the suc­cession which your Authors do principally, if not onely demonstrate. 2. Its observable that there is no personall succession of Bishops and Pastors (to whom you joyn sub-Deacons, and Deacons) distinct from the Pope mentioned in any of your authors that I have met with, though particular Churches, as Spain, France, &c. have had Apostolicall institution as well as Rome, and its your task to prove not onely that the Pope, but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personall succession from the Apostles. But 2. Rome is not now able to shew a personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles, though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she [Page 245] was able, as were also the Churches of Smyrna, Ephesus of Asia, the Churches in Germany, in Spain, in France; Iren. adv. hae­res. l. 1. c. 3. in the East Countreyes in E­gypt, in Lybia, in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them; but she is now unable unable to shew either succession of persons or doctrine: as I shall de­monstrate by these following particulars:

1. As to personal succession, though she have a bed-role of names of Popes, yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony. Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina,, the Popes Library keeper:Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser. 30. Now I find her constitutions, the one made by Julius, the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Popes Election, declaring him to be no Pope, and that no one ought to account him Pope, and further that without any further declara­ration, he be devested of all his dignities, and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedi­ence to his commands: and the other consti­tution declares him excommunicate as Anti­christ and an invader and destroyer of Christi­anity. See both of these in Azo­rius's Morals:Azo. ins­tuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5. The like decree was made by Nicholas. 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by [Page 426] Caranza, wherein such a one is declared to be a thief, and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power. 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud: Nay its evident that many of her Popes came in this way. I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza, for many of them: he tells us that Christopher, 1. And Boniface, 7. got the Popedome (malis artibus) by fraud and cousinage, others of them have come in by force. Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or peoples consent. Sylvester the third (saith he) was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult, Clement, 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third, Iohn 13. took himself the Pope­dom through the assistance of his Father: Leo, the 8. was ordained by the Clergy; but Otho, the Emperour forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface, Saint Iohn 18. did usurp the Chair, whilest Gregory the fifth lived; So common was this way of coming to the Pope­dom that the Author tells us, that course be­came so common, that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair: Baronius acknow­ledgeth that men were thrust into Peters Seat by their potent Harlots, false Popes, &c. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second, [An. 912.] meets with such as these for able [Page 247] entry, nullifies the Popes right according to the former constitutions, and makes him An­tichrist. 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresie. I have shewed the contrary; yet the constitution of Julius, takes hold of Heretiques as of simoni­acal Popes. 4. She cannot shew that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair, there was no trial of the Popes huma­nity: and that was occasioned by an Harlot, gotten into the Popeal Seat: Yet its asserted and that truly, that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity. 5. She cannot shew the order of her Popes: Its not known where to place Clemens, and for Boniface 6. Caranza, saith its a great controversie a­mongst writers, at what time he sate in Peters Chair. Now this is inconsistent with the evi­dent demonstration of Popeish succession. 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes. There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years, through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause. 7. She can­not deny but there have been many Popes at the same time, and each had their parties joyn­ing with them. Caranza confesseth that a­bout the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years: There was three others at the same [Page 148] time with him, viz. John 24. Benedict, 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance. This may suffice to allay the Popeish brag of personal succession, and therefore I come to the next particular, viz. Doctrinal succession.

2. Then as to Doctrinal succession. Rome, is not able to shew Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles. There are two things concern her to prove as to this. 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught. 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now: both which are too difficult for Popish heads. Let any man reade but the Articles of Faith, in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans, and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them: he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law, Rom. 3.20.28. impossibi­lity of perfect personall obedience, c. 8. 3. 3. 9. and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate, c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious, c. 8. 18. That Prayer is onely to be made to the object of Faith which is God, c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off, as the Jews are, c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civill Magistrate, rendring honour, tribute, &c. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning, c. 15. 4. Lastly, that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink, [Page 249] c. 14. 17. nor of days' Verse 5. 6. Again; let Papists shew us so much as one Father, that beleeved, and propounded the late Articles of Pius's Creed as necessary to be beleeved in every age, and then we shall beleeve succession of Doctrine: till then we shall suspend our faith or belief of it,

5. Your last part is without the least inter­ruption, &c. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said, and therefore I shall refer it to the judgment of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argu­ment.

2. Argument. That company composeth, and maketh up the truh Catholique Church, which doth acknowledge and imbrace a power generally claimed, and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since; when any opposition was first made; but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed, and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since, when any op­position was first made; therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Cath [...]lique Church. Answ. 1. To your Major, 1. Its obscure and doubtful, what you mean by Pow­er as distinct from the profession of Doctrine. In your next words you call it Apostolical power, which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order, to Government as well as Doctrine; [Page 250] but in the confirmation of your assumption, you only (though frequently) express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth, which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors: and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good. 2. Your felf over­throw the truth of this proposition. 1. In saying, Apostolicall power and doctrine [where Communion is not wanting] are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church, whereby you de­clare then your enumeration, of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient, and may be where the true Church is not, viz. where com­munion is wanting, and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express. 2. Where­as in the former Chapter we asserted the pro­fession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church, you vehemently opposed it as an error; how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter? Is it a truth or no truth, a Popish truth and a Protestant error. 3. These marks (or rather this mark) may agree to particular Churches, and have rather agreed to any par­ticular Church than the now Roman. Yea, they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches; as to Chrysostome Bishop of Con­stantinople, Athanasus Bishop of Alexan­dria; Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome: yea every pri­vate [Page 251] Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine, and to make professi­on of it, and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine.

Answ. 2. To your minor I deny it to be true, your proof of I shall mainly examine. The se­cond Proposition (say you) I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin; and those of such points as Catho­licks and Protestants mainly differ in. Partu­riunt montes, &c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor? yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies. For my disco­very hereof, I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes, and how he swerves from his undertaking. 1. He undertakes things. 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Ca­tholicks and Protestants mainly differ. So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Prote­stants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly, and to befool the Reader. 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christi­ans, as appears by those words [Christians ge­nerally maintained] so often repeated in the following instances. 3. To produce this com­pany professing, &c. when any opposition was first made; whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages, these Authors and Councels did then [Page 252] arise and oppose them. 4. To bring in the te­stimony of Roman Catholicks: for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick, because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ.

2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered. 1. As for his instance of such points, &c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin? but behold, a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of: Here are fifteen instances, of which the six first, to­gether with the eighth, tenth, eleaventh and twelfth (as he delivers it) fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches, but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side, insteed of our own living child, which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers, making shew onely of h [...]s own deformed bastard. But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove: Our dis­owning of them, I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Pro­testant Churches in those points that this Au­thor mentions as errors: only first I will adver­tise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist, 'tis this, when he brings in Fathers or [Page 253] Councels in opposition to some errors, he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines, not directly contrary to those errors, but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants: as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works; he brings in the Apostles and Austin, asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation: Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius, attributing Justification to a simple act of faith, he brings in Irenaeus and Austin, affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie: Sect. 4. Where­as Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin, he brings in Tertullian, Origen, and the Trent Councell, asserting that God doth no more but permit, as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it: Having premised this I come to his instances.

1. Instance, Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven, to Faith unaccompanied with good works. Ans. Is this the doctrine of Protestants, or do they open Heaven, to Faith accompa­nied with good works? Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an a­ctive or operative Faith, and proclaim other Faith dead: read concerning the necessitie of works, the English Confession: Non tamen di­cimus, &c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely, as if it were sufficient for a Christian on [...]ly to be dipt and to believe, and nothing else [Page 254] expected from him; true Faith is living and can­not be idle: Read the Articles of the Church of England especially, Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and fol­low after Justification cannot put away our sins, and endure the severitie of Gods judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith, &c. Again Act. 17. They which are pre­destinated—they walk religiously in good works, &c. To all this, the reverend Assembly of Di­vines consent, saying, Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith— that believers are created thereto, that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end, Confess. of Faith, c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life. If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary. I answer, this was not the error of Simon Ma­gus, nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent, Session 6. or of her children: see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43

2. Inst. Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith, virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a­away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins. Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine, We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est, &c. Note that faith hath not of it self any [Page 255] efficacy as it is an act of ours for remission and re­conciliation, but all its vertue doth proceed from its object Christ, whose vertue and merit God hath ordained to apply to the sinner for his Justifi­cation through faith in him. Suitable to this ex­pression of the reverend assembly in their lar­ger Catechism: Faith (say they) justifies a sin­ner in the sight of God, not because of these other graces which do alwayes accompany it, or of good works that are the fruit of it; nor as if the grace of Faith or [any Act thereof] were imputed to him for his Justification, but onely as it is an in­strument by which he applieth and receiveth Christ and his righteousness. But Eunomius's error was rather that attributed to Simon Ma­gus than this (as appeareth by Augustine) and as such also opposed by us. [Aug. de haeres. c. 55.

3. Inst. Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin. Answ. Protestant Churches ab­hor this doctrine as much as Papists. In the Harmony of Confessions: the Confession of Saxony, the Augustin Confession do disown it, and the latter Confession of the Switeers ex­presly condemns Florinus and Blastus, and all that make God the Author of sin: to which I will add our late Confession of Faith—The Prouidence of God extendeth it self, even to the first fall, and all other sins—yet so as the sinful­ness thereof proceedeth onely fr [...]m the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righ­teous, [Page 256] neither is nor can be the Author or appro­ver of sin.

4. Inst. Origen robd and spoyled Adam in his fall, and in him all his posteritie of that precious Gem the naturall Image of God, Freewill.

Answ. No Protestants (I met with) deny naturall freedom of will to fallen man, i. e. a liberty to naturall, civill and morall actions. Yea, as to evill man is most free, though as to supernaturall good he is unable his condition is such after the fall of Adam that he cannot turn and pre­pare himself by his own na­turall strength and good works to faith and calling up­on God.Harmon. confess. Sect. 4. Mr. Baxt. E­verlast. rest. part. 3. c. 2. Sect. 14. Marg. See the Doctrine of Free-will in fallen man, ex­cellently set forth in the La­ter Helvetick Confession, and others; M. Baxter observes that Austin himself and all the Fathers and all Divines acknowledge, Liberum ar­bitrium, Free-will or choice who yet plead most for a necessity of grace.

5. Inst. Proclus left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin. Answ. Protestants in acknowledging regeneration and sanctifica­tion, do withall confess, that those who are re­generate are not as they were before regene­ration, as to sin and its defilements, according to that of the Apostle such were some of you, [Page 257] but ye are washed, but ye are Sanctified; but ye are justified. Protestants receive Baptism as a Sign and Seal of their spiritual cleansing by the Holy Ghost: we bless God for our Reno­vation. And doth not all this free us from this error. 'Tis true our confessions of Faith assert that our Sanctification is but imperfect, that there are Reliques of corruptions in us as there was in Saint Paul (Rom. 7.) yet we ne­ver say that the Regenerat are all foul and conspurcate with sin, there is that in them which is truly good, and which God accepts of, and freely rewards, See Harmony of Confessi­ons, Sect. 9.

6. Inst. Novatus constituted a Church of meer just. Answ. Protestants if guilty of the error of Proclus, then are free from this of Novatus; or if they be guilty of this of No­vatus, then are they free from that of Proclus. There errors cannot agree to the same per­sons: 2. How contrary this error is to our judgment is visible, both by the actual com­posure of our Churches, wherein are good and bad tares and Wheat. And also by our doctrine: the English Divines in their con­fession of faith acknowledge, that the purest Churches under Heaven, Confes. ch. 25. ss. 4. are subject both to mix­ture, and error, Mat. 13.24.47. which they prove by the Parable of the [Page 258] Wheat and Tears, in one Field, and of the good Fish and bad in one Net.

7. Inst. Jovinianus levelled sins by making them all equally grievous. Answ. 1. Protest­ants do not equallize sins. The Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism affirm that All Transgressions of the Law of God are not e­qually heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravatiens are more hei­nous in the sight of God then others. The latter confession of Aelvetia doth expresly deliver this doctrine, and condemns by name Pelagius Jovinianus, and the Stoicks, for making all sins equally grievous.

8. Inst. Pelagius did endeavour to stop the course of Original sin in Infants. and thereupon bereaved Baptism of its due necessity. Answ. The Protestants are so full in acknowledgment of Original sin in their confessions, Cate­chismes, Systems of Divinity, and Comenta­ries on Scripture, and so harmonious in their administration of Baptism to Infants (which is a clear evidence of their belief of Original sin) that I wonder with what face this man could bring in Pelagianism in this point, as a Doctrine wherein Papists, and we mainly differ.

9, Inst. Berengarius grew to that height of, wickedness as to out Christ of the Sacrament. [Page 259] Answ. This (as you express it) Protestants detest who unanimously hold (and always did so) that Christ is really present in the Sacra­ment. The truth is Berengarius was no He­retique in this point; he lived in that age when the irrational and Antiscriptural doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be broached. This new error he opposed, affirming that Christ was not bodily present, as the Transubstantia­tors taught; but in a spiritual manner, as Pro­testants now teach, and will maintain it a­gainst you.

10. Inst. Zenaius despised Images as worth­less. Answ. Protestants acknowledge that Images have their use, and consequently a worth in them: They may be used privately for Ornament; yea and publikely too as Histo­rical remembrances of persons (provided that the Images of the Trinity be not made) and this was all the use they had amongst pri­mitive Christians, as Cassander fully shews say­ing, Certum est initio, &c. Its most certain that in the beginning of the Gospel times, for a good while Leven in the time of Agustin, a lit­tle after) there was no use of Images amongst Christians, especially in Churches as appears by Clemens and Arnobius; but afterwards they were admitted into the Church as Historical ex­pressions of things done; or as lively Images of Holymen. And thus far I know no Prote­stant [Page 260] Church; or rational Christian that can dis­alow them: 'Tis true, we abhor the worship of them, and complain of Papists, as Irenaeus of old did of the Gnosticks for their worship of them; But this will not prove that we despise Images as worthless.

11. Inst. Calvin drew compulsion upon hu­mane actions. Answ. 1. If this were true, yet its false that this is a point wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ; for it would but be the judgment of one particular man. but, 2. Calvin is wronged by you; for he fully frees the will from all Coaction. See Instit. Lib. 2 cap. 2. S. 7.

Thus I have shewed his first defect, his non-production of such points wherein Catholick and Protestants mainly differ. And truly I should think the man either a meer stranger to us, or void of reason in attributing such points as these to us. But he doth but tread in the steps of his forefathers. The Catholick Apologist objects against us these Heresies, but is most satisfyingly answered by Doctor Morton in his Catholick appeal. They are also objected by Spalatensis in that simple Book called his se­cond Manifesto, Sect. 8. with whom others are not ashamed to joyn. But these Cretians are alwayes liars, evill beasts, slow bellies, such whole consciences are seared with an hot iron, [Tit. 1.12. 1. Tim 4.2,] and speaks lies in [Page 261] hypocrisie. But let us trie him yet further.

2. His second failing is, that he doth not pro­duce the generality of Christians as opposers of his errors. In some of his instances there is one onely Author mentioned, as Sect. 9. In o­thers onely two, as Sect. 3. or to make up a number, he adds the late packt conventicle of Trent, as Sect. 4. where you have Tertullian, who goes for a Monothelite with Eusebius, O­rigen, who is in this Authors Catalogue of He­reticks, spoyling mankind of free-will, and the Trent Councell, who in the judgement of the French Papists was no lawfull oecumenicall Councell. Do you think its a good Argument to say, Augustine or Tertullian, Origen and the Councell of Trent opposed such a do­ctrine; therefore Christians generally opposed it. Origen (you say) spoiled man of Free-will. The Councell of Trent robd generall Coun­cells of their dignity and supremacy above Popes: did therefore all Christians, or Chri­stians generally spoil man of free-will, or op­pose the supremacy of generall Councells; see­ing you are at Paris, you may ask the French Papists, whether they consented to the Coun­cell of Trent, and I hope you will not deny them to be Christians, their King being Rex Christianissimus, the most Christian King in your Calender. Yea, secondly, he doth pro­duce the names of Christians, but he brings [Page 262] them not asserting his Doctrines, or opposing the contrary: in his Catalogues he offends two wayes. First, by false, secondly, by gene­rall quotations. 1. His quotations are many of them most false; as for instance, tis false that S. Paul, 1 Cor. 6.13. James 2. John 1. ep. 3. or S. Austine de Grat. & lib. Arbitr. c. 7. do assert an absolute necessity of good works, as he saith, Sect. 2. If they assert an absolute necessity, how dare your Rhemists say that in some Cases they are not necessary, or why do they use this limitation when they speaks of good works?Supra, Rhem. on Rev. 20.12. Margt. such as do no good works, if they have age and time to do them are not found in the Book of Life. Sure this is inconsistent with absolute necessity: again, whereas you bring Irenaeus and Augustine as­serting that faith did dispose and help, but alone that she was too feeble and weak to ju­stifie a sinner, Its most false that either Irenae­us and Augustine in the places cited, say any such thing: the like falsity is in other Sections as S. 8. Hierom. in chap. 7. Matth. Sect. 10. Au­gust. lib. 9. Confes. c. 7. Concil. Laodic. Can. 35. Sect. 13. Synod, Francoford. Sect. 14. Irenaeus lib. 4. adv. haeres. c. 34. S. Aug. l. 17. de Civit. Dei, c. 17. lib. 20. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 3. Sect. 16. Aug. lib. 9. Confess. c. 13. these may suffice to shew his forgerie. 2. His quotations are many of them [Page 263] very generall, and to be sought like a needle in a bottle of hay: as for instance, Sect. 7. he cites S. Gregory in his Epistles: (now S. Gre­gory hath 12. books of Epistles, and each book hath many Epistles.) S. Bede Comment in Cantic. Sect. 10. S. Cyprian, lib. 4. (but of what Quaerat lector) Sect. 13. Concil. Roman. Sect. 14. Lugdun. Concil. where also he cites Cypprians 19. ep. lib. 1. whereas he hath but 12 Epistles in that book (this I forgot to mention amongst his false quotations) Gaudent in Exod. All this shews that this Authour did rather study names of Christians, then to produce their do­ctrine for the opposing his errors, which should have been his main work.

