A DEFENCE OF THE LITURGY OF The Church of England, OR, Book of Common Prayer.  
In a Dialogue between 

NOVATUS, AND  
IRENAEUS    
BY Ambrose Fisher, sometimes of TRINITY College in CAMBRIDGE.  
Coecorum mens oculatissima.  
Read him that never read; for, by this wise The Blind leads thee to Church, who hast thine eyes.  
LONDON; Printed by W. S. for Robert Milbourne in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Greyhound. 1630.   

TO HIS MUCH HONOURED FRIEND SIR Robert Filmer, Knight.  
SIR,  
IT was your care that preserved this Treatise; and it will be your honour that you have preserved it. From you I had it in writing; to you I return it printed. Pity that he, who was deprived of sight in his life, should be deprived of the light of his true-worth after his death: Pity that he, who (though his eminent abilities could not altogether be hid) lived in some obscurity, if not unregarded, yet unrewarded; should (having left this Monument of his Learning, and Love to his and our Dear Mother, the English Church) be utterly forgotten as if she never had brought forth such a son. I confess, many of Our Worthies (and be they ever acknowledged and remembered with honour) have, by parts, upon occasions, vindicated and justified Our Common Prayer Book against opposers, but a through defence thereof never met I withal before this.  
It was conceived in the brain and breast of this learned Author in your Uncle Argall's house at Colchester, and the first draught thereof was there made. Perhaps the laconical brevity thereof; the Socratical disputing, on Irenaeus part; and the Ramisticall Dichotomies, on the part of Novatus, may perplex some Reader, but questionless to the Learned, as familiarly therewithal acquainted, they will be acceptable. To gather, and contrive much into a little was his ordinary course, and he was happy in it. It was his labour in like manner rather to speak to the understanding, then to the affections, yet closely withal (in a Crypticke Rhetoric) he moves them.  
Brought up he was in his tender years among those, whom he here confutes, & by them was designed to uphold the faction. His conversing with them (besides their Books printed) made himself acquainted with their plots, & arguments, and had well-nigh framed him for their purpose: But the Great-Ouer-Ruler of all plots and purposes, gave this Blindman, when he came to maturity, Inward-Light, and drew him out of that Schism, which even with the milk was instilled into him, and under the ferule was pressed upon him. It was his happiness to come to Cambridge, and, in Cambridge, to that Renowned College sacred to the Sacred Trinity. There (as yourself remembers) we were coequals in time, and companions in studies. There attained he to the knowledge both of the Tongues and Arts; and improved them (by his undefatigable industry) even almost to a Miracle. This deepe-learned-man was ready, ever-readie, to impart his knowledge, whether in Philosophy, or Divinity, freely, unrestrainedly, cheerfully. To many young Scholars there, and at Westminster afterwards (where he lived in my brother Doctor Grant's house) was he a lightsome Guide, though his own eyes were dark.  
Knowledge and Charity striven in him which should exceed the other; so that his departure hence so soon, was a great loss to many, if I said to this Whole Church of Ours, I said but the truth.  
It was his Charity (grounded upon Knowledge) that compiled this Dialogue. And the like Charity excites me to draw it out of obscurity into the public light and view of the Church. And I am encouraged the rather hereunto by His Majesty's late Blessed-Instructions for the countenancing of the to-much-neglected-Prayers, and despised Rits of Our Church. This occasion justly, me thought, called for it; and would have laid sacrilege to my charge had I withheld it. It attends on the Sceptre; and good success God send it, that the Public Liturgy of Our Church may henceforth justly be valued, and duly observed. I confess ingenuously, that it is Catechising and Preaching, which enable us to the required performance of God's Worship; but Prayer it is (especially Public Prayer in the House-Of-Prayer) which is God's-Immediate-Worship. The more Public this is, and the more frequent, the-more-likely (yea more than likely) is it to divert judgements, and draw down blessings. And my private Prayer shall ever be, that Public Prayer in Our Church, as it is revived, so it may be continued while the World continues, even till Our jesus returns in glory. So prays  
Saint Barthol. Exchange, London, April 5. 1630. Yours in the same jesus, who is ever the same § JOHN GRANT.   