3 His third failing is, He doth not produce Christians professing truth, when first any op­position was made, as he promised, thereby implying that as these errors were broached in every age, so in those ages Christians then li­ving did oppose them in their rise, and these Christians he should produce; but I finde no such methodicall proceedings in him: the er­ror with its Author is mentioned, and its op­posers lived sometimes many years after it, as Augustine is opposing Simon Magus, yet lived almost 400 years after him. The Councell of Trent oppose Florinus, yet were near 1300 years after him. Sometimes the errour was broached many years after its opposers lived. [Page 264] As against Luther he introduceth Cyprian, Ire­naeus, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Hierom, Gre­gory Nyssen, Cyril of Alex. Cyril of Hierus. Concil. Nicen. & Omnia Concilia vetera, i. e. all the Councels that were a thousand years be­fore Luther. So against Calvin he brings Igna­tius, Dionysius, who lived 1400 and odd years before him. Thus preposterous is he, though to speak truth, it's not much material when they are mentioned, unless the citation of them were to better purpose then that for which this Author brings them.

4. His fourth failing is, His Catalogue is not altogether of Roman Catholicks, such as were under the Government of Roman Bishops and Pastors. Eusebius tells us,Euseb. Chronogr. An. 195. p. 573. that At Ephesus many of the Bishops of Asia met, touching the deliberation of the Feast of Easter: where Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus was chief-In the foresaid six Synods, (v [...] of Rome, Cesaria, Pontus, France, Ostroena, and Ephesus) held, An. 195. the Bishop of Rome had no more authority then the other Bishops: He, in his City, and they in theirs were cheief. Now divers of these he mentions were Bishops of Asia; and therefore cannot be brought in as Roman Ca­tholicks were they now living; they would clearly disclaim the Popes usurpation, yea, and reprehend him sharply, as Irenaeus did, for [Page 265] challenging authority over the Eastern Chur­ches.

This shall suffice for his answer to his ob­jected errours, desiring the Reader to peruse that Elaborate Work of Doctor Morton, call­ed The Catholick Appeal, especially in that part which is against objected heresies, where this Authours quotations are many of them an­swered. My answer being already too large for these short winded times, and I having much more to say to him before I have done, I wholly wave the discussion of them: Only I will take notice of his last words, which are in­deed the very last words of a dying Argument. This proo [...] (saith he) will gather strength by observ­ing that the above named Luther, Zuinglius, Cal­vin, &c. But few days or months before their op­position, held as the rest of Christians did, in al [...] points with the said Company; and that neither they, nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being be­fore their opposition, with whom to joyn and side to make good the same, &c.

Ans. 1. How this strengthens your proof, I see not: Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours, and the Apostles Converts, that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received, and preached; yea, and that these Converts, (as Paul, &c.) but a few days or months be­fore their opposition held as other Jews did, [Page 266] Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church? The Gentiles the grea­test part of the World profest against Christ, and his truth, and those who were called out of them to receive the truth, did but a little be­fore comply with the Gentiles against Christ: Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth? It may be, your self, and others who have apostalized from the true religion, but a few months before your opposi­tion, held as the rest of true Orthodox Christi­ans did, yet this will not (even in your con­ceit) advance your cause.

2. Its questionable whether Luther, Zuin­glius, and Calvin, did hold with you in all points, and that but a few days or months be­fore their publique opposition of you. The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary, when he tells us, that a great company seemed to wait for Luther, and joyn­ed with him as soon as he appeared; I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of in­dulgencies, longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition.

3. Its a gross lye, that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being, be­fore their opposition, with whom to joyn and side. I have fully shewed the contrary to this, and therefore (remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said) I come to his next Argu­ment.

Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church, which is acknowledged even by their adversaries, to be Apostolical; but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries, to be Apostolical: therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church. The first Proposition (say you) is evident, forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence, signifieth to believe, as the Apostles believed, which is to be Catholick.

Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of A­postolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church. But Sir, why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Pro­testant Church? Or how could you without blushing tell us, That true Doctrine (which is none other then Apostolical doctrin, they being reciprocal) is no mark of a true Church, it being often found among Schismaticks, who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church, pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those do­ctrines the Apostles believed, will you acknow­ledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church? We desire no more, but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions, you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture, the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines, and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Here­ticks.

[Page 268]2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good, and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denomi­nating a Church Apostolical and Catholick, and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church. All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines.

3. I deny your Minor Proposition, and come to examine your proof of it. You say, It appears no less clear in several Protestant Wri­ters, who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England; that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors, from the first Plantati n to S. Austine; that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in; that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith; that the Roman Church in Gregory t [...]e Greats time, was the same it is at this present, &c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism; S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical; S. Austins Church & Doctrine were the same with the now Roman: therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical.

I answer, 1. By S. Austins Church, I sup­pose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time, as when you say, The Roman Church in Gregory the Great's [...]ime, was the same it is at this present. Hereupon I particularly answer: Gregory [Page 269] 1. To your Major, [That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Grego­ry, was the same with the Doctrine of the Apo­stles.] 1. The Apostle tells us, That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work; and succeeding Ages discover its pro­gress. Most Ages did contribute some materi­als towards Rome's Temple, though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite, and so more sparing in their contributions to it. Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery; and that which is, is rather in notions and terms, then propositions; as in most ancient Fathers we read the words, Altar, Sacrifice, Merit, &c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have thē to signifie: In the next age there was a greater decay of pu­rity than before, ignorance did much aboudd, & superstitiō attendant on it, In this age did Gregory & Austin live; the former being sirna­med,Rainold. praelect. de lib. Ap c. tom. 1. prael. 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen. bill. Stae. l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory, p. 266. Chronic. Carion. lib. 4. p. 552 The Great, & indeed he was great, as learned Rainolds observe [...], in comparison of those who succeeded him, & some of them who were be­fore him: yet was he short of apostolical purity, being guil­ty of superstition and errour [Page 270] in divers points, as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell: extend­ing Gods promise of Salvation even to Repro­bates, making Gods decree mutable, and pray­ing for such as are already damned; as in the Case of Trojan. Carion in his Chronicles attri­butes to him divers errours, as Invocation of Saints, and dedication of Temples to them; a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession, Works of Supererrogation, Satisfactions, Vows, Virginity; an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead, where­unto he was moved by the report of Appariti­ons: And besides all these, he is noted as su­perstitious in imposition of Ceremonies, and those some of them Jewish, which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ: And as Gregory was guilty, so its probable his Monk Austin was not free,In the life of Au­stin, p. 511, 512 and therefore when he came amongst the Brittains, who had the Gospel, and many Bi­shops and learned men amongst them, he was rejected by them: for which Hierom Porter calls them Schismaticks, maintaining errors, yea that held many things repugnant to the unity of the Catholick Church: Therefore we may at least probably suppose them Orthodox, be­ing opposite to those innovations the Bishop of R [...]e by his Apostles would have brought upon them.

[Page 271]2 To your minor, Saint Austines Church and doctrine were the same with the now Roman or the Roman Church in Gregory the Great's time, was the same it is at thi [...] present.

I answer, could you prove this, it would make much for you: but hic labor h [...]c opus est, this is too difficult a work for you, and therefore you pass it off with a reference of us to a com­pany of quotations to no purpose. There is no Protestant Writer that I meet with, that affirms Austins Church and Doctrine were the same with the now Roman. Perkins in his Exposi­tion of the Creed, as I can understand him) doth not, but rather saith the contrary▪ for speaking of the present Church of Rome, he saith, They hold justification by works of grace; they maintain a daily sacrifice of the b dy of Christ in the Mass, for the sins of quick and dead; they worship images, &c. Thus then it ap­pears that the old Church of Rome is changed, and is now at this day of a Sp [...]use of Christ become an Harlot, and therefore no more a Church of Christ indeed, than the carkass of a dead man that wears a living mans garment, is a living man, though he look never so like him. This same is the very judgement of all Protestants I meet with, and is most fully and clearly demonstrated by the learned Doctor Morton, in his above mentio­ned appeal, where he largely shews what was the judgement of Saint Gregory in those main [Page 272] points of controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists, and how far Rome at present is from that faith which Saint Gregory taught, and all this he doth by the testimonies of the most learned Papists. Your mention of all the Eng­lish Cronicles, is but a Popish vaunt; be plea­sed in your next to mention the places where they affirm your doctrine to be the same with Saint Gregories and their words: till then I sus­pend all further answer to this Argument which as it is the last, it is the weakest and most, evidently false in its propositions, as I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader.

CHAP. XII. Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church answered.

YOu begin your Chapter with a sad com­plaint of enemies of the Roman Church in these words, The enemies of the Roman Church have not shewn more pride in contemning her power, then malice in raising false and slande­rous reports against her good name—therefore I will endeauour in this Chapter to clear her fame mainly clouded and shot at by the ensuing objecti­ons. Answ. When you charge the Objectors with slander you seem to be ignorant of the [Page 273] nature and definition of slander. There cannot be slander where there is no lying accusation, or a charging of such things upon others, whereof they are not guilty: And this your Aquinas will tell you is true. Now can you say that the Objectours charge you with that whereof you are not guilty. If their ac­cusation be false, why do you not disown the things they charge you with but rather defend them? You affirm that Christs Body may be in divers places at once, that the Mass with Al­tars, images and relicks are to be adored, that Saints and Angels are Mediatours, &c. If it be true, why do you charge the Objectors with slander in the reporting of them. But let vs examine the Answers to the Objections.

1 Objection.

THe first objection is, The Church of Rome teacheth Christs body to be present in many places at once, which implyeth contradiction.

Answ. 1. The measure of Gods power is his will, and his will is above the reach of our capa­citie: therefore no wonder if God oftentimes doth that we cannot dive into the understanding of.

I reply, 1. If you speak of Gods absolute Power, its not measured by his Will. God is able to do more then he hath done or will do. Of this absolute power John the Baptist speaks, [Page 274] Math. 3.9. God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Thus we grant he is able to make more works, and of a piece of bread to raise up an humane body, he can turn one thing into another of a different kind. This Power as its not measured by Gods Will, so its not the foundation or reason of our faith, whereby we believe the existence of any thing: But 2 If you speak of Gods executive power which is the power measured by his Will, whereof you speak, then we affirme this pre­sence is impossible to God, because contrary to his will, as I shall shew even now. 3 Where­as you say Gods Will is above our capacity, &c. [Rom. 11.34. Deutr. 29.29.] I answer, Gods Will comes under a twofold Consideration, its either secret or revealed: that part of his will which is secret as it concerns not our know­ledge, so neither doth it call for our faith or obedience, but his revealed will is for us to know and obey. If then you speak of Gods se­cret will, you shew your self presumptuous, in­truding into such things as you ought not: but if onely of his revealed, then you imply that this Politopie is expressed and revealed unto us. Now this I utterly deny, for evidence whereof I shall premise that there are two vo­lumes of Gods will whereby its fully expressed unto us, viz. Reason and Scripture, by the former its expressed more imperfectly and [Page 275] darkly, by the latter most fully and clearly: The former is subordinate to the latter, and the latter is perfective of the former: What­soever else testifies of Gods Will, its in subor­dination to these, and is to be tryed by them: Nor are we to account any mans dictate to be Gods will, that doth not agree with one or both of these: I shall therefore shew the disso­nancy of your Doctrine, 1. to Reason, then 2. to Scripture.

1. Its contrary to Reason,Aquin. Suppl. 3. part. q. 83 Art. 3. ad 4m. that one body should be pre­sent in many places at once, without the destruction of that body: Aquinas saith, Ʋnum corpus, &c. One body cannot be at once locally in two places, no not by a miracle; and he gives this reason, because to be in many places at once is repugnant to the very nature of an Individuum, which is to be divided in it self: for it would follow, that it should be in a distinct posture: whence it follows, that for the same body to be locally at once in di­vers places includes contradictiion, as for a man to want reason, & to have reason. A body in many places is no longer one, but many bodies.

To this you answer, (Sect. 1.) As for the implicancy, some labour to convi [...]ce this mystery of, there is none at all; for though a body cannot be locally in two places at once, by reason of local extension which confines it to one: yet this exten­sion [Page 276] being removed as is possible to the Omnipotent Power, it is as easie for a body to be in several places at once, as for the Deity to be in three Per­sons at once; or for the soul to be in the head, the middle, the feet at once.

Reply 1. You suppose a body separable from Extension, which is as much as to suppose a man without reason;Aquin. 3. part q. 76 Art. 4. for its granted as a certain truth by Aquinas, and others, that a body cannot be without quantity; and thereupon Aquinas codcludes, that the body of Christ in the Eu­charist hath its whole dimensive Quantity; whence I infer that it must needs have its ex­tension: the reason is, because Extension is the formal reason of Quantity,Ruvio Com. in Arist. Dial. c. 6. de quant. q. 1. Supra Aug. ep. 57. & contra, Faustum, l. 20. c. 11. and this is not an Entitative, but a Quantitative Extension, as Ruvio proves by many Ar­guments. Now if a thing cannot be conceived without its essence, but by implicancy of contradiction, as Aqui­nas grants, then cannot Quantity be concei­ved as wanting Extension, and consequently bodies that have Quantity, cannot without implicancy of contradiction want Extension. Augustine doth clearly assert what I say in di­vers places.

[Page 277]2. Your similitudes make not for you, not the first; for, 1. The Deity is not in three Persons, as a body in three places: The divine Persons are every of them, every where, im­mense and infinite, not in several places. 2. God is in one place only, though this one be comprehensive of all places,Schribl. Metaph. l. 2. c. 3. Tit. 12 Art. 2. p. 2. as Schribler doth wittily manifest it from Isai. 66.1. Those that are dis-joyned and distant places with us, are with God contiguous, and make but one place. 3. If by your Similitude you prove the Deity in many places, it will not hence follow that a body may be so to.

2. Nor the second, the soule in the head, middle, & feet at once, is not in many,Aquin. fum. part 1. q. 76. Art. 8. c. & q. 52. art. 2. Zabarel l. departit. animae. c. 5 but one place Whether you consider it as having respect primarily to the whole body, (as Aqui­nas conceives, and ex­presseth it) and that as one place, or to the heart, as Zabarel. In saying, that its in the head, middle, and feet, you confess that its in one place; for here is no distance which should make many places.

2 You answer, If it be true Philosophie teacheth, that a consequence from being to may be [Page 278] is valid and good, Experience demonstrates that God hath power to make Christs body really pre­sent in se [...]erall places at once: forasmuch as at the self same time he was so present with his Fa­ther in Heaven, he appeared and discoursed with Saint Paul on earth, Acts 9.4.5.

Reply 1. That Phylosophicall thesis of yours is not true, unless in ordinary events, or with reference to Gods absolute power. The will of God may put a Bar to it. God did appear on Mount Sinai delivering a Church Model: Here is a Beeing, yet considering Gods Will, its impossible that he should do so again. Satan did tempt Christ, Christ was made under the Law, crucified, dead, buried, yet who would infer that these things are now possible. A­mongst the errors of your master of the Sen­tences noted by the Parisians, this is one (Quod Deus semper potest quicquid ali­quando potuit, Ad fin. Lom­bard. sent. E­dit. Paris. Ann. 1537. p. 594. that God al­wayes can do that which some­times he hath done. Sure these Gentlemen did not take that for truth which your Philoso­phy teacheth you, though tru­ly I think your masters speeches may be justi­fied, for he saith that the power of God is the same alwayes, but that he cannot alwayes do that which sometimes he could do, which seems contrary to your Philosophicall axiome.

[Page 279]2. Granting it true, yet your inference proves not true, and I halfe think your selfe were convinced here­of;Fateamur ergo Deum semper posse quicquid, semel potuit, i. e. habere omnem illam potentiam quam semel habuit, & illius omnis rei poten­tiam cujus semel habu­it, sed non semper posse facere omne illud quod aliquando potuit facere &c. Lomb. l. 1. dist. 44. for your expressi­ons are not so plain for Christs presence on Ea [...]h, as in Hea­ven. You mention Christs apparition and disccourse with the A­postle on Earth, but neither one nor both of these prove his cor­porall presence here one earth. He appeared to Stephen, yet re­mained in Heaven only, Act. 7.55. He dis­coursed with Peter, Acts 10.13, 14. yet was not corporally with him on Earth. And for the Text you mention, it proves not any thing for you, if you will believe the interlineans he will tell you the contrary: I am Jesus; that is saith he,Gloss. interl. & Lyran. in Act. 9. I am God speaking from Heaven, whom thou thoughtest to be dead; and he gives this reason of Pauls asto­nishment, That he thought not Jesus to be in Heaven, wherein Lyranus concurs with him. As the light shined from Heaven, its most pro­bable the voice did also come from thence, as [Page 280] Lyranus confesseth the voice did, which Peter in the next Chapter is said to hear.

3 Granting that Christ was corporally pre­sent with Paul, how do you prove that he was also corporally present in Heaven, why might he not ex aliqua dispensatione, leave Heaven for a time.

4 If we should grant he was both in heaven and earth at this time it would not follow therefore Christ may be; much less, must be continually present in his body on the earth: I have shewed how inconsequentiall this is in the first part of my answer.

Thirdly, you answer, Even in nature there is a resemblance and light of this mystery, one and the same water is in the fountain river and lake at once: one and the same voice in thousands of ears at once: one and the same face in sundery looking glasses at once.

Reply, These instances resemble not this Po­pish mystery. 1 Not the first: For 1 if you make the Fountain, River and Lake, three di­stinct places, then its not one and the same water; for you cannot say that the water of the Fountain is the water of the Lake, &c. That water that is hic & nunc, is not other where. 2 If you conceive them continuately the water run­ing with a continued stream from the fountain into the channell, and diffusing it self from the channell to the Lake, then all the water in these [Page 281] three partiall continents is but one numericall body, and the three continents are but parts of the same place. 2 Nor the second: for first, voice or sound is no body. Secondly it is a que­stion whether it be one and the same voice that comes to thou­sands of ears at once or a mul­tiplied voice or sound:Magyr. Phy­siol. l. 6. c. 8. Com. ad finem. see Magyrus where the contrary is asserted upon this very ground. Thirdly, the place of sound or its proper subject is the Aire, not mens ears. 3 Nor yet the third, for there is not one body really in two places, no more than if one man were pictured in severall frames, neither of which bears any resemblance of this Phylosophy of reall bodies.

Fourthly, you answer, Should we believe onely that which we understand, there would not be any belief in us of mysteries of faith; they being all above the reach of humane capacity.

Reply 1. If knowledge or understanding were not necessary to faith, why hath faith the name of knowledge given it in Scripture, Isai. 53.11. and John 17.3. If faith be an assent as Papists tell us, then faith doeth necessarily require knowledge, for we must know what is truth if we believe that it is so. I confess there are some things which in some respects are not fully conceivable, but for those, we have an express Word of God informing us of them, [Page 282] which is the ground of our faith, but this we have not for a carnall presence in many places, and therefore cannot command our belief of it.

Fifthly, by way of answer you introduce an objection against the Polytopie of Christs bo­dy, but is directly against bodily presence in any place: It is taken from the strange irre­verencies and absurdities which would ensue thereof, as to be subject to the eating and tearing in piecs of d [...]gs, cats, mice, and to the abuse of wicked me and miscreants: to which you an­swer, He that is of power to render a body really present in severall places at once, wit [...]out doubt is able to defend and keep the same from all out­rages, as God is pleased to do in this mystery by re­moving locall extension, and by consequen [...]e pos­sibility, by means whereof dogs, cats and mice can onely tear and destroy the accidents of bread and wine.

Reply, first the foundation is already over­thrown: Secondly I believe you are not perswaded that Gods power is imployed about Christs body to keep it from irreverences, if you were, why is it that you dare not give the Cup to the people? is not God able to prevent drops of the blood from sticking to the peo­ples beards, or falling to the ground? Why do you make an invisible body to prevent the faithfull's loathing, and the profane's scorning of the Ordinance? is not God able to keep [Page 283] the faithfull from loathing flesh and blood vi­sibly and really appearing such, as well as in­tellectually represented to their understand­ings? if Gods power must support one absur­dity, why may it not another? 3 Though you speak irrationally of tearing the species of bread and wine yet others of your fraternitie speak plainly of the body of Christ. Among the penitentiall Canons in the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree, (Can. 39.) are these words, Quando mu [...] corrodit aut comedit Corpus Christi, &c. i. e. When a mouse gnaweth or eateth the body of Christ, &c. he saith, not the species of bread and wine, but the very bo­dy of Christ. And in the new Mass book tis said,De defect. circa Missam occur­rent. c. 3. Sect. 7. Si Hostia Consecrata, &c. If the conse­crated Host vanish away by some accident, as if it be carried away with the wind or by some mira­cle, or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found, then let another be consecrated. I sup­pose your Host or Sacrifice is not the meer spe­cies of bread and wine, but the body of Christ: Now this Host it seemes may be blown away with the winde or be eaten of beasts: sure you take calm weather, and tie up your beasts when you goe in Procession. [Ib. c. 10. Sect. 14.] What should I speak of your vomiting, and against licking up the vomited Host, or in case [Page 284] of loathing, putting it up for a relique; such stuff is fit for such beasts as return to their vomit, or lye wallowing in the mire.

2. You answer to the Objection, Wicked men and miscreants offer violence to the same, but not hurt or anoy the Body of Christ, no more then he were of force to wrong the Godhead that sur­prised with a raging fit, should strike at the aire with an intention to do him mischief.

Reply Every thing you say ads to the miracle: Christ hath a body to be eaten, that yet is not seen, nor tasted, nor passible; yea is like unto God, or a Spirit, that cannot be hit or wound­ed; What could Eutiches have said more? Doth not this prove that Christs body is no re­al body, but only imaginary and phantastical; or if real, yet its not (according to your do­ctrine) really present. Will it follow that be­cause God, or another spiritual Substance is impassible by humane force, therefore a true natural body is so to? It must be Popish Lo­gick that will make this a good Consequence.

3. You answer, Admit these pretended in­conveniences should follow (that the body of Christ should be eaten and torn in pieces of dogs, bats, mice, &c.) I do not conceive there could be inferr'd any other then a continuation of that ardent love of Christ which he shewed to man, when he estranged himself from his Eter­nal Father, to bear with patience, and mildness, [Page 285] hunger, cold, whippings, spittings, thorns, and last of all the bitter and disgraceful death of the Cross.

Reply 1. This ardent Love of Christ to man, cannot be from hence inferred, All sufferings of Christ are not the effects of his ardent Love: What Love of Christ is manifested in wicked mens cru­cifying to themselves afresh the Son of God,Heb. 6.6. & 10.29. and putting him to an open shame; or in their treading under foot the Son of God, and accounting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and doing despight to the Spirit of grace: What Love of Christ is manifested when his body is torn in pieces of dogs, cats, m [...]ce, or blown away with the wind, or spued out of some drunken Priests mouth, and lickt up again. Its a most evident truth that those sufferings of Christ only are the expressions of his love, which do tend to mans redemption and salvation, and without which these could not be attained. Of this kind were the sufferings of Christ by the Jews and Romans in the time of his incarnati­on. Hence are those expres­sions, The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, Rom. 5.5, 6, 7, 8 Gal. 3.13, 14 Isai. 53.4. &c.for when we were yet without strengh in due time Christ dy­ed for the ungodly—God commendeth his love to us in that when we were yet sinners Christ dyed [Page 286] for us—Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. Surely he hath born our griefs, & carried our sor­rows—He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. All which refer to this state of hu­miliation, from which we have long since pas­sed. I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these suffer­ings, or how they tend to our redemption and salvation. When dogs, cats, mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body, or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place, are we advantaged hereby, or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ? 2. There may be other things infer'd, as 1. That the Priest that either through neg­ligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pie­ces of dogs, cats, mice, or that willingly deli­ver it to wicked men and miscreants, is a Ju­das, a betrayer of Christ: and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine, which none of the people partake of. 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ, then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian: Those delivered him into the hands of men, these give him into the mouths of dogs, cats, mice; Those preserved [Page 287] him whole not breaking a bone of him, these tare him in pieces by wild beasts: Those gave him an honourable interment, (He made his grave with the rich) these buried him in the bellyes of beasts, or cast him into the draught.

2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture, 1. Some Scriptures af­firm that Christ is in Heaven, and must be con­tained there till the restitution of all things, Acts 3.21. That the Apostle, Heb. 9.24. gives the reason of it. He is entred into Heaven it [...]elf, now to appear in the presence of God for us: which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile: and Primasius to this purpose saith, Introire autem Iesum, &c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood;Primas. apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12. for as God he is every where. Again, Joh. 16.28. I come forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father. If you ask how he left the world; the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernati [...]ne presen­tiae: By a removall of his body, &c. He speaks of his local removing, not of his lying hid in the world. Indeed ver. 16. he speaks of his invisibility, A little while, and ye shall not see me; but the reason was not, because he would goe up and downe, hid under the forms and [Page 288] species of bread and wine, but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely) note. Yea, further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth, and that by a weightie reason, Heb. 8.4. If he were on earth, he should not be a Priest, is he could not perform all the rites of his Priest­hood. For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies, and there he could not be, if he were on earth; this is clearly the A­postles Argument: Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time: if he be in that state, he is not in that too. 2. We finde the Scriptures ex­presly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once, Matth. 28.6. He is not here, for he is risen, which were no reason if your Doctrine were good, for he might be there and risen too. To conclude, there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie.

You answer, The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sa­crament, and consequently in many places at once.

Reply. You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament, it must needs be in many places at once: but this pre­sence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture. The word, This is my body which you [Page 289] mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it: There are two things oppose your exposi­tion of those words.

1 The judgement of Fathers,Tertul. lib. 4. contr. Marc. c. 40. & L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr. Adi­mant & Ep. 23. ad Bo­nif. Concil. Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. Vasq. in 3. part. Thom. disp. 180. t. 5. Cajet. in 3. Thom. q. 75. School­men and others: Tertullian, Theodo­ret and Augustine, understand the words figuratively. The third Councill of Carthage saith, that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water, &c. Scotus affirms Non exstare, &c. That there is not any place of Scrip­ture so express that without the Churches Decla­ration it can evidently compell us to admit Tran­substantiation: And this saith Bellarmine, is not altogether improbable: Yea, Vasques further tells us, that Scotus affirmed, That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained, al­though the substance of bread and wine should re­main in the Eucharist: and blames certain pro­fessours of Divinitie that side with him, and in speciall, Cardinall de Alliaio, for affirming that this way is possible, and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures; yea its easier to be understood, and more rationall than any other, of this judgement is also Cajetan.

[Page 290]2. Reason, which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another, (i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other, which you say cannot be true) nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect, and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended. This is not plainly or expresly de­livered in the words of Christ; for he must ei­ther have said, That which was my body before the Sacrament, is now my body in the Sacra­ment, or this was my body before the Sa­crament. In saying, This and is, he in­forms us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity, and therefore some by This understand Bread, which is most agreea­ble to the context. Christ took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his Disci­ples, saying, Take eat, This is my body. That which Christ took, blessed brake and gave to them was Bread, 1 Cor. 10.16. Now this is pre­dicated improperly of Christs body. Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7. a Rocke, 1 Cor. 10.4. Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood, Luk. 22.20. I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why bread should become the body of Christ to us, [Page 291] and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes: for Christ is called the Pass­over of Manna; yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them: they did eat the same spirituall meat with us, and drank the same spirituall drink, for they drank of the Rock that followed them: And that Rock was Christ. What can be more express than these last words, yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation. 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense, yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them, whilest the Organ is rightly disposed; the medium is convenient, the distance equall, the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt. But here if the words be taken properly, is a body which is not the object of Sense, though the sences be rightly disposed, the medium convenient, the distance equall, &c. If you say it may be done by a mi­racle; I answer, first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read, though its a greater miracle, if a miracle, than any o­thers that are mentioned. 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation, there was no deceiving of the Sense. When Moses rod was turned into a Ser­pent, as it was a true Serpent, so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent. When the waters were [Page 292] turned into blood, the blood had the last co­lour, effect of blood slaying the fish in it. When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine; as it was true wine so it had sensible qua­lities, as the last smell, &c. of wine. It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance: Its the practice of Papists to urge a bodily ex­istence without the least appearance, like their forefathers the Valentinians, whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ, Aliud erat, aliud videbatur; when some affirmed in the Sacra­ment, there was no true fraction, but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose, Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis &c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament, in the inchantments of Magi­tians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not, but its otherwise in the Sacra­ment of Truth. [Gerrhard. Lorich. Instit. Cathol. de sacr. Eucharist. pag. 72. 2.]

To this I may adde, that the materi­all parts of Sacraments must be sensible ob­jects, such were the Sacraments of the Jewes, and such without controversie is Baptisme, where the materiall part is water which the Senses see, feel, &c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist; (for there can no reason of a difference be given.) You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine, for [Page 293] you teach that in the Sacrament there is nei­ther bread nor wine, (though there was be­fore Consecration) and the body of Christ can­not be it; for its not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt, nor tasted; and acciden­tall forms are distinct from matter. Aquinas delivers this Conclusion, Cum naturale sit ho­mini, &c. Whereas its naturall for man to at­tain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible; A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing: which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not. 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten: But if these words [This is my Body] be taken properly, then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten, which is doctrine for Cannibals, not for Chri­stians. Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words, John 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh, &c. figuratively, and delivers this generall rule,Aug. de doctr. Christ. l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium, &c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked, its a figurative speech; and instances in those words in S. John. Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacra­ment because man abhors to eat humane flesh, in the proper shape. But what difference be­tween one man seeing the shape of humane [Page 294] flesh, and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not. Its the thing it self, not the form or shape of it that is abominable, a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh, yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report: Though your seduced fol­lowers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament, yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it; so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks. To conclude, Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body, for its not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body, for then our bodies should consist of Christ wch were a blasphe­mous assertion; and for the soul its not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood: spirits do not eat or drink, nor are they capable of nutrition; there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it: Besides, when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine, he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine; that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before, and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually. The words that I speak are Spirit, John 6.63. You answer, that [Page 295] these words do not run counter to your said truth, in as much as these words were uttered to the Ca­pernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power, and not of the signification of his words.

Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches, and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit. 2. Its most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent: for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him; they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit, which was (as the Rhemists observe) They imagined that he would kill him­self, and cut and mangle his flesh into parts, and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them, which could not be meant saith Augustine, for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact, &c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine. Tract. 27. in Joan. tom. 9. Lyra. in text. Lyranus speaks ve­ry well to this purpose: Spiri­tus, &c. They are Spirit, as if he should say the words I have spoken have a Spirituall sence, and so they vi­vifie—they have a Spirituall understanding—the flesh of Christ is eaten in this Sacrament in a spiritual manner.

Your pleas for this opinion are vain: 1. You say, The question was not, what says he, that they knew would be trifling and ridiculous, Christ ha­ving immediately before confirmed the significa­tion of his first words, This is my Body, By other latter, Ʋnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you; and they both heard and understood the language he spake in.

Reply 1. Pray where are those first words, This is my Body? You shut your eyes, and laid aside your honesty, when you brought them in as spoken by Christ before his supposed answer. But suppose them there, tell us next how those latter words doe confirme the signification of them? 2. When you tell us, they knew what he said, and both heard and understood the language he spake in, you will shew your self a notorious trifler. Wil it follow that because they knew his words, & heard & understood his lan­guage, that therfore they understood his mean­ing? I trow not. Those that read the hard of places of Pauls Epistles did both hear & under­stand the language he spake in, yet knew not his meaning, and therefore wrested them to their own perdition. The Jews both heard and understood the language Christ delivered his parables in, yet it was not given them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Ni­codemus understood Christs language, but not [Page 297] his meaning about regeneration. You cannot deny but the Laity may both hear and under­stand the language whereinto the Scriptures are translated, yet their private Spirit must not think of understanding the Scriptures meaning. Thus though these Capernaits might and did understand his language, yet they did remaine ignorant of their true meaning, as all prudent Expositors confess, and your Rhemists expresly affirm saying, Their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh, and the manner of eating the same was unprofitable, which is plain by the sentence following, where he warneth t [...]em that his words be spiri & life, of high mystical mean­ing, and not vulgarly and grosly to be taken, as they took them. 2. You adde, Therefore except you will say, that Christ answered not to the purpose, his scope and aime must be to declare his power; to the [...]nd to convince the Capernaits that he was full able to perform what he said.

Reply 1. If you will have it the aim of Christ to declare his power to perform what he said, and that directly in answer to the Caper [...]aits question, you must grant that Christ did declare his ability to give them his body cut & mangled into pieces, for so they understand the eating of his flesh, and thereupon grounded their question. How can this man give us his flesh cut and mangled into pieces? for the effecting of this, they expected a proof of his power, if [Page 298] you will have it so. Now this your selfe will grant impossible, being contrary to the will of God, the measure of his power: therefore you must confess that Christ spake not to the pur­pose, (as you object against us.) Or grant, as the truth is, that they understood not Christ's meaning, and therefore that he answered con­cerning the manner of their eating, not his power of giving his flesh, &c. 2. We do not find how Christ declares any power in these words. You answer, He doth it effectually and home, by saying my words are spirit, A Spirit having strength and vertue to do more then all bo­dyes put together can either do or conceive.

Reply A goodly Argument, and fit for your children that are content with stones in stead of bread. Christ is a Spirit, is he therefore able to give his flesh to be eaten? then all Spirits have the same power. But Sir, why cannot a man, a body give his flesh to be eaten carnally; I see no difficulty in it, nor need of any spiritual pow­er to effect it, if there be but Popish, or other Cannibals that will eat it. 2. How can the words of Christ be called a Spirit in your sence? for you take not spirit for breath, but proper­ly. Are words living and intelligent beings, as Spirits are? But I suppose this quaint Exposi­tion was hammered out of your own brain, and though it agrees neither with Fathers, nor your elder brethren; yet because it opposeth the [Page 299] wicked Calvinists, you like it well. And indeed so do I, both because it shews you to be a most ingenious, learned, acute, and reverend Expo­sitor, and also discovers the goodness of your cause that needs such Expositions.

Objection 2.

The second Objection (say you) The Ro­man Church committeth idolatry in her ad [...]ration at Mass, bowing to the Name of Jesus, Altars, Images, and Relicks. You answer 1. By the Com­mandment, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven thing, nor adore it, Exod. 20. is neither forbid the Art of Engraving, Carving, Printing, Painting, Casting, Sowing, Embroydering; nor yet all manner of religious honour to be given to creatures.

Reply 1. The Art of Engraving, &c. is cer­tainly lawful, yet the exercise of it hath its limi­tations; which I conceive may be reduced to these two heads.

1. That nothing be engraven, &c. but what ought to be engraven, &c. whereby is forbid­den the engraving, carving, painting any lasci­vious pictures tending to excite lust, but espe­cially as to our purpose painting, engraving, and carving any images of the divine Persons; thus Moses tells the Jews, Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voyce,—Take ye therefore good heed unto your [Page 300] selves (for ye saw no māner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire) lest ye corrupt your selves, Deut. 4.14, 15, 16. and make you a graven image, the simili­tude of any figure, the likenes [...] of male and fe­male &c. For this reason Eusebius refused to send Constantia the Image of Christ,Euseb. Eccles. l. 7. c. 17. and imputes the Ere­ction of Christs Image to an heathenish Custome, saying, It is not any marvel at all that they which of the Gentiles were cured by our Saviour made and set up such things,—for the men of old of an Heathe­nish custome were wont to honour after this man­ner such as they counted Sa­viours: Lorichius doth excellently set forth this,Ger. Lorich. instit. Cathol. in praecept. fol. 95. Est praeterea abusus imagi­num, &c. There is (saith he) besides an abuse of Images, in that we presume to express the sacred Trinity, which is truly a most pestilent heresie; for what can be more contrary to the Holy Trinity, then to paint the Father like a crooked old man, the Son in the form of a young man, and the Holy Ghost like a flying fowle? What can Ideots learn from such a book? truly nothing but er­rour and heresie: This is the first.

2. That nothing be engraven, carved, or [Page 301] painted for this end, that it may be an object of adoration or worship. Thus Moses saith, Ye shall make you no idol, nor graven image—to bow down unto it. Hence its observable, that though we reade that Images used many years ago, yet Cassander tells us they were used as Historicall remembrances, which use is not sin­full, they were not objects for a religious and devout eye to be fixed upon, nor did they chal­lenge any religious prostration or honour, yea the giving of Religious honor to them, whe­ther under [...] or [...] is expresly for­bidden in the Scriptures, as Exod. 20.5.23.33. but of this more even now. In the interim I come to examine your proofs.

1. You say, In the Old Testament where this Commandement is enjoyned the use of those seve­rall acts was held lawfull and religious honour exhibited, &c.