TO THE Reader.  
WHat Master Fisher was, these three Epitaphs may further show: Two in Latin: the Last in English, On his- Marble (in Westminster Great-Cloisters, near the Library) they could not be engraved. This Book (his truer Monument) may preserve them too. The first Latin One was made by that Honourable Knight Sir Robert Ayton, than Secretary to Queen Anne, and now to Queen Mary: The other by Dr. Thory, that Worthy French Physician: the English by a True Lover, and Knower of this Author, Master john Harris, sometimes one of the King's Scholars in Westminster, and afterwards of Christ's Church in Oxford.   

EPITAPH. I.  

AMbrosius iacet hic Piscator, coeperat hamo  
Ambrosio pisces queis Deus esca fuit:  
Hoc & agens, vitam non lucem liquit, ab istâ  
Annos vix natus quinque relictus erat:  
Octo tamen vixit, non vidit, lustra, nec ulli  
Mens oculata magis, vitaue sancta magis:  
Historiae, Sophiae, Vatum sacra abdita norat,  
Norat Adae, atque Remi, & Cecropis ore loqui:  
Et nunc est positus mutam propè Bibliothecam,  
Ipse loquens quoniam Bibliotheca fuit.    

EPITAPH. II.  

Nisi lapis es,  
AVdi, Viator, loquentem lapidem:  
Hîc cubat propter Aedem Sapientiae,  
Merito maior quam famâ,  
Sapiens Immortalis Piscator.   

Is, citò amissâ oculorum luce perspicacior,  
Quantum homini fas est animo penetravit  
Omnis Divinae & Humanae Scientiae adyta.   

Oculatis Caecus facem praetulit:  
Mundo merso● coelesti radio ad Deum sustulit:  
Generosae juventutis quasi Parens:  
Miserorum consolator:  
Sui Dominus.   

In terrâ extrà terram; auribus, ingenio intentus;  
Deo, sibi, & Patriae defaecato semper animo.  
Idem vixit.   

Tandem, nullo unquam lucis ablatae desiderio tactus,  
Aetate integrâ, ex haec vitâ velut illustri nocte ad Patrum Luminum  
Lubenter translatus, quod mortale fuit, tumulo,  
Immortale sui desiderium bonis reliquit.   Gaudete caeci veniet & vohis Dies.  

EPITAPH. III.  

MEn, Women, Children, all that pass this way  
Whether such as here Walk, or Talk, or Play,  
Take notice of the Holy-Ground y'are on,  
Lest you profane it with oblivion:  
Remember, with due sorrow, that here lies  
The-Learned-Fisher, He, whose darkened eyes  
Gave light (such as the Midday emulates)  
To either Sex, each Age, and all Estates:  
For, as on the Full-Sea, soon His-Brest  
All-Vessels road Always (He unopprest  
And deepe-enough for all:) Men, Old, or Young  
Well or Ill-grounded; What Art or what Tongue  
Soe'er they durst profess, hearing his name  
Blushed, here returned to school, and 'twas no shame:  
By Lectures of fair virtue, by discourse  
Rich, sacred, and well couched, he adding force  
(Fair Dames) to your Great Beauty, yet his debtor,  
Sweetened your sweets, and made your goodness better.  
The Little Wantoness made their Mothers weep  
To see their forwardness, so could they keep  
The Blind-Man's powerful Forms; for by their looks,  
They knew their letters ere they knew their Books;  
So rare his Methods were, so sweet so free  
The Nurse's milk was not so good as He;  
For all the Learned Tongues, Philosophy,  
All Humane-Arts, Poesy, History,  
They had been Wonders Singled, had they been  
So full, as they met in this Magazine;  
And for the Great Theology, just fame  
Gave him all th' Art and Power of his 
¶ A Fisher of Men.  Name.  
Now, if that any Tongues, or any Arts,  
Goodness, or virtue's loss, may pierce our hearts,  
Why should these marbles weep alone? In you,  
Reader, 'tis sacrilege not to weep too:  
Sighs are but Rites, a Punctuall-Sacrifice  
And Voluntary, were not Tears, but Eyes;  
And, 'ttwere a profitable loss to thee,  
That thou mightst so become as Blind as He:  
As for that light thou readest these cold lines by,  
Know 'tis but Envy keeps the Sun so dry:  
For 'tis presumed the Day-Guide could not love him,  
That saw so much without him, and Above him.    