Reply 1. The former part of your assertion is manifestly true, the later is evidently false, and your proofs altogether unsatisfactory. 1. Say you, Religious honour was exhibited to the fiery bush by Moses, Exod. 25. Reply, the Text which you misquote (it being Exod. 3.) proves no religious honour to be given to the bush, nor indeed any kind of honour. Those things that might carry any shew of such a thing to you (if you consulted the Text before you ur­ged it which I much question) are these ver. 2. [Page 302] He looked, v. 3. Moses said I will now turn aside to see this great sight, v. 4. He said to God, Here am I, v. 5. He is bid to put off his shooes, verse 6. He hid his face: excepting these I know nothing in this Chapter can be urged for honour to the bush, and which of these make for it, I cannot tell: but 2. If it was honoured, it was neither Masse nor Altar, nor Image, nor Relique. If it have resemblance to any of them it is to I­mage. But this it hath not as Lyranus observes in these words, Erat populus Israel ad Idolatri­am pronus, &c. [Lyran. in loc.] The Israelites were prone to idolatry, and therefore God ap­peared in the flame which cannot be figured by any image, and in the bush—because in such things there could no image be made, &c.

2. To the Oracle of the high Priests, 3 King. 27. Reply, This book hath but 22. Chapters, where then shall we finde your 27. but I re­member not any words of Scripture, either in that or any other book that seems to express the high Priests religious honour to the Oracle and therefore shall stay for your correction.

3. To the Ark of David, Exod. 3. Levit. 26. Psal. 131. Reply, your two former proofs are mistakes, neither of these books mentioning David at all. Your third Text hath these words, We will go into his Tabernacles, we will worship at his footstool: some Papists reade the latter words thus, Adoremus scabellum pedum ejus, [Page 303] i.e. we will worship his footstool: whom I sup­pose you follow, and there upon ground Da­vids worship of the Ark. But I appeal from the private to the publick spirit, from the tran­slation of L. B. to the vulgar Translation of the Romish Church, which is Adorabimus in loco, ubi steterunt pedes ejus, we will worship the place where Gods feet do stand, (which may be meant of the Tabernacle, as Psalm 26.8. Lord, I have loved the habitation of thine house, and the place where thine honour dwells) not said, we will worship the place: for God is the ob­ject of worship, as Euthymius well shews; In these words saith he, is foretold how the Temple should again be erected, and how they should goe into it, and there worship God as before. [Euthym. apud Lyran.]

2. You say, God himself justified them there­in, by striking Uzziah with Leprosie, and Oza with death, for not forbearing to meddle with holy and sacred things without authority, 2 Paralip. 26 2 King. 6.

Reply 1. What you say is most true but no­thing to purpose: Ʋzziahs sin was that He burnt incense upon the Altar of incense, and so usurped the Priests Office, v. 16.18. not that he did not bow to the altar, which you should prove. If Ʋzziah had crept to it upon his knees and kissed it, and acknowledged Divin [...] in it; this would not have mitigated his guilt, [Page 304] nor have prevented his Leprosie. [Joseph. lib. 7. An iq. cap. 4.] The sin of Oza or Ʋzzah is diversly conceived of; Josephus conceives it was because being no Priest, he yet presumed to meddle with the Ark, which is also Augu­stines opinion: others think he was punished not so much for this as some former sinne, be­cause it often happens that lesser faults doe bring on punishments of former sins: now this other sin of Ʋzziah is mentioned by Procopius in these words; Alterius delictum huc poenas, &c. He is punished for another sin, for where­as God commanded that the Priests should carry the Ark upon their shoulders, he illegally carried it in a cart, and therefore David when he fetcht it from the house of Obed-Edom, car­ried it not in a cart as before, but on mens shoulders, in humeris v. 13. ne percuerent si­cut Oza, as the ordinary gloss. Now what maks all or any of this for you? here is not a syllable for adoration of Mass, Altars, Images, Reliqus, nor indeed for any religious adoration of any thing.

Thirdly, you say by way of conclusion, so that all this Commandement forbids, is to make graven things to the end to honour them with di­vine honour, that is, to make gods of them as the Pagans did.

Reply 1. Your premises have been already confuted; and therefore this conclusion if it [Page 305] had direct dependance on them, as it hath not would fall with them. Your self in saying, the Commands forbids not all religious honour, implies that some manner of religious honour is forbidden, and if so then not onely Divine; for you clearly distinguish betwixt religious honour and divine. [Page 103.] 2. I shall add (to what I have already said, and in oppo­sition to what you say) that Religious honour is forbid by this Commandment religious and divine honour being the very same: see Azor. Instat. Moral. part. 1. l.c, 10.9.2. For the clear­ing of this, let us see what religion, and what religious worship is, religion (saith the Ora­tor) is that which is contained in the pious wor­ship of the Gods: Augustine notably expresseth it. Si cultus tantummodo dicatur, &c. Aug. de Civit. Dei. L. 10. c. 1. Aquin. 22 ae. q. 81. Art. 1. c. & ad 4. & Art. 4. If it be only called worship, it agrees not to God onely. But religion signifies more distinctly not any, but onely the worship of God. Thus Religion is defined with your Schoolmen by its relation to God. Religion (saith Aquinas,) is a vertue whereby men give due worship and reverence to God: yea, by it speciall honour is given to God. And those according to him are religious per­sons, Who devote their whole lives to Gods wor­ship: whence it is clear that he makes no diffe­rence [Page 306] betwixt religious and Divine worship. Again, Grotius defining re­ligious worship,H. Grot. de relig. Chr. L. 4. p. 191. & page 195. saith, Cultus religiosus, &c. Religious worship is nothing else but an attestation of that chief goodness which thou acknowledgest in him thou worshippest. Now in God onely there is Summa bonitas, he onely being the Summum bonum. Of this religious worship the same Au­thor further speaks, telling us what are its chief acts, viz. Prayers which (saith he) cannot be used, unless foolishly, but to intelligent natures: Now Images, Reliqus, Altars, the Name Jesus are not intelligent natures. To this I will add, That there are two main grounds of religious worship. 1 Infinite excellency apprehended under the notion of the Prime Principle, Manifestum est quod dominium convenit Deo secundum propriam & singularē quandā rati­onē, quia scil. ipse om­nia fecit: & quia sūmū in omnibus rebus obti­net principatum. Et ideo specialis ratio ser­vitutis ei debetur, et talis servitus nomine Latriae designatur a­pud Graecos: Et ideo ad religionem proprie per­tinet. Et paulo post. Quia tamen specialis honor, debetur Deo tan­quam primo omnium principio: etiam speci­alis ratio cultus ei de­betur, quae Graeco nomi­ne [...], vocatur Aquin. supr. August. tract. 23. Joan. or first Originall. This is fully expressed by A­quinas, who affirms, that in regard of Gods supreme dominion founded upon his be­ing the first Originall and cause of all things, therefore a speciall kind of service is due to him; which service [Page 307] properly belongs to Religion, and is some­times called Latria, and sometime Eusebia, which together will make up your phrase Religious worship. 2 Infinite excellency ap­prehended under the notion of the chief good, or the fountain of happiness. Thus Augustine; Haec est religio Christiana, &c. This is the Christian Religion, that nothing be wor­shipped but One God, because none maks the soul happy but one God. Religious worship therefore is proper to God, the prime princi­ple and last good; and therefore the giving of it to any but God is forbidden in this Com­mandement as Idolatry.

Reply 3. Its not certain that the Pagans did make gods of their graven things, or if some did, many others did not. Dionysius Carthu­siensis, saith, Quidam Gentilium, &c. [Dionys. Comment. in Rom. 1.] Some of the Pagans did worship the very Images, but others did onely worship the things represented by the Images. The Apostle professeth that the Gentiles knew God, onely they changed his Glory into an Image made like unto corruptible man, &c. [Page 308] which you also doe whilest you change Gods unexpressible glory into the Image of an old man, and the glory of the Holy Ghost into the image of a fowl, and Christ of a yong man, and thus worship them: or if they gave them di­vine honour; do not some of you plead,Aquin. 3. q. 25. Art. 3. & 4. & Càssand. consult. de imag. p. 979. Act. 17.23. that the cross of Christ and his Image should have the same ho­nour: I am sure Cassander blames Aquinas for this o­pinion. But to return, the wiser sort of Pagans acknowledged One onely God, yea the generality of them acknowledg­ed one only Supreme, whom either they called Jove, as some think from Jehovah, or the un­known God. Who was the same that the Apo­stle Paul preacht at Athens; and although they had others whom they worshipped, yet these were rather Daemones than dii middle natures between the immortall Gods and mortall men, imployed by them for carrying mortalls pray­ers to God, and Gods rewards to men, and their acknowledgement of these was only that their perfections and excellencies were partici­pated and relative to the Su­preme God or some other.Athanas. orat. contra Gentes. Arnob. l. 6. ad­vers. Gentes. Read to this purpose that lear­ned piece of Mr. Mede, called the Apostacy of the later times. [Page 309] Yea further when the Christians did object a­gainst Pagans their idol worship, they still plea­ded their respect to the gods whom their idols did represent.

But I come to examine your vindication of Rome from idolatry in those above mentioned particulars, viz. Mass, &c.

1 Mass. You say, Her adoration at Mass being not meant nor directed to the accidents of bread and wine, nor to the figures of Host and Chalice next to sight (for in these she doth not ac­knowledge to be the perfections of Exellencies be­longing to God) but to the Person of Christ, hid and covered under the said accidents and fi­gures.

Reply 1. You grant that the Worship you call divine is used at the Mass, onely you plead that its not directed to the accidents of bread and and wine, &c. but to the Person of Christ, &c. Bellarm. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. You may with this plea give Divine Worship to Images, Al­tars, Reliques; yea the Pagans might have this plea, yet were idolatrous.

2. You differ from your Schoolmen, yea, and Church too. Bellarmine says, That Christ per se & proprie, is to be worshipped with the ado­ration of Latria, and that this adoration belong­eth to the signes or symbols of bread and wine in as much as they are apprehended as one with Christ, whom they contain. Conformably here­unto [Page 310] the Councel of Trent saith, Ther remains no doubt but that all Christs faithful peo­ple give the Worship of Latria, which is due to the true God, to the Sacrament in their adoration, be­cause they believe God is present in it. So that either your Church is idolatrous, or your selfe not sufficiently religious: Besides, in your Sa­cramental language you speak of a Transub­stantiation of the bread not into Christs Person, but his Body. So that its the Body of Christ you worship, for this is under the accidents of figures. Now the perfections and exellencies belonging to God, which might command from us Latria, are no more in Christs body, then in the accidents of bread and wine, there being an infinite distance between the exellen­cies and perfections of the Deity, and Christs humanity. This is not Primum rerum principi­um, as that is.

3. This Adoration is without any precept or example in Scripture, where the Sacrament is fully expressed.

4. Papists use it without doubting, as whe­ther the bread be rightly consecrated, and so whether the Body of Christ be present or no in the Sacrament. Hence that Lesson of Pope A­rian 6. teaching to say, Adoro te si tu es Chri­stus. I adore thee if thou be Christ. That there [Page 311] ought to be a condition, is the judgement of Gabriel, Biel, Thomas, Bo­naventure, Alexander, Azor. instit. moral. p. 1. l. 9. c. 9. q. 10 Al­bertus, Richardus, and seems to be the common opinion of all Divines, saith Azorius. Which condition makes Images, Reliques, Altars, yea the hea­thenish idols, the Subjects of Latria; there is not any thing in the world but may partake of divine worship with it as well as the Mass. But its sin to adore that which we know not whe­ther it be adorable or no.

2. The Name of Jesus, Altars, Pictures, Re­liques. You say, She alloweth indeed of religious honour to the Name of Jesus, to Altars, Pictures, Reliques, relating to God, Christ, and his Saints.

Reply 1. The Heathens, as I have shewed, did give no more to their-images, then that you call religious honour. 2. The Worship of Images when it was in relation to Christ and Saints hath been branded with heresie. The Carpocrations are cal-called Hereticks by S. Augustine for wor­shipping of Jesus and Paul. Aug. de haeres. c. 7. Dan. in cap. 6. Aug. de haeres. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. c. 3 Cyril. Catech. Myttag. 1a. pag. 513. 1 Tim. 4.1. Euseb. Eccles. Histor. lib, 4. c. 15. Danaeus ob­serves it to have been one of the Gnosticks heresies. Eusebius ob­serves out of Justin. Martyr. that Simon [Page 312] Magus and his followers put in ure against the pestilent superstition of pictures, from which they seemed once to be free: As Cyril of Hie­rusalem calls prayers candles, &c. made for the honour of Images, [...], the wor­ship of the Devil, which Saint Paul expresseth by [...], Doctrines of Dae­mons. 3. All that the ancient Christians ascri­bed to Saints, was love, not religious worship. When the Christians of the Church of Smyrna were denied the body of Polycarpus upon his account, lest they should leave Christ to wor­ship him; they answer for themselves that their enemies were ignorant: That we (say they) can never forsake Christ which dyed for the Sal­vation of the whole world, and that we can wor­ship none other: for we worship Christ as the Son of God, the Martyrs we love at Disciples and followers of the Lord, and that worthily for the invincible good will they bear to their King and Master whose Companions and Disciples we desire to be. In the same place they say, We ga­thered his bones more precious then pearls, and better then tryed gold, and buried them in the place that was fit for the purpose. They were neither worshippers of Saints, much less of their images, nor reservers of their reliques: All they desired was that they might bury his bo­dy, which being denied them, they buried what they could get, his bones.

You urge, To find fault with this were to blame Justice for giving to every thing its due in acknowledging the truth: It being most true and undoubted, that the Name of Jesus, Altars, Pi­ctures, and Reliques, bear relation to God, Christ, and his Saints, as Persons in Dignities and Pre­heminencies to the same.

Ans. 1. The Question is not whether eve­ry thing ought to have its due, but whether re­ligious honour be due to these things, that we grant; But deny this: their mere relation (be­sides which you mention nothing else) cannot prove it. All things in the world have relation to God, Christ, and the Saints; yea, some things have a special relation, which yet you do not worship. Emmanuel is as venerable a name as Jesus, so is the name Christ: Temples have special relation to God as well as Altars; Dead pictures have not so much relation to Christ, or God, and their living Images, true Christians; Reliques of Saints have no more relation to them then their works, or vertues; yet Papists give not religious worship to these. You must therefore give us some other chara­cters whereby to know what things are adora­ble, or what religion to God, Christ, or Saint, will purchase from us this honour, that we may know how and when, and to whom to give it. 2. Though it were true that Images and Re­licks did bear such relation to Christ and Saints [Page 314] as might procure this worship for them, yet its doubtful whether the images you give us be the true Images of Christ. You know the Pain­ter pictured Peter ruddy upon supposal that if Peter were now at Rome he would blush to see his Successours, &c. May. not Christ be missed in the painting as well as Peter? for I hope your Painters are not infallible. May not the Image you affirm to be the Image of Christ, be the image of some thief, or wicked person? yea of Judas; and so whilest we bow to Christ, we kiss Judas. I read of a Case not altogether un­like this, mentioned by Cassander: 'tis this.

Saint Martin once go­ing to a place in his Di­ocess famous for the Monument of a Martyr,Cass. de vener. reliq. pag. 973. Haback. 2.18. Isai. 44.10. he found it was the Mo­numēt of a wicked thief. The Prophets truely tell us, that the graven image and the molten image is a teacher of lies, and is profitable for nothing: The same may be said of Reliques, its questionable whe­ther they be true: The most of them seem counterfeit, and such are complained against by moderate and more ingenious Papists. Cas­sander doth very much complaine of them in these words, There are many that make mer­chandise of reliques whether true or false: so that they are carried about by Juglers and the vilest [Page 315] fellows, like the heathenish mysteries of Isis, and they are commended to the vulgar with many lies, Cassand. ibid. Erasmus is more full, What saith he, would Hierom have said in these days to see every where set forth in oftentation the Virgin Mary's milk, and so many pieces of the Cross of Christ, which if they should be gathered together, would overload a ship: Here they shew S. Fran­cis his Coale, there the Virgine's Petticoat; One where S. Anne's Comb, in another place Joseph's Breeches; and (which is a thing uncertain) the foreskin of Christ which they adore more religi­ously then Christ himself, Erasm. in Mat. 33. p. 80. Supr. I will conclude this with the words of Cassander, Whereas there are but very few true reliques in these parts, and many of thos [...] that are shewed may be suspected; and their frequent­ing and worshipping doth cond [...]ce little to p [...]ety, but much either to superstition, or gain: It were a much wiser course that there were no Ost [...]nta­tion of reliques, but that the people might be pro­voked to worship the true reliques of the Saints, that is to imitate those examples of piety and vertue which are extant in theirs or others wri­tings of them.

In the last place you bring in two Objections against adoration at Mass, and answer them.

1. To urge against the lawfulness of adorati­on at Mass from the interposition of creatures would prove too much; viz. That Christ were [Page 316] not adorable in Churches, in the fields, nay at all, by reason of an interposition of walls, the Heavens or Christs Body betwixt the adorers and his sa­cred Person:

Reply 1. Your last Interposition is a conceit fit for a Transubstantiator.

2. No Protestant doth urge against the law­fulness of adoration, the meer interposition of creatures, but the interposition of them as the object of worship: This we conceive forbid­den in the first Commandment, which saith, Thou shalt have no other Gods before my face: There may be Images, Walls, Heavens, Sun, Moon, or Stars, before us, when we worship God, yet this makes us not idolaters, whilest our religious service is not directed to these, as you direct yours to such like objects, which makes you idolaters.

Object. 2. It will be opposed Christ is not ca­pable of adoration in the Sacrament, he not ap­pearing there like himself with Glory and Maje­sty.

You answer, Christ is adorable where and howsoever he is pleased to be; else the three Kings and Mary Magdalen, and the Apostles were re­provable for doing him homage, not in a [...]sump­tuous Palace, and enthroned under a rich Cloth of State, but in a poor stable, a dusty manger, ha­ving for a Canopy, a rack of hay, not gloriously attired, and accompanied with Nobles, but in [Page 317] swadling clothes, betwixt an Ox and an Asse; not like a Prince, but a mechanick, Gardiner, a Car­penter, Rep. 1. Omitting your rash traditions of the three Kings, and Christ lying betwixt an Oxe and an Asse, as not worthy an answer. I say, 1. No Protestant makes the Objection you impose upon them: We all grant that he is graciously and gloriously present in the Eucha­rist, as he is in Baptism, and the Word which is the Scepter of his Kingdom, yea and that in these he is adorable, and to be worshipped in the Eucharist, though not as if he were con­tained under the Species of bread and wine: or in that space that the bread and wine were in before transubstantiation. 2. Its false he that Christ is adorable by externall set Worship where and howsoever he is pleased to be, lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 30. Bellarmine saith, Apostoli non poterant, &c. The Apostles could not al­wayes worship Christ upon their knees, and es­pecially in the Supper when it was necessary for them to sit downe with him. Now this is that worship you plead for: Besides Christ as God being present in every place and thing, it must follow by your doctrine that Christ is to be adored in every thing, as the Sun, Moon, Stars, Beasts, Plants, Stones, Stocks, &c. which is the ready way to Heathenish idolatry: The truth is, Christ is not corporally present in the the Supper, and therefore his Body is not there [Page 318] adorable. 3. When you say, The three Kings did him homage. 1. How do you prove that this was religious, and not civil worship? If the Disciples when they had been long with Christ did dream of a temporal Kingdom, why might not these strangers take him for a tempo­ral [...]ing, and so give him civil Worship? That which makes this probable is, that they enquire Where is he that is born King of the Jews? And that He [...]od and that part of Jerusalem that fa­voured him, (for so Lyra undestands the words, All Jerusalem) were troubled when they heard of him;Lyran. the reason where­of was, because Herod was a stranger, and feared he should lose his Kingdom; and certainly that honour he pretended himselfe would give, would have been only a shadow of civil honour. Yea lastly, If I would stand up­on words as you do upon your Latria, & Dou­lia, I might tell you that the words do not import religious any more, [...]. then civill worship. But 2. Granting it was religi­ous, (which I find to be the more common o­pinion,) this makes not for your adoration at Mass. For 1. It was manifest in it self and to them, that Christ was personally and locally present with them. 2. They did worship God in Christ.Aug. Ser. de Epiph. Tres Magi, &c. The three wise men (saith [Page 319] Au­gustine) in one journey come to worship God, in one Christ, (who is the way) the undivided Trinity was by them adorable: They worshipped him so acknowledging God, whom they under­stood to be made man. Lyran. And Lyranus te­stifies, that they would not have exhi­bited so much reverence to him, unless they had known him to be more then man. Now you can­not say, That that you worship in the Sacra­ment, viz. Christs body into which the bread is transubstantiated, is, Aliquid supra hominem, Something more then man. Its the Body of Christ with the accidents of bread and wine that you worship, not his Divinity which you know no Protestant doth refuse to worship. 3. They did not worship the dusty manger, as you do the Altar, (whereon you say Christ's body is) nor the rack of hay, nor the swadling clothes, nor the Oxe or Asse, all which you say were about him. 4. When you say, Mary Magdalen, and the Apostles did homage to Christ in a poor stable, as a Mechanick, a Gardener, a Carpenter. You are much mistaken, or have better tradition then I can meet with, I do not find that either Mary Magdalen, or the A­postles saw Christ in the manger, or did ho­mage to him like a Mechanick, &c. Indeed Christ was once taken for a Gardener by a mis­take, but whilest that mistake lasted, no religi­ous adoration could be yeilded him without idolatry. [Page 320] 5. Whereas you say, The poorness and mean­ness of the manner Christ appears in—renders him much more adorable; for Exaltation is humili­ties reward, &c.

Reply. If this were true Christ should have been more adorable while on earth, then now he is in Heaven, which is contrary to Scripture, even in that place you by and by mention, Phil. 1. God first exalts him, and gives him a Name above every name, and then comes in the wor­ship of all creatures expressed by bowing at the Name of Jesus, which is not meant of the Name Jesus, and a bowing at the sound of it, but it is an honouring of Christ by an acknow­ledgement of his Supream Lordship and Do­minion, as both the ordinary Gloss,Rhem. on Phil. 2.9. & Heb. 2.9. and Lyranus expounds it. But to return, Papists af­firm that Christ merited glo­ry and honour by his humiliation; Now this glory was that which is signified by having the knee bowed to him. It must therefore needs be, that Christ had not so much glory in his hu­miliation as afterwards; then he was onely meriting, but afterwards he was possessing what was formerly merited. Christ had not those excellencies in his poor and mean estate that he had in his rich estate: For this reason Saints are not so worshipful with you whilest they live as after this life, they are not canoni­zed, [Page 321] nor prayed unto till your exaltation. If means render a person more adorable, I am sure S. Peter deserved much more honour then the present Popes, he being poor and mean, and they Lords of the world above Kings, Empe­rors, and all that is called God or worshipped. To conclude, if it be means that specially ren­ders a person adorable, how could you square adoration according to perfections and excel­lencies, (page 101. &c.) and not rather accor­ding to the want of these.

2. Objection.

THe third Objection is, The Roman-Church challengeth power to forgive sins, which be­longeth onely to God.

Answer, All power is naturally and origi­nally in God, as Lord paramount of all creatures, but not incommunicable: for as he hath bestow­ed the power of governing Kingdomes and Com­mon-wealths on Kings and Magistrates, Prov. 8.15. Rom. 13.1. So the power of remitting sins on the Apostles and their successours: yet men having these powers by way of gift and participa­tion may not be said to govern or to forgive sins, but as Gods substitutes and delegates, suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection.

Reply 1. Gods power as to some of its acts is incommunicable. His power of Creation is naturally in him, and incommunicable to any [Page 322] creature, so is his damning and saving power, whereby he makes one a vessell of wrath, ano­ther of mercy; of this nature is his power of remitting sin. It is God that justifies, and it was a serious question (though wrongly applied) of the Scribes, Who can forgive sins but God on­ly, [Mark 2.7.] others cannot do it, and therefore Bed doth hereby prove Christs di­vinit [...], saith he Solus D [...]us remittit peccata, &c. [Bed, apud Lyran ib] i.e. God onely remits sins, and the Son of man hath power of remit­ing sin; therefore God and the Son of man are the same; thus the Son of man by his di­vinity doth remit sins but by his humanity he is enabled to dy for sinners. For the clearing of this, I observe that remission of sins may be considered two wayes, viz. 1. As it is a ju­diciall act, and denotes formall pardon. Thus it belongs to the supreme Lord against whom the cr [...]mes are directly committed, and his ab­solution is onely satisfactory to the offender, as Soto on Rom. 8.33. very well shewes. 2. As it is a Declaration of that act already passed by the supreme Lord. As in human Courts, the judiciall act or formall absolution be­longs to the Judge, but the declaration of this is in the crier. 'Tis thus in the Church, The Church is the crier, but God the Judge; his act is an act of power and authority, whereby Pardon is formally obtained, but so is not [Page 323] theirs. This is confessed by the most noted Schoolmen, Lombard is clear for it. Ita opera­tur sacerdos Evangelicus, &c. [Lomb. lib. 4. dist. 18. F.] The Evangelicall Priest (saith he) doth so act and judge in the absolving from sin as the legall Priest did on them that had the Leprosie. Now its evident that the Priest did not make them clean, but onely upon Gods cleansing of them declared them to be clean, nor is this the judgement of him onely, but of many other Schoolmen, and Lombard proves it from Hierom and Ambrose. Now if the Church of Rome not content with the act of declaring sin pardoned, do in a Pharasaicall pride (as Lombard speaks) claim to it self a ju­diciall power (which Ambrose calls jus, potesta­tis) then its certainly true that the Romane Church claims a power that belongs onely to God: But its certainly true that this Church claims a power; the Trent Councill is clear and full for it, [Concil. Trid, sess. 14. cap. 6. & Can. 9. ap. Binnium.] So that she Anathematizeth whosoever shall say, that is no judiciall act, but onely an office of pronouncing and declaring that sins are pardoned to the penitent sinner. This is that we charge upon your Church as an hereticall opinion.

What you say in answer to our Objection, I know not whether it be in vindication of your Church, or in meer opposition to us, you [Page 324] have so darkly folded up your opinion that I know not what it is. You say, The successours of the Apostles have power to forgive sins, as Gods substitutes and delegates, suitably to the condition of their inferioritie and subjection. You should have told us what this suitable power is: for the power your Church claims is not a suitable power for her even in the judgement of your Schoolmen. And if you deny her that, you con­fess with us that she claims a power that be­longs onely to God. Your allusion is nothing unless you can prove that as God hath bestow­ed power of governing on Kings, so hath he given the Apostles and their successours the power of formall remission.

4. Objection.

THe fourth Objection is, The Roman Church derogateth from Christs Mediatorship, mak­ing it common to Saints and Angels.

Answ. 1. Things that are like have eftsoons the same denomination; so Kings and Judges are called Gods for some resemblance betwixt Gods power and theirs. Psal. 81.1.6. The Roman Church then observing in the intercession of Saints and Angels, a certain likeness to the me­diation of Christ; they being both expressions of charitable and good desires for others, may not un­fitly call them alike by the name of mediation.

Reply, 1. That things that are like have [Page 325] sometime the same denomination, none will question but the ground of this is not alwayes likness or resemblance, as you seem to assert: different things altogether unlike, may have the same denomination whilest those that have some likeness cannot, The children of God who have his Image, and are partaker of the divine nature are not to be called Gods, though Magistrates are, Psal. 82. There are two rea­sons or grounds whereupon the names of God or Christ may be given to creatures. 1. Re­lation the persons stand in unto God and Christ, thus Judges are called Gods, and Moses is said to be a God to Pharaoh, Exod. 7.1. be­cause Judges and Moses stood in Gods stead, were his Vice-royes, his Ambassadours. 2. Di­vine authoritie seconding the relation, I have said ye are Gods, and all of you the children of the most High, &c. Psal. 82.6.105, 15. God saith of his children Touch not my Christs. Now according as God gives these names to crea­tures, so may we, provided that we give them 1. Onely to those to whom he gives them. 2. That we give them not to any as properly be­longing to them, but onely as metaphoricall expressions. 3. Nor ordinarily but upon spe­ciall and extraordinary occasions and with al­lusions to Gods own words. Against these the men of Lystra offended when they called Paul and Barnabas Gods. Act. 14.1. Its not lawfull [Page 326] for us to give the Title of God to Magistrates ordinarily in our speaking to them, nor to say to others ye are Jehovah, or Christ, or the Evangelicall Priest or Mediator for the reasons now implied. The Apostle expresly saith, There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2.5.2. If likeness ground a denomination yet it remains doubtfull what likeness doth it. There is no­thing in the world but hath some kind of like­ness to God, yet you may not call every thing God: though it may be this was the manner of the Heathens deifying of every creature till it came to herbes. 3. The likeness betwixt the intercession of Saints and Angels (supposing these to interceed though you prove it not) and mediation of Christ is so little, that it can­not be thought a sufficient ground for this de­nomination. What ever you can say of the in­tercession of Saints and Angels in Heaven, may be said of the Prayers of every Christian that supplicates God for others, and what man would say that every Christian is a Mediator? For the clearing of this I shall shew what Christs mediation is.Est. com. in 1. Tim. 2.5. Estius saith, Mediator Dei, & hominum, &c. A Mediator between God and man is he who comes to God immediately, and by his own merit recon­ciles God to man, and procures for man all [Page 32] saving benefits. And though afterwards oppo­sing Protestants, he attributes this to others yet its very sparingly; saith he, Catholicks do not transfer the office of Mediator now explained and proper onely to Christ to any others, but onely doth acknowledge some others to be mediators in an imperfect manner, that is, our intercessors to God, such as all those are who commend our salvation to God by their prayers. [ibid.] Here is nothing attributed to Saints and Angels, which is not as truely applicable to any living Christian, to whom you use not to give the name of Mediator.Aquin. 3. q. 26. Ar. 1. 2 m. Aquinas moreover proves out of Au­gustine, that Angels cannot rightly be called Mediators betwixt God and men, because they partake not of the qualities of both extreams: the same reason is of force against the Mediety of meer men. But you say the likeness is in this, that Christs mediation, and Saints intercession, they are both expressi­ons of charitable and good desires for others. Whereby first you falsly imply that Christ doth mediate or in­tercede for us by Petitions or desires,Dyonis. Car­thus. ad Rom. c. 8. v. 33. which is contrary to the judgement of divers Ca­tholicks, who say, Christ doth not interceed with words but by commisseration and presen­tation of the nature he assumed, and the cursed [Page 328] death he suffered in his Fathers presence. Se­condly, Though it be granted that Christ doth also in Heaven require a performance of Gods promise to his Elect, for whom he hath offered up himself a Sacrifice, and Saints also desire the same thing, yet it will not follow, that they may therefore have the name of Mediators, be­cause Mediator doth imply not onely a chari­table act, but an Office: and every charitable act doth not intitle a person to the name of an Officer, who by vertue of his. Office performs the like act. A private man may give his friend councell, and plead for him with such as doe oppose him: Yet you will not say this man is a Councellour or a Lawyer. A private man, yea a woman may instruct another in the my­steries of salvation, and pray for them; yea, (and if Papists speak truth) may in some cases administer a Sacrament, yet you would be an­grie if we should call these private persons a­mongst you Priests, or should bring them in­tra ordinem praedicationum, within your Order of Preachers: How if it be thus with mens Titles, how much more with Gods and Christs?

2. You answer, But she is so far hereby from intending the least prejudice to Christs mediation, either in confounding or equalling the same with that of Saints and Angels, that she puts as wide a difference betwixt them as can be betwixt two [Page 329] things of different appellations: acknowledging in Christs Mediation a worth or right whereto the thing desired is of Justice due; in the Mediation of Saints & Angels only a vertue of moving Gods goodness and mercy to grant their desires.

Reply 1. If she put as wide a difference be­twixt them as can be betwixt two things of dif­ferent appellations, How could you plead their likeness, and upon it ground the identity of ap­pellations? to be like, and yet altogether un­like are opposits, and one of them false. 2. He doth not put so wide a difference betwixt them as you speak of: you state it thus, She acknow­ledgeth in Christ's Mediation a worth or right whereunto the thing desired is of justice due, in the Mediatiō of Saint & Ang [...]ls, only avertue of mo­ving Gods goodness & mercy to grant their desires.

Reply 1. What vertue this is, may be que­stioned, Its probable its a meriting vertue, and this hath respect to Gods justice, and indeed differs not from that worth you ascribe to Christ. Its ordinary with you to fly to the me­rits of Saints as well as to their prayers. Your Biel saith, You invocate Saints as Mediators for whose merits God bestows those benefits on us which we are not worthy our selves to re­ceive. And further he saith,In Can. missae. Lect. 30. We ought to fly to them, and reverent­ly to intreat them, that we may be saved by their merits and prayers. Bellarmine [Page 330] is not behind him, for he affirms, That as to the words, its lawful for us to pray. Saint Peter give me this, or t'other, whilest we understand it, give it us by thy prayers and merits. Cass. Consultd. d. merit. & interc. p. 970. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 32. cap. 6. ap. Bin. Cassander com­plains of some who choose the Saints to be their Guar­dians, and trust more to their merits and intercession, then to the merits of Christ. All which is noway contrary to the Trent Councel which establisheth merits of Saints, nor to your self, who in the end of this Section derive this vertue of moving God from the Saints purity and sanctity. To which others adde their sufferings, as when in your old Por­tess Christ is intreated by the wounds of Tho­mas to loose your sins. But you say, The Saints move Gods goodness, but Christ looks to Gods ju­stice. I answer, Merits, whether of Christ or any other, refer to Gods justice, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 4.4. Now to the Mercenary man is the reward not reckoned of grace, but debt. 2. Whatever this vertue be, yet you place them equally near unto God, as Christ is: they are not Mediatores ad Media­torem, but ad Deum: they move Gods good­ness, and indeed so doth Christ. How long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, &c. saith [Page 331] Christ to his Father, Zech. 1.12. So that how­ever you pretend a vast difference, its evident you make little, if any at all.

3. You answer—Which sith it is not held in­jurious to Christ's Mediation to allow of as good in the prayers of sinners, hated and abominated by God for their crimes and iniquities, much less ought it to be esteemed a wrong to attribute it to the intercession and prayers of Saints and An­gels, whose purity and sanctity renders them gra­cious and pleasing in the sight of God.

Reply 1. Your answer contains a piece of bad Divinity. For, 1. If by sinners [hated & abominated by God for their crimes and ini­quities] you mean the regenerate, then are you a step further in heresie then Proclus, for he as you told us, left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin, and you make the ob­jects of Gods hatred and abomination. Or 2. If you mean the unregenerate, then its most false that they have a vertue of moving Gods good­ness and mercy, &c. God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshi [...]per of God, and doth his will him heareth he, John 9.31. The sacrifi­ces of the wick [...]d are an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight, Prov. 15.8. Jam. 5.16. The Scripture asserts the only prevalency of the righteous mens pray­ers. 2. Its a wrong to Christ to attribute this vertue to such men; for if they can do it, Christs [Page 332] intercession becomes needless, or sinfulness be­ing that which brings in the necessity of a Me­diatour.

4. You propound and answer three Obje­ctions, which you suppose may be made against you.

Obj. 1. It will be opposed (say you) in the vast distance that is betwixt Heaven and Earth, Saints and Angels, cannot hear.

Reply. Blessed souls in their state of Separa­tion have, as Angels (Luke 15.) an hearing quite other from that of souls immersed and plun­ged in flesh and blood: These hear by means of corporal Organs, which limited within a certaine distance, cannot receive impression out of the same: Those hear with their understandings, which are by so much the more open and quick of apprehen­sion, by how much the less their dependance is on matter: The Saints then being freed of all cor­poral clogs may hear at any distanc.

Ans. 1. The Knowledge of blessed Souls in their state of Separation (though different from that of souls housed in bodies of clay, yet) is inferiour to that of Angels, (as Aquinas shews) because the nature of the soul is infe­riour to the Angelical na­ture. Souls have a common and confused know­ledge,Aquin. part 1. q. 8, 9. Art. 3. as he calls it, but Angels have an exact and more perfect knowledge. 2. The freedom [Page 333] that blessed souls have from corporall clogs doth not invest them with the particular know­ledge of things done here upon earth. This is also asserted by Aquinas, Ibid. Art. 8. c. who for confirmation of it, brings in Saint Gregory and Augustine, the former of them seeming to prove it from the distance of habitation of spi­rits from that of bodies; the latter by Scrip­ture, viz. Isai. 63. And the gloss upon it, and by his mothers not visiting him, and by the promise made to good Josiah, 2 King. 22.3. The Motion of Angels from place to place, makes it at least probable that their knowledge is not alike when they are absent, as when they are present with us. I confess that Aquinas saith, their motion from place to place is in order to operation, not knowledge, Ibid. q. 55. Art. 2. ad 3m. But however they are here as Executi­oners of Gods pleasure in works of judgement or mercy, yet it may seeme that they also go about to see the carriages, works, and dealings of men, whereof they are said to make report, Zech. 1.10, 11. Nor is this for information of God, as if he knew not what men did, but ra­ther that the Angels beholding by themselves mens actions, may justifie God in his punish­ments of the wicked, and rewarding of his peo­ple; or may acquaint the Saints therewith, who being not messengers, as Angels, have their constant abode in the presence of [Page 334] God. This seems to be Augu­stines conceit (if the book be his) for he layes down two means whereby the Saints may know what hath been done on earth,Lib. de Cura pro Morl. apud Lyarn. in Is. 63.16. viz. the relation of those who die and so come to them, or else the rela­tion of Angels who are present with us in our actions. Now if Angels know not humane, af­fairs alike when absent, as when they are pre­sent; what ground have we to think that blessed souls have this priviledge. 4. Its false that souls in their state of seperation have an hear­ing or understanding quite other from that of souls immerced and plunged in flesh and blood. For (excepting the want of the Ministery of sences) the soul hath the same manner of understanding in its seperate estate that it hath whilest in the body, though more accurate and less laborious; and the reason is clear, because understanding follows the nature or essence of the soul, which in both estates is one and the same; did the soul understand by species whilest in the body?p. 1. q. 83. Art. 6. so it doth still as Aquinas holds. Did the soul understand by dis­course? So it doth still, not onely understand­ing one thing after another, but one thing by another.

2. Object. You say it will be opposed; Be it [Page 335] Saints can hear at what distance soever; yet this not possible, unless Objects be proposed: and what capacity in Prayers sent so farre off as to reach to Heaven.

Reply, Catholicks boast not of any such vertue in their prayers, but they believe (as is confessed by all) that God is every where—and that he is the chief and principall Cause of all effects, and so of mans prayers. Now it being the propertie of every cause to relate to its effects, and so to repre­sent the same, as looking glasses do faces and other opposed objects: The Saints (whose happiness consists in a clear vision of God) must needs see and behold (amongst other effects of his goodness and mercy) the Petitions of those who become humble suitors to them.

Answ. 1. They that grant that Saints can hear at any distance are not very wise to object the distance betwixt earth and heaven, and I am perswaded none doth so: but you travel­led to set forth your late invented and uncon­ceivable Looking-glass which like Randolphs Pedler you will not fall to vent amongst other Popish trumperies: and indeed you shew your self a pedling Scholar in bringing it in, impli­citly denying what you had expresly asserted a little before, for you told us that Saints could hear at any distance; but now as if your con­science had checkt you for that, you tell us that its God in whose presence they are that reveals [Page 336] it to them. But secondly, how doe you prove that God is the Author or Cause of prayers to Saints? He did never so much as command them, nor the Prophets or Apostles in Scrip­ture give us one example of them: Till you prove it a Christian dutie, you cannot intitle God to it as the Cause of it, any more than to sin which you say he doth onely suffer and per­mit, p. 79. God doth not allow any to give his glory to another, much less doth he concur in assisting him therein. Thirdly, its false, that its the property of every Cause to relate to its effects, and so to represent the same, as Looking-glasses do faces and other opposed objects. If this were true, then when you see a workman you should in him see all his works, and so one man should be a Looking-glass to another, which would make good store of Looking-glasses and strange ones too. Tis true, some causes doe represent their effects, so there are effects that represent their Causes, and that more like glasses repre­sentation of the face or other objects. So that you might as well prove that every effect doth represent its Cause and every thing in it, and consequently that the creature doth fully re­present the divine Essence: and yet the Scrip­ture tells us that none can see God and live. 2. Its untrue that in seeing the divine Essence, you see all its effects.Aquin. 1. part. 7.12. Art. 8. per tot, & cajet. ibid. Aquinas demonstrates the contrary by [Page 337] the example of the Angels, who see the divine Essence, yet are ignorant of fu­ture contingencies and the thoughts of the hearts: and he further shewes that its not necessary that he that sees a glass, should see all things in the glass, unless he per­fectly comprehend the glass in his sight. Now there is no creature that doth perfectly com­prehend God. Cyril excel­lently sets this forth of the Angels speaking of God,Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 7. p. 169. [...] &c. Whose face the Angels do perpetually see in heaven; but they see every one according to the measure of his own degree, but the sublime splendor of the fatherly vision, its lawfull onely for the Son and the Holy Ghost to behold. Doe you think that the Saints see in God the thoughts of mens hearts (yet many prayers are no more but the inward groans of the heart) if you say they doe, then according to Aquinas they arrogate that which is proper to God, if not, then they see not all the efects in God, and you have not given us any distinction of effects visible or not visible.

3. Object. You say it will be opposed, If Saints and Angels have not mens prayers before God pro­poseth them he knoweth them beforehand: whence may be inferd that their intercession is needless.

Answ. 1. Gods foresight of mens prayers maks not the intercession of Saints and Angels any way unprofitable and fruitless; inasmuch as the effect intended thereby is not to better Gods understand­ing, but to obtain from his blessed Will, mercy and compassion, &c.

Reply, 1. The Objection doth not refer to Gods foresight meerly which may be from all eternitie; (He foreseeing all things before they were) but to Gods actuall receiving of them from us, and so proposing them to the Saints. Now I assert that this doth make the intercessi­on of Saints and Angels unprofitable, yea no intercession: For first, according to Papists, the reason why we look for an Intercessor is this, we dare not come to God immediately: hence is that Court-like instance and frequently ur­ged of a subject, who not daring to come into the presence of the King, immediately presents his Petitions to some of his Courtiers, and by him to the King. But here forgetting your in­stance, you first present your Petitions to the King, making him your Letter carrier to his Courtiers; and this say you for this end that his Courtiers may move his goodness, which how rationall it is, let the simplest of your Sy­nagogue judge. 2. According to your Rhe­mists the property of a Mediator or Interces­sor, is to offer up our Prayers to God. Now he that offers up any thing to another, doth [Page 339] not immediately receive his offering from him to whom he offers, but from him for whom he offers: To say Saints receive Prayers from God that they may offer them to God, is very harsh and unscripturall language.

Reply 2. If our Prayers go immediately to God, and then to Saints, and they immediately obtain from Gods blessed Will mercy and compassion from us. What room hath Christ for his intercession, or how are Saints Media­tores ad Mediatorem? Its difficult to set up Saints as Intercessors, and not to nullifie the intercession of Christ Jesus. But you urge, Princes have often notice of subjects imprison­ment and condemnation, yet seldom give re­prives of inlargements, but at the intreaty of some friend or favorite.

Reply 1 Princes do not usually receive and deliver Petitions directed to their Favourites, that thereby their favourites may move them to compassion. 2. Princes often give reprieves or inlargements at the entreaty of the impri­soned or condemned. 3. The Apostle tells us clearly who is that favourite, that receiving our Petitions doth procure reprieves or enlarge­ments for guiltie sinners, viz. Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 John 2.1.

2. You answer, Men are wished, yea war­ranted to pray for one another, (1 Tim. 2.) not­withstanding, God hath the foresight of their wants and necessities.

Reply 1. For shame do not thus fight with your own shadow, what Protestant doubts of Gods foresight of Prayers? or who asserts that Prayers are for the bettering of Gods under­standing? 2. When men pray one for ano­ther they have not the sight of your supercele­stiall Ʋtopian looking-glass, but being by their friends acquainted with their wants, they are intreated to joyn with them in seeking Gods mercy through Jesus Christ. 3. You answer, Davids adulterie and guilt of blood were in the sight of God unpardoned, till after a low humili­ation, and an hearty acknowledgement of his fault 1 King. 12. Reply. This being nothing to purpose shall pass unanswered, till you can make it appear more materiall.

5. Objection.

THe fifth Objection is, The Roman Church entertaineth divisions and contrariety in Re­ligion: The Dominicans maintaining a Physi­call predetermination, the Jesuits a Morall: those that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin; these that she was prevented by Grace and conceived in the same. And if this be not enough to infer contrarietie in Religion, several Coun­cells have contradicted each other.

Answ. 1. Not every difference, but a diffe­rence in point of Faith makes division and contra­riety in Religion: The Dominicans and Jesuits [Page 341] onely quarrell about Opinions; it being not mat­ter of belief that Gods Predestination is Physicall or Morall, or that the blessed Virgin was con­ceived in Originall sin or grace: These are meer School nicities, and not at all destructive to that Ʋnity which Catholicks so much reverence in Religion.

Reply 1. You deal deceitfully with your fol­lowers and us, in making your many divisions to seem few, and your great ones small. Are the differences in the Roman Church only two, viz. about Predetermination, and the Virgin Mary. Whosoever reads Azorius's Moralls, but especially Bellarmines Controversies, shall find scarce one point of divinity wherein there is not difference amongst Papists. Some have numbered 300. different Opinions of Papists out of Bellarmines Controversies, and those about Points controverted between them and us. Now if the differences between them and us be about Points of Faith as it seems they are, else we could not be accounted Heretical) and not meer Opinions: their is no question but theirs are of the same nature, there being no Opinion of the Church but hath some one or more Papists joyning with us in opposing it. 2. You might have done well to have inform­ed us what are Points of Faith, and what Opi­nions, for these Points you mention seem to be points of Faith. For first, those things that [Page 342] constitute a point of Faith with you agree to them? As first its authority from the Word of God which you branch into Scriptrre and Tradition. Hence it was that some Jesuits of Ratisbone asserted it to be an Article of Faith; That Toby's dog wagged his tail: and your self say, page 65. All points of Faith being equally founded on Gods Revelation are fundamentall and substantiall; which Revelation is by the Word or Tradition. Now I conceive you will at least urge Tradition for Gods Predetermination and the Virgins impeccable or sinless Concep­tion. 2. The determination of your Church in some Councell or by some Pope.Extrao. Commun l. 3. tit. 12. c. 2. apud Azor. part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. & Bin Tom. 4. p. 743. Now its most evident that Sixtus the Fourth, did decree them Here­ticks, who affirmed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in sin,Concil. Trin. sess. 5. Concil. Basil. sess. 36. apud Bin. though I deny not but he also disallowed the preaching of her purity: because of the too great zeal in the Preachers of it. Upon this decree of Sixtus The Councell of Trent (ha­ving declared the universality of Originall sin in regard of persons) doth make a formall ex­ception of the Virgin Mary: But before either that Pope or Councell, The Councell of Basil [Page 343] is most clear for it, decreeing it to be A pious Doctrine and agreable to Ecclesiasticall worship, the Catholick Faith, right reason, and the Holy Scriptures, and that it shall not be lawfull for any one to preach or teach any thing contrary to it, nor is the other point of lesser concernment than this. 2. Those that hold the opinions of the Dominicans are by you counted Hereticks: for the former opinion they are judged to make God the Author of sin with Florinus, or being a force upon the will with Origen; for these are the inferences you raise from our Doctrine of Predetermination: nor are you more charita­ble to us in regard of the other opinion of the Virgins Conception. See the above mentioned Constitutions of Sixtus the Fourth, where he brands the Dominicans with Heresie: now He­resie is a rejection not of a mere opinion, but of a point of Faith. 3. If they be onely School nicities, why do your Priests so much instill at least the latter of them into simple peoples ears as a matter of Faith? why do they injoyn the observation of an holy day for her imma­culate Conception? Why doe they indanger Christs honour by making his mother equall with him in impeccability, and that by a School nicitie, which if such, might be well rejected?

Secondly, you Answer, [It is as untrue, that generall and approved Councells have contradicted one another in matters of Faith, [Page 344] or oecumenicall Decrees: they have indeed talked and discoursed contrary, yea later Coun­sels have altered and changed Lawes and Con­stitutions of Government made and establish­ed by former, but this only proves that Coun­sels admit a liberty and freedom to debate mat­ters of Religion, and that what was once good and convenient may prove afterwards (circum­stances varying) bad and inconvenient, which no way prejudiceth belief.]

Reply 1. You speak something fearfully as if you were afraid to lie, yet would not preju­dice your Church by acknowledging the truth. You say, They have talked and discoursed con­trary, and that because They hav [...] freedome to debate matters of Religion, yet they do not con­tradict one another in matters of Faith. Here is strange stuffe, yet may well serve a credulous Papist. But tell me if the determinations of for­mer Councells be unalterable as to Religion, as it must be if they be infallible: How come la­ter Councells to have a liberty to debate those matters which have formerly been determined or to discourse and talk contrary to them? Is it because former Decrees are obscure, or la­ter Councels ignorant? or that these later Councels meet one [...]y to see who is the best dis­putant amongst them. Nay rather according to truth, is it not in order to the disquisition of truth, and to a Decree contrary to former De­crees, [Page 345] if they be found faulty, this seems grant­ed by a Councel, which saith, That the Church doth pro­pound divers, Concil. Senen. a­pud Bin. Tò. 4. part 2. pag. 150. and sometimes contrary decrees. It cannot be only in order to ratifica­tion of the former decree, for the former Coun­cels infallibility is sufficient for that. Or if the succeeding Councels ratification were useful, it ought to be given without talking, and discour­sing contrary, meerly upon the former debate and establishment. So then their talk is either vain jangling to no purpose, or it tends to alte­ration, and amendment of that which hath been formerly decreed: according to Augustines speech (mentioned by you) That often the pre­cedent general Councels are mended by the follow­ing. But you say, They have altered and chan­ged Laws and constitutions of Governments made and established by former: and a little after, Councels admit a liberty to debate matters of re­ligion, and that what was once go [...]d and conveni­ent may prove afterwards circumstances varying, bad and inconvenient.

Reply 1. If by Constitutions of Government you understand Government it self, this will not agree with what you said against Calvin, That Christians generally maintained and profes­sed that the Government of the Church was un­alterable by any mortal. But if you mean onely [Page 346] such rules as concern the Execution of Govern­ment, I say the alterations made by Councels, have not been only of these, nor does Augustin intend such things, as will appear to any that considers the place you cite for it, a Book of his against the Donatists, in which his main drift is to prove against them that Baptisme was but to be administred once. Now where­as the Donatists objected that Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk, in a Councell did determine the lawfulnesse of re-baptization. Augustine answers, That the Scriptures can­not be doubted of, but the writings of Bishops may be reprehended by others more prudent, yea Provincial Councels must give way to Ge­neral, and the former general Councels them­selves may be amended by the latter. 2. Its most evident that the Alterations of succeed­ing Councels have been about matters of faith. I suppose these are matters of faith. 1. The Popes Supremacy, his universal Headship and Lordship over other Patriarcks and Councels. Bellarmine calls this one main pillar of Catho­lick Religion, and one of the chiefe Heads of your faith, for this you urge Councels: yet there are many Councels contradict this, as Concil. Carthag. 3. Can. 26. Concil. Nic. 1. Can. 6. Concil. Constantin. 3. Can. 36. & Concil. Ba­sil. Sess. 2. Where it is decreed that the Pope ought to be obedient to the Councel, which [Page 347] decree hath beene freely imbraced and main­tained by the French Papists against the Tren­tists. 2. Communion under one kind is decreed by your latest Councels: yet Cassander tells us that Communion in both kinds was by our Lords institution Apostolical tradition, publick and per­petual custome of all times, and further was con­firmed by the Decrees of Popes and Councels. 3. Worship of Images is established by later Councels, yet the Councel of Eliberis, Can. 36 and the seventh General Councel of Constanti­nople did fully decree against them. Three points of religion are alwayes good and convenient, and cannot become bad and inconvenient by any circumstances, as you suggest. To say fun­damentals cannot become bad, but accidentals may, were to set up that which you have been endeavouring to throw down, pag. 64. viz. the distinction of Fundamentals and Accidentals: all points being with you equally fundamental, and substantial. But granting that matters of religion may be altered so as the contrary to that was formerly taught and believed, may now, nay must be approved, this must neces­sarily make contrariety & division, and this will take of the objected slander.

6. Objection.

THe sixt Objection is, The Roman Church is injurious to Christs merits approving of hu­mane merits.

Ans. Reason and experience shew a diversity of Agents; that as some are necessitated, as beasts, other-some are free, as men, and therefore capable of merit and demerit, whereby they are differenced from beasts, which are uncapable of either; the assertion of humane merits is no other wrong to Christ, then the affirming of a plaine and clear truth can be wrong to him.

Reply 1. The Objection doth not speake of merits in general, or in order to temporal re­wards from men, and therefore your answer thus far, (and the body of it reacheth little or no further) is to no purpose. But 2. Its que­stionable whether a creatures capacity of merit or demerit doe absolutely depend upon free­dom of will. Seneca saith that the service of cruel Elephants is merited by their meat. Cer­tainly according to the use of the words with ancient writers it may agree to beasts, & from them you fetch your prooffs for it. Aquinas (though he denies them to have freedom of wil) affirms that they act quodam judicio, by a kind of judgment. By this judgment they know what we would have them do, & do it; & thereby may, for any thing appears to the contrary, deserve [Page 349] some thing proportionable to their work. And although, as you say, they are necessitated, yet this necessity is not without a kind of judge­ment, whereby a beast doth act somtimes ra­ther willingly then by coaction. 3. Though you sometimes ascribe the power of meriting to Grace, yet it appears that the main ground is Free-will, which is here laid at lest as a foun­dation of your answer, so that the grace of God doth but come in the second place, and herein you are not alone, but have other Pa­pists joyning with you. But I come to examine your answers to the Objections you make for us.

Obj. 1. It will (say you) be opposed, men are capable of merit and dem rit in order to temporal, but not to Eternal rewards.

Reply. As God hath enabled men to deserve temporal, so eternal rewards.

Ans. 1. If you speak of rewards as proceed­ing from God, man can never truely deserve eternal, nor so much as temporal rewards, though one man may deserve these at the hands of another. 2. It will not follow that Because men can merit temporal rewards at the hands of men, therefore they may merit eternal re­wards from God. For 1. Humane rewards are finite, and may be proportioned by our work; and where there is proportion there may be merit. But because there is no propor­tion [Page 350] between our works and an eternal re­ward; there can be no merit. Therefore the A­postle doth very well express the immeritori­ousness of that which is the top of Christian works, viz. Martyrdome Rom. 8.18.Dionys. Carthus. in Rom. 8.18. and Gloss. Ordin. The sufferings of this present life are not worthy, or meritorious, &c. Non sunt digni ad vi­tam Eternam promerendam. The reason where­of is rendred by Theodoret. Theod. & Hay­mo, apud Lyran. Superant certamina coronae, The Crowns surpass the con­flicts, the rewards are not proportioned to the labours; for the labour is little, but the gain hoped for is great; and therefore the Apostle doth not call those things we expect Wages, but Glory. So Haymo, Si quilibet hominum, &c. If any man could fulfill all the Commandments of the old and new Te­stament, and could undergoe all kinds of tor­ments—he should by no means be worthy of the future glory of the Elect. Why? because those are temporal, this is eternal, Job 35.7. 1 Cor. 4.7. 2. Man may be profited by us, and may have that from us which is none of his, but this cannot be said of God: He is not profited by our righteousness, nor can he receive any thing from us but what is his own. But how [...]ay it be proved that God hath enabled men [Page 351] to deserve eternal rewards? You answer—It is apparent in Scripture learning, Heaven a Crown of Justice, a Reward, a Goal, 2 Tim. 4. Matth. 5 1 Cor. 9. which necessarily impose merits, as their Correlatives, bare actions void of desert, being looked on only as by way of gifts.

Reply 1. Your Argument is divers ways pec­cant. For 1. Your consequence is not good, Heaven is called a Crown of Justice, a Reward, a Goal, therefore God hath enabled men to merit Eternal rewards Heaven may be so call­ed with relation to Christs merits, not ours. Primasius calls it a Crowne of Righteousness, with relation to the righteousness of justifica­tion which is in Christ: yea further, it may be so called without any necessary supposal of me­rit A Crown of justice is no more but a crown coming to us in a righteous and just manner, and thus it may come without our merits: As mercy makes us Kings, so it gives us Crowns: And what rational man can doubt but that re­wards may be free? Lyranus brings in Chry­sostome thus commenting upon the Text in Ti­mothy, Si fides gratia est, &c. If Faith be Grace, and Eternal life the reward of Faith, it may seeme that God gives Eternal life to the believer as a due debtowing to him; not because he hath merited it by faith, but because faith is grace, and life eternal is grace, he gives it there of grace. Heaven as it refers to Christs acti­ons [Page 352] and passions is a truely merited reward, an effect flowing from its proper cause; but as it refers to ours, its onely as an end relating to its means wherein its attained, or as an impro­per effect of that which hath onely a negative causality, or is Causa sine qua non. And this is no more then what Cassan­der observes.Cassand. Hymn. Eccles. p. 262, 263 The more sear­ching and religious School-men, to say, conformably to that of Bernard. Bernard. & Du­rand. ap. Cass. ep. 19. p. 110. That those things which we call merits are the way to the Kingdom, but not the cause of Raigning. Yea further he expresly sayth, That mens merits are not such as that life eter­nal is of justice due unto them, or that God should wrong men if he gave it not. And Durand affirms that God is not our debtor nor obliged of justice to us, because of our good habits or acts which he hath given us; and that to thinks or say the con­trary, is rashness and blasphemy. Yet this is the faith and doctrine of the generality of Papists, and vehemently asserted by the Rhemists in these words: It is most clear to all not blinded with pride and contention that good works be me­ritorious, and the very cause of Salvation, so far that God should be unjust if he rendred not Hea­ven for the same, Rhem. on Heb. 6.10. But they have their sentence from Durand, to which I [Page 353] leave them. 2. The Confirmation of your Ar­gument is most evidently false, viz. that bare Actions void of desert be looked onely as by way of gifts: For actions may be looked on without any meritoriousness, yet be no free gifts, but due debts or duties: such are the actions of Gods children; filial duties they owe to God their Father, as you grant in the next Section. Now these they are bound to perform, though there were no Heaven to reward them, or Hell to punish them.

2. You reply to the Objections, It were in­deed no less then blasphemy to go about to equal in worth other merits with Christ; but the Ro­man Church offereth not any such thing, whilest she believeth Christs merits to be of infinite value, others onely of finite: Christs merits to have their desert and worth from no other; others to hold de­pendance f [...]r b th of them.

Ans. 1. Supposing that inequality you speak of be truely asserted. Its blaspemy still to make God a debtor to man, and to assert that God is bound to give us Heaven, and were unjust if he did not. Its the taking upon you that power which belongs solely to Christ in every degree of it that makes you blasphemers, you acknow­ledg that Christ is the only Mediator of recon­ciliation. Now I durst appeal to rational men whether it would not be blasphemy for a man to say he were a Mediatour of reconciliation, [Page 354] and a Redeemer of himselfe from the Curse, though withall he should say, he did not equal in worth his own price with Christs, but did be­lieve that Christ's price was of infinite value, his but of finite, Christ had its desert from no other, but his had dependance on Christ. It is the undertaking to be a purchaser with money and price, when God calls us to buy without money and without price, Isai. 55.1. If Simon Magus will think to buy the gift of God with money, the Apostle may presage the ruine of him, and may conclude that he is in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity, Acts 8.19, 20. The new Covenant is a Covenant of grace, the benefits of it depend not on mans merits, but Gods free grace, which according to the Apostle is exclusive of merits. If by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace, &c. Rom. 8.4.11.6. Ferus Ferus in Cap. 20. Mat. ver. 1. therefore gives a good direction, Quod si aliquando, &c. If at any time thou hear­est a promise of reward, how that it is no o­therwise due but by divine promise: God hath freely promised, & he freely gives; if therefore thou wouldst preserve the grace and favour of God, make no mention of thy merits. To de­ny the glory of our salvation to Gods grace, and to give it to our works, is indeed to give that to our selves which is due to God, and is [Page 355] nothing less than blaspheming against God.

2. Popish merits are very little lower than Christs, nay in many particulars they are made equall to them. see little more can be ascribed to Christs merits, than the Rhemists give to mans in their notes on 2 Tim. 4.8. This place (say they) convinceth for the Catholicks, that all good works done by Gods grace after the first ju­stification be truely and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life: and that there­upon heaven is the due and just stipend, crown or recompence, which God by his Justice oweth to the persons so working by his grace: for he rendreth and repayeth Heaven as a just Judge, and not onely as a mercifull giver, and the Crown which he payeth is not onely of mercy, or favour or grace, but also of Justice. What can be said more for the value of Christs merits than this, that they are truely and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life. What is it more to be of an infinite value? And whereas you fur­ther say that mans merits have dependance on another for their desert and worth. Its most evident that in the beginning of your answer, you lay the ground-work of merit and demerit upon free-will, as doth also Pe­rerius and Aquinas, Perer. in Rom. 6. Aquin. 22ae. q. 104 Art. 1. ad 3m. who saith, A work is rendered vertuous, laudable and meritorious, especially, be­cause [Page 356] it proceeds from the will, and therefore al­though obedience be a debt, yet proceeding from a ready will tis meritorious.

Thirdly, you reply, Rather the Roman Church by asserting other merits, and withall acknowledg­ing their desert and worth to flow from Christs merits, attributed more to Christs merits than they do who deny other merits: for hereby are yielded to Christs actions a capacitie of meriting themselves, and a communicability of the same to to other actions, which are two perfections; and to acknowledge two perfections in a thing is undoubt­edly to give more to that thing, than to acknow­ledge onely one.

Answ. 1. Its fals that they attribute more to Christ who acknowledge mans merits though they affirm them to flow from Christs; its a greater glory oftentimes to be a solitary then a joynt agent. Gods glory was greater for that he created the world by himself, than if Angels had joyned with him in it, though in their act­ings they must have had the Divine influence and concurrence. Christs glory was greater in being the onely Redeemer than if men and Angels had concurred to the work; therefore Christ glories in these words, I have troden the wine-pr [...]ss alone, and of the people there was none with me; — Mine own arms brought salvation! Isai. 63.5. Solus Samson, &c. Samson alone having lost his hair, is exposed to the Philistims, [Page 357] neither Angel, nor Archangel, nor any hea­venly Spirit, nor any man, either Jew or Gen­tile, He alone fights, he alone overcomes, Je­rom. apud Lyr. Nor secondly, is it any truer that these are two perfections in Christ: for those are not a subjects perfections which cannot truely be attributed to that subject. Its not an attributing of two perfections to God to say, that he and Angels through his assistance made the world, or a giving of two perfections to Christ, to say that he redeemed not onely men, but Devils, though the Patrons of the Devils redemption might have urged it as well as you do communicability of merits: they may plead that the larger the redemption is, the greater is the glory of the Redeemer, and that there­fore they attribute more to Christ than others, who say he onely redeemed mankinde. We must not build upon our own imaginations and fancies. First prove that Christ hath commu­nicated meritoriousness to mens actions, and that this is one of his reall perfections, and then we shall conclude, that to acknowledge two perfections to Christ is to give more than to acknowledge one onely. In the interim, this may disswade us from believing you, because Christ hath fully merited whatsoever is obtain­able by a Christian, either here or hereafter. He hath purchased eternall redemption for us; what need then of our purchasing that which [Page 358] is already fully paid for? I will conclude with the speech of learned Rivet; Meritum est perso­nalis actio, &c. i. e. Merit is the personall action of the Son of God incommunicable to any of his members in regard of meriting, which con­sists in the infinite vertue of the person meri­ting, answerable to the excellent weight of glory. Whereas therefore no simple creature is capable of this infinite vertue: it will follow that Christ alone, is the singular solitary and immediate cause of merit, who hath therefore fully satisfied and merited whatsoever is neces­sary to us for salvation, [Rivet. sum contra. tract. 4. 9. 17. Sect. 6.]

Object. 2. It will be opposed, all Actions be­sides Christs are duties, and duties are inconsi­stent with merit.

Reply, They are so without Covenant and acceptance; so is obedience in a childe, a servant, a subject due to his Father, his Master, his Prince: Nevertheless, as a Father, a Master, a Prince, making a compact to gratifie some particular act of his Childe, his Servant, his Subject innobles the same, and intitles it to what was promised; even so by the means of Gods Covenant, (1 Tim. 4. Rom. 26. Hebr. 6.) That he will reward cer­tain actions of men (though otherwise due) and accept the same as worthy, they become meritori­ous, and their reward due upon this account.

Answ. 1. Its Good sport to see what tug­ing [Page 359] there is amongst Papists about the ground of our actions meritoriousnes, or whence it pro­ceeds, whether from Free-will as Aquinas, Aquin. supr. Dionys. in Rom. 8.18. or from the Spi­rit the Fountain of good A­ctions, as Dionysius, Carthusi­ensis, or from the habit of Charity, as Azorius and Cajetan, or from Di­vine Covenant, as Scotus and some ancient Schoolmen, or from the work it self, as Soto: Or lastly, from the work it self together with the Divine compact, as Bel­larmine. Bellarm. de Ju­stif. c. 5. lib. 17. This Author, though first he mentioned Free-will, yet he comes off to Cove­nant or compact,Concil. Senon. de­cret. 16. de fide apud Bennium. and seems to lay all upon this, and hereby as Vasquez acknow­ledgeth overthrows merit and condignitie, which he hath been pleading for, and indeed upon this account one of their Councels doth deny Condignity in these words —Facietque tandem omnis misericordia, &c. At length mercy shall make way for every one ac­cording to the merit of their works, not by ab­solute condignitie, (for the sufferings of this life are not condign to future glory) but ra­ther by the free and liberall promise of God, &c. Now if the promise of God be the foun­dation of our receiving Heaven, and this pro­mise [Page 360] be free, then how can it be that because of this promise our works should be meritorious, But leaving these boasters of unity to their hot disputes.

I answer, secondly, Gods Covenant doth not make our Actions cease to be duties, for then it should nullifie the Law of God which doth in­joyn acts of obedience, as duties. But we must not set Gods Covenant and his Law at vari­ance, as if contrary one to the other. The truth is, Gods free Covenant wherein for the sake of Jesus Christ he promiseth to believers salva­tion, is an exciter of us unto obedience, causing us to yield more freely and willingly than o­therwise we should: this is the Tenor of the Gospel, Luke 1, 68. &c. Tit. 2, 11. &c. Here is first the purchase of Redemption, salvation, deliverance from the power of Satan; and here­by an Obligation to duty. A father promiseth a childe that he will make to him such lands freely, this promise doth excite the child to do for his father what he commands him, and to study in all things to please him, whose love to him he is sensible of by the promise. This the Apostle shews, when he saith, We lov [...] him be­cause he loved us first, Exod. 20. And indeed the morall Law runs thus, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, there­fore thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thus God said to Abraham, I am the Al­mighty [Page 361] God, walk before me and be thou perfect.

But because it may be thought that obedi­ence is meritorious because God promiseth life upon it: I further answer, this will not fol­low. For first, Obedience, such as the Law re­quires is not attainable by us since the fall: and therefore the promise may refer to our obedi­ence in the person of Christ, whose obedience becomes ours whilest we apply our selves to him by Faith. Or secondly, if it refer to our personall obedience, it doth respect our obedi­ence onely as a disposition wrought by him in the Subject, upon whom he will bestow life, not as a proper cause of life. As if a father should say, If his childe please him, be hope­full and take good wayes, he will give him the inheritance: this promise doth not suppose that the childs pleasing of his father, or being hope­full, and taking good wayes is the proper cause of his receiving the inheritance, but its his fa­thers good will that gives it him thus disposed and qualified: thus it was with the Israelites; God promiseth them Canaan, onely requires that they should perform their duty to him as their God and Father. Now should any one say, that this promise made their obedience meritorious of Canaan, the Scripture would contradict him, which expresly saith, Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart dost thou go to possess their land: but for the [Page 362] wickedness of these Nations, the Lord thy God doth drive them out before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy Fathers, &c. Deut. 9.5.

Thirdly, God doth no where promise to ac­cept of mens works as worthy of heaven, or to give them a reward, because their works are worthy or condignly meritorious; or as your Rhemists speak Fully worthi [...] of everlasting life. For if this were so, there would be no room for grace, for that which is fully worthy of some­what hath an equality with the thing which is therefore due to it, whether there be promise or no.

The Texts you urge prove, that God will give heaven to men in the way of godliness, patient continuance in well doing, &c. But they cannot prove that godlyness or well doing are the proper cause of our enjoying heaven, (the reward being hundred fold more than what we do) your instances are short of proof for it; for if that Act required of a servant or subject be a part of that obedience which is owing to a Master or Prince, and for it the Master or Prince is pleased to promise a great reward with which the work bears no proportion; this act cannot be said to be condignly meritorious of that reward, no not by the promise; but the Master or Prince is willing to bestow some­thing on him, and takes this occasion for it, or gives it him in this way.

You conclude with saying, Saint Paul deemed it no presumption, to challenge at the hands of God a Crown of Justice for his good fighting, well run­ing, and constant keeping of the Faith, 2. Tim. 4.

Answ. 1. Supposing this true, sure you will not make it a pattern for Catholicks, to whom you deny S. Pauls knowledge of their estates and good works.

2. Its false that S. Paul doth challenge at Gods hands a Crown of Justice For his good fighting, if your For be Propter, i, e. notes a proper efficient cause. This excellent Preacher of Free-grace and salvation thereby unto o­thers, will not preach merits to himself, and that at the point of death, when the soul laies hold upon that which is the surest stay; and this according to Bellarmine is the alone mercy of God.

7. Objection.

THe seventh Objection is, The Roman Church giveth the Communion under one kinde con­trary to Christs institution.

Answ. There is a great deal of difference betwixt Christs Institutions and his Commande­ments; [...]hese requiring both belief and observance, those onely belief.

Reply 1. What may be the foundation of your distinction betwixt Institutions and Com­mandements I understand not. Institutions so [Page 364] far as I am acquainted either with the signifi­cation of the word, or its use, are precepts whereby men are instructed and taught what is their dutie, and thus they require both be­lief and observance. When Justinian wrote books of Institutions, I suppose he did not in­tend points for faith onely or principally, but rules of practice, yet he titles his Book Institu­tiones Juris, being ignorant sure of your inven­ted distinction. When the Councell of Con­stance tells us of Christs Institution and Admi­nistration of the Sacrament under both kinds; Pray Sir, what do they mean by Institution as distinct from Administration? If it be no more than Example as you express even now, then those worthy Synodists tautologize in menti­oning Administration and Institution both: Christs Administration being the example or pattern of our Administration.

2. Supposing Institution to be no more but example, yet it will thus require more than be­lief, even observance; as Cyprian shews when he saith, Si qu [...]s de Antecessoribus nostris, &c. If any of our Predecessors, either ignorantly or simply, hath not observed and held this which the Lord by his example and authority hath taught us to do, his simplicitie might be pardoned, &c. Christ by his example doth teach us to believe His Action is our Instructi­on; Augustine therefore observes that exam­ples [Page 365] in Scripture (not sinful, or of extraordina­ry and personal actions) serve for exposition of precepts, yea and contain precepts vertual­ly in them; nor is this any more then what ra­tional men on both sides acknowledg, that, that which hath been inviolably observed from the be­ginning of the Church, must be supposed to be a di­vine precept. Now the Councel of Constance ac­knowledgeth our Saviors Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds, & the primitive Chri­stians receiving it according to his Administra­tion, what reason then have we to doubt of divine precept?

2. You further say, Although Christs acti­ons be good examples for us to imitate, yet as such, they impose not obligation upon imitation. Christ fasted forty days and as many nights, went into the desert to be tempted, forbare marriage, &c. are all bound to doe the like? none will say it.

Reply 1. If Christs actions be examples for us to imitate, yea good examples, then are we obliged to imitate them: the reason is clear, because the goodness of them as to our imita­tion, doth arise from their conformity to the divine and Royal Law whereunto we are abso­lutely bound: Nay further, we are obliged by them as such to imitation. The Holiness, Mer­cy, and Love of Christ are often urged as obli­ging us to those acts of holiness, mercy, and [Page 366] love, Luke 3.36. John 13.15. 1 Pet. 1.15. Gods holiness as therein he is an example to us doth oblige us to be holy; yea the very exam­ples of the Saints command our imitation, there is a general precept pressing this. Finally Bre­thren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, i [...] there be any ver [...]ue, and if there be any rayse, think on these things. And it follows, Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me do, &c. Philip. 3.11.4.8, 9.

2. The Actions of Christ which you menti­on concern not this place; for you spake of such Actions of Christ as you said were good examples for us to imitate, but these actions are not of that nature. None ever said that all Christs actions are examples, or command imi­tation: Some Actions of his belong to him as Mediatour, and are so Christs, that they are incommunicable to others, of this nature is his paying a price to justice, reconciling the world, subservient whereunto was his fasting forty days, and his temptation in the desert; his for­bearing of marriage may thus far oblige, that if God bestow on us the gift of forbearance, we do forbear, that thereby we may more undi­stractedly go about the service of God we are [Page 367] imployed about. But now for this Action of administring the Sacrament, it was not his per­sonal action, he did it as a Minister, and the Apostles his Ministers according to his example did so administer it, as he had done before them.

3. A Doctor, now yours,Dr. Bane, lost sheep, c. 22. having apostatized from the truth once received and profes­sed by him, gives us two requisits to make an institution obligatory, both of them fetcht from Jesuit Fishers Answer to King James his que­stions. 1. That the end of the institution be ne­cessary, and that it be necessary for every parti­cular person to endeavour the attaining thereof. 2. That if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attain the end of an institution, that also the w [...]ole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end. According to these rules, (supposing them true) the institution of the Supper under both kinds is obligatory. For 1. The end of its institution is that they that partake, of it may remember, and shew forth the death of Christ, as is evident both by the Evangelists, and Apostles. Now this and is ne­cessary, being both expresly commanded. and also being a special means for strengthening our faith. Yea further, Its necessary for every particular Christian to endeavor the attaining here­of. The Apostle Paul writes to the Saints and [Page 368] private Christians in Corinth, and in them to all Christians, and gives this precept, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread; and drink of that cup, 1 Cor. 11.28. And he further tells them, That as oft as they did so, they did shew forth the Lords death: that is, they did according to their duty attaine to the end of the Sacrament. 2. The whole or both kinds are necessary for the obtaining of that end; be­cause, 1. Otherwise the pas­sion of Christ is represented. Aquinas Aquin. 3. q. 76. Art. 2. ad 1 m. saith of the whole, Valet ad representandam, &c. It avails for the representation of the passion of Christ in which the blood was separated, and apart from the body; therefore in the forme of consecration of the blood, there is mention of its effusion. Its a great mistake of Papists that they look at Christ in the Sacrament, not as suffering and shedding his blood, but under another consideration, whereas the end of the Sacrament is to shew forth the Lords death. 2. Because otherwise whole Christ should not be received, but his body only without his blood, and consequently should have imperfect instead of perfect nourishment. Its granted by Popish Schoolmen, that although whole Christ be un­der the form of bread, and whole Christ under the form of wine;Aquin. Supr. yet Ex vi Sacramenti, &c. i. e. [Page 369] by the power of the Sacrament the body of Christ only is under the species of bread, and his blood only under the species of wine. Pe­trus de Palude is full in this, saith he, There ought to be a two-fold matter of this Sacrament, viz. the matter of meat and drink, because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be representd per­fectly and in a manner agreeable to nature; be­cause Sacraments work that which they figure: but the effect of this Sacrament is the perfect nou­rishment of the soul, therefore the matter repre­senting ought to be by perfect refection of the bo­dy, which is not but by meat and drink. See more to this purpose in Cassand. de Sacr. Com. sul­utraque specie, p. 1034. &c. 4. The primitive Christians, yea and all succeeding Christians for above a thousand years after Christ, did pra­ctise according to Christs institution and exam­ple. The first that rejected the Cup were the Manichees against whom Pope Gelasius made a Decree that they should either communicate in both kinds, or in neither: yea Christs insti­tution was the ground of the first Christians pra­ctise, as Cassander shews, and with him Bonaven­ture, Cass. de Sacr. Com. &c. p. 1019, 1020, 1021. Bon. apud Cass. ibid. who saith the rea­son of both kinds is dispositively from nature, but completively from divine institution, which hath ordained these two signes to signifie one [Page 370] perfect refection. The Eastern Churches have both kinds to this day, and that upon this ground. Sure then these Christians did more reverence Christs institution, then the Popes followers do, and looked upon it not as a bare example that may be rejected, but as a divine precept whereby thy conceived themselves ob­liged to duty.

3. You say, Wher [...]fore th [...] Romane Church believing Christs institution of the Sacram [...]nt to have been under both kinds, giveth to it its full due.

Reply 1. I wonder that you who are some­times so generous as that you will give, God more then you owe him, or otherwhile so strict with him that he shall not have a mite more then his due. But 2. How can you say you give the Sacrament its full due when you take away one of those signes which Christ hath or­dained to be used in it? I believe, if you took away the bread, and gave the people only the cup (which crochet may come into the head of some Pope for any thing I know) you would say you gave Christs institution its full due; but if you give it its full due when you leave onely one kind, what do you think they did who u­sed both, did they supererogate, or were they superstitious? Surely either you give too lit­tle, or they too much to Christs institution. 3. How silly is it to say, You believe Christ [Page 371] did institute it under both kinds? the Devills believe it, so many Turks, Pagans, Jews, yet give not Christs institution its full due. They look upon Christs actions, as of a private man eating and drinking with his Disciples, but no way obligatory to them or others, and you give it no more. Lastly I appeal to any ratio­nal man, whether Christs institution of the Sa­crament under both kinds, may not probably require from us a conformity of practise, with­all considering the practise of the Church of God in her purest times, and the good, or no apparent prejudice that can come to us by it. Its evident that an Antichristian Spirit in Rome puts her on to thwart Christs institutions; that so she may set up her own inventions. Christ instituted Baptism in one only Element of wa­ter, and as if that were defective, the Roman Church hath added salt, spi [...]le, &c. He institutes his Supper in two Elements of bread and wine: and as if these were too many, she restraines the people to the use of one only. So that pro­bably had Christ instituted bread onely, you would have added the cup, that the instituti­on might have something of your Lord God's the Pope.

4. You say, For the Communion under one kind, there being no Commandement forbidding the same, it is rashness in an high degree, and want of charity to condemn her as sacriledgious for so doing.

Reply 1. Whether it be rashness in us to con­demn Rome of Sacriledg, or in Rome to deprive Christian people of the Cup, let any judge who doth but consider the fathers of this sacriledge, the Manichees, & the rise of it, Non ex constitutione aliqua, Cassand. supr. p. 1035. &c. Not by any constitution in any approved Primitive Councel, but only by custom, which is oft times the pa­tron, of much wickedness. 2. If it be rashness to condemn Rome as sacrilegious &c. one of your Popes was guilty of this high degree of rashness with us, who expresly decrees that this division of one and the same mystery could not he made Sine grandi Sacrilegio, without hai­nous Sacriledge. 3. It is no rashness to con­demn her of sacriledge; for the Cup is an ho­ly thing having divine Institution, Apostolical and primitive Administration. It must there­fore needs follow that the taking away of this can be no less then Sacri­lege,Aquin. 22 ae. q. 99. Art. 3. nay according to A­quinas its the highest kind of Sacriledg. But its strange to see what little [...]gard divine Institution, or A­postolical practise hath with Papals [...] though sometimes they accuse us of novelty, and cry up themselves as the only followers of divine In­stitutions, Apostolical traditions, and primitive practice, we must be branded with heresie for [Page 373] disceding from them; yet here they are in a­nother strain, and because we use the Cup ac­cording to Christs Institution, and primitive practice, we are still hereticks, and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle. To say there is no express command for the Cup, ther­fore it cannot be sacriledge to take it away, is false; for it may be sacriledge to take away an holy thing, though there be no express com­mand for the thing. You say there is no com­mand for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so, I am confident you cannot shew me an express command for the peoples eating the bread, which you seem to grant, in saying, that in the primitive times, the people sometimes received the cup, not the bread, which they durst not have done, if there had been an ex­press command for receiving the bread. Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacriledg to take away from the people both bread and wine. If it be not sacrilegious, then it is evi­dent your people stand at the Popes mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament, and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them. If it be sacrilegious, then its as evident, that sacriledge depends not absolutely on a par­ticular command, and that its truely sacrilegi­ous to take away the cup from them. 4. There is a Command for both, Let a man examine himselfelf, and so let him eat of this bread, and [Page 374] drink of this cup, 1 Cor. 11.28. v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers, that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was admi­nistred under both kinds. This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me: i. e. as Diony­sius expounds it, take this cup and drink of it: So tis said, He took the Cup, and gave thankes, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it— And they all drank of it. Mat. 26.27.

You answer, These words indeed, Doe th [...]s in commemoration of me, Drink ye all of this, imply a Commandement, but concerning on [...]ly Priests, to whom as the p [...]wer of making, so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper— The Reason is, because hereby (as the words clear­ly bear) he chiefly a [...]mes at a remembrance of his death and passion, which including a separation of his soul from his body, and of his blood from his flesh, cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind.

Reply 1. Do the words onely imply a com­mand? are they not as express and full a com­mand as can be? 2. How may it appear that it concerns onely Priests, that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and pro­per to them? there are divers reasons to the contrary.

1. If it concerned onely Priests, then the people could not be able to produce any pre­cept of Christ for their receiving at all, because [Page 375] with this is joyned the command of eating the bread, and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible.

2. Christ (you say) in the words doth chiefly aim at a remembrance of his death and passion, which cannot be so lively and so fully represen­ted under one kinde. But the people are able to remember Christs death and passion as well as the Priests, yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacra­ment, and particularly by the Cup. Which be­nefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element, as appears by the Evangelist, Drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new Te­stament which is shed for many for the remission of sin. [Supr.] It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests; the precept therefore must also concern them.

3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution; for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles. Now they were not Massing Priests; for first its the common opinion amongst you, that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferd till af­ter Christs resurrection when he sent them, and breathed on them. Joh. 20. He could not there­fore give a command to Priests, when there were no Priests with him. 2. The twelve A­postles [Page 376] according to the Popish Schoolmen and others, did represent Bishops, not ordinary Priests, who (as Aquinas severall times affirms) were the successours of the seventie Disciples. 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve (which is questionable) it is most evident that they did represent believers, and that the com­mand concerned them. Cassander shews this out of divers antient Authors, viz. Paschasius, Rathertus, Chrysostome, Theophylactus, Cyprian, Origen and Augustine, [Cass. de sacr. Com. sub utraque spec. p. 1019.] And certainly, if it were not thus, the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth, and that in or­der to their practice, they might have told him that it concern'd himself and such as he, but not them. You bolster up your selves much by your word Make, [to whom as the power of ma­king, &c.] hereby endeavouring to perswade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrifi­cing, & hereby shut out the people frō the cup. But without any reason, for if it could prove any thing, it should seem rather to appropri­ate the use of the bread to the Priests, then the Cup, seeing they have Christned it an incruent sacrifice; the wine after consecration being reall and true blood. But I wonder, seeing our cri­ticall adversaries are so full of this word, that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it— [Page 377] Make this, if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti, that render the Greek Do this. Sure they were convinced, that this conceit was but worthy of private observation, and therefore creeps in with the note onely: but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say onely, Take, eat, This is my body, drink you all of it—He gave it to them, and they all drank of it. S. Luke saith, Do this, not men­tioning taking, or eating or drinking of it. S. Paul unites them in one saying, Take, Eat,—This do in remembrance of me. So that to do this is to take and eat the bread, and drink the wine ac­cording to Christs Institution, which doth prin­cipally concern the people. And this Dyonisius, Carthusiensis doth propound as probable. And its further observable, that whereas S. Luke onely of all the Evangelists doth use the words, Do this; he onely useth it with reference to the bread (which belongs (say you) to the people) not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion.

The precept which you mention out of S. John [Ʋnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, &c.] which you say extends to the Laitie, I shall not much build upon, be­cause I conceive its not spoken of the Sacra­mentall eating and drinking. This onely I shall gather from it, that Christ is perfect nourish­ment, and that as his flesh is meat, so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment; [Page 378] and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure us of nourishment by his Body; so we ought to have the Cup to assure us of an interest in his blood: bread it self being neither naturally, nor Ex Instituto any repre­sentation of blood: [Cass. supr.] And certainly from hence divers of the Fathers did conclude, the use of the Cup necessary for the people. See Origen and Augustine, cited by Cassander to this purpose.

Lastly, you say, For Confirmation look up into the Primitive times, even of the Apostles and Christ, Act. 2.42.46. and you will find by their promiscuous Communion, sometimes under one kinde, sometimes under another, and sometimes under both, that they never understood of any Commandement of Communicating und [...]r both kindes.

Reply 1. The Councell of Constance ac­knowledgeth, that as Christ did Institute and Administer it under both kinds, so the Primitive Christians did use it. 2. What reason can be given why in other Sacraments Jewish and Christians the materiall part should be deter­mined and appointed, and that in this it should be left to the discretion of a Pope. 3. If it was such a matter of indifferency in the Primi­tive times whether Christians did communi­cate in either or both kinds, How comes it now to be a matter of necessitie, so as Christians [Page 379] may not Communicate under both kinds. But 4. I challenge you to name one ancient and ap­proved Author, who asserts that the Primitive Christians did communicate in wine onely, or in bread onely, which will be as hard for you to do as for the Artotyritae, to prove that they communicated in bread and cheese. 5. The Text you urge proves not your assertion. For first, there is no mention of their communica­ting in wine onely, which is one part of your assertion.

2. Breaking of Bread doth not infer their Sacramentall receiving of Bread onely. Its a noted Hebrew phrase, and is as much as giving or eating of meat of what kind soever, as La­ment. 4.4. Isai 58.7. Sanctius upon the Text, you mention saith, Omnis cibus, &c. All kinde of meat in Scripture languge is called Bread. But beside, how will it be proved to be meant of the Lords Supper. Lyranus understands it of ordinary eating, so do Chrysostome and Oe­cumenius: and why may it not be understood of their Love-feasts, which were means of pre­serving Charity amongst Christians; or of the distribution of meat out of the common stock for the relief of poor Christians according to the custome of those times related by Sanctius. And thus it very well answers the Hebrew phrase, Isa. 58. where you reade of breaking bread to the hungry.

Lastly, supposing it to be understood of the Lords Supper, it must give way to a Sonecdo­che, the Bread being put for both Elements: else the Apostles did either not communicate with them, which is against the Text, or if they did, they were sacrilegious in Communicating in one kind onely; there being as you say a Command for them to Communicate in both. 2. Else it was no Sacrament Commemorative of Christs death, because this cannot be lively and fully set forth under one kind, as your self have acknowledge. It must therefore either not be meant of the Sacrament, or if it be, Bread must be taken for both Elements, and either of these doth destroy the inferences you raise from the Text. To conclude, Look you into the Primitive times of the Apostles and Christ, and see if you find Communion under one kind an Article of Faith as now it is, and if you find it not, as I am sure you cannot, ceas that loud cry of the antiquity of your Faith, wherewith you fil the ears and puzzle the heads of illiterate and credulous persons.

The Epilogue.

I have done with the book: The Epilogue only remains shuft up with fained and flatte­ring words to deceive the simple Reader, con­taining more Rhetorick than Logick, more of words than reason, and therefore not worthy [Page 381] any particular inquisition and confutation: yet in imitation of it I shall address my self to the Reader by way of advice against the delusiv charms of this Syren: Desiring thee to consi­der his assertions and my answers to them, and weigh them by Scripture and reason, and what thou findest according to these receive and in­tertain. I would not with this Authour per­swade thee to a groundless credulitie, that thou shouldest receive a way without trying it, whilest he cries out— It behoves you to effect it with speed; and not stand reasoning h [...]w this? why the other, replies beget delayes, and delayes are seldome out of the ill com­pany of danger. Epil. pag. 124. Himselfe de­livers better Doctrine, and safer for thee when he tells thee, That Christianitie is not against reason, and he is to be reputed silly and light that hastneth upon a truth, Ecclus 19. however propo [...]ed without examinati­on of its credibilitie and consistence with nature which must be the work of reason, nay more, Page 25. that be­lief is beholding to reason, even for discerning and finding out her guide the true Church: which sentences I leave this Doctor to recon­cile.

Be not of those silly and light ones. The A­postle bids us prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. That which is suddenly believed, [Page 382] is as easily rejected, as before received. Deli­berations are means of setledness. Art thou out of the way of truth, return and live? An­gels will rejoyce over thee, though not in expe­ctation of the reparation of their ruines, (as this Author speaks) they being happy, and from the beginning above the verge of a ruinous estate. Seek the way to Sion, peace is within her walls, and prosperity within her palaces. Hast thou received the truth, hold it fast, contend earnestly for it, sell it not. Let not the Images of Babylon, the images of men pourtrayed up­on the walls, pourtrayed with vermilion, gird­ed with girdles upon their loyns, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, &c. allure thee that thou shouldest commit Adultery with them, and that the Babylonians should come into thy bed of love, and defile thee with their whoredoms, and thy mind be alienated from the true Church where the word of God is purely preached, and the Sacraments rightly administred, where is purity without pomp, divine verities without humane traditions, re­ligious worship without superstition. Finally where Christ Jesus is exalted in his Person, Na­tures, Offices, and the Elect called, edified, com­forted, and out of which ordinarily there is no Salvation. These are the Badges of the Refor­med Churches in which thou mayest ride safe­ly, till at last thou be set on shore in that Coun­try [Page 383] where thou shalt find an eternal and ex­ceeding weight of glory, (the free reward of thy constancy) prepared for thee, and shalt for ever sing praises to God, and to the Lamb that sits upon the Throne, whom thou hast served.

FINIS.

Reader, thou art desired to mend these Errata's with thy Pen; there are some other litteral faults e­scaped, which thou mayest discern in read­ing, and so receive no prejudice.

PAge 6. l. 21. r. Christianis, p. 10. l. 12. r. Cuivis, p. 12. l. 1. r. Gospels, p. 14. l. 22. r. you, p. 16. l. 21. fo. 1. r. 5. p. 19. l. 28. r. praelati, p. 31. l. 5. for Church r. Pope. p. 33. l. 26. r. not. p. 52. l. 23. for men r. Pen, p. 59. l. 27. r. Successors, p. 65. l. 4. r. by, p. 70. l. 19. r. Dowaists, p. 76. l. 22. r. as if, p. 81. l. 22. r. mendata, & 24. r. us, p. 92. l. 1. for hope, r. Pope, p. 103. l. 1. r. are, p. 105. l. 30. r. be, p. 122. l. 24. r. its l testimony, p. 130. l. 2. r. i. e. p. 133. l. 7. r. 1 trow, p. 153. .27. r. mediation, p. 136. l. 28. r. mediation, 137. l. 18. r. valid, p. 144. l. 12. r. leaning, p. 170. l. 12. r. exor­cise, p. 178. l. 10. r. naming, 185. l. 18. r. way, p. 189. l. 2. r. gross carnal presence, p. 215. l. 8. r. private, 217. l. 25. r. Rom. 8.8. by Syricius, p. 221. l. 1. are, p. 222. l. 19. r. Azorius, l. 30. r. Azorius, p. 236. l. 1. r. o­mit, p. 237. l. 16. r. in them, p. 239. l. 24. r. to your selves, p. 253. l. 22. r. unaccompanied, p. 259. l. 24. r. seven, p. 275. l. 20. r. individed, p. 286. l. 9. r. he hath, p. 291. l. 1. r. should not, p. 292. l. 1. & 5. r. taste, p. 310. l. 23. r. not without, p. 312. l. 1. r. again, p. 317. l. 15. dele, he, p. 321. l. 2. & 7. r. meanness, p. 329. l. 11. r. she, p. 343. l. 10. r. bring, p. 347. l. 12. for three, r. thirdly, p. 351. l. 2. r. tearming, l. 4. r. suppose.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.