A Table of the Chapters in general, and Contents in Particular.  

Of the first Book.  

CHAP. I. General arguments against the Liturgy, pag. 1. 

THe salutation of Bonum mane, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1. The name of Christmas, p. 3. Our Liturgy no Mass-book, p. 4. Preaching of Sermons not hindered by our Liturgy, nor the zeal of the people thereby quenched, p. 7.    
CHAP. II. Of set Prayer imposed by men, and of subscription, pag. 9 

Of Set Prayer, p. 10. Of Subscription thereto, p. 12. Of things indifferent, p. 15.    
CHAP. III. Of Feasts, and Fasts, pag. 17. 

Of appointing Festivals, p. 17. Of dedicating them to creatures, p. 18. The names of Months, p. 20. Saint's Days, p. 22. Michael the Archangel a creature, p. 23. The Apostles Holy Days, p. 27. The Children slain by Herod, whether Innocents', p. 27. And how Martyrs, p. 28. Of Set Fasts, p. 29. Of Lent, p. 31. Of Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdayes' Fast, p. 32.    
CHAP. IU. Of Place; and Ornaments, pag. 32. 

Whether Churches, abused to Idolatry, aught to be destroyed? p. 33. Of Universities, p. 34. The Dedication of Churches, p. 37. Of Chancels, ibid. Of the Surplice, p. 39    
CHAP. V. The Preface. Of the Common Prayers, pag. 43. 

Of these words in the Preface Inuitatorie (At what time soever, etc.) p. 43. Of that (saying after me) p. 45. The Confession of Faith repeated, p. 47.    
CHAP. VI Of the Lord's Prayer, pag. 48. 

Of repeating the Lords Prayer, p. 48. And omission of the Doxology, p. 52.    
CHAP. VII. Of short Prayers, pag. 54. 

Of Short Prayers, p. 54. Of the word Priest, p. 55 Of the People's Responsals, p. 60. Of Gloria Patri, etc. p. 61. Of those words among the Responsals, (there is no other that fighteth for us but only thou O Lord) p. 63    
CHAP. VIII. Of the Litany, p. 65 

Whether the Litany want Thanksgiving? p. 65 Whether these words, (By the Mystery of thy holy incarnation, etc.) be an Oath, or Magical Exorcism? p. 67. Of that prayer, That God would have mercy upon all men, p. 69. Whether we pray for the Dead in these words? (Remember not the offences of our Forefathers) p. 70. Of that (Illuminate all Bishops, etc.) p. 74. Of that (from fornication, and all other deadly sin) p. 76 Of the number of Prayers for Temporal blessings, p. 79 Of Lightning & Tempest, p. 83. Of sudden death, p. 84.    
CHAP. IX, Of Hymns, p. 86 

Of Music in Churches, p. 86. Of Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc dimittis, p. 91. Of Te Deum, and Benedicite, p. 92. Of that (When thou hadst overcome the sharpness, etc.) p. 93    
CHAP. X. Of Collects, and Creeds, pag. 93 

Of those words in the Collect (Grant that this day we fall into no sin) p. 94. Of those (in the power of the Majesty to worship the Unity) p. 95. The term of Penance, p. 96. Of Chance, p. 97 No merit intimated in those words of the Collect upon Ash-wednesday (that we worthily lamenting our sins, etc.) p. 98. Nor despair in those, in that Collect upon the twelfth Sunday after Trinity Sunday, and in that fift after the Offertory, p. 99 The often Rehearsal of the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creed, pag. 102, Of equalizing them to the Canonical Scripture, ibid. of standing at the Creed rehearsed, p. 103    
CHAP. XI. Of God's speech in the Liturgy, p. 104 

Of omissions in the Commandments, p. 104 Of the prayer used by the People between every Commandments, p. 108. Of the Commination, ibid. Of those words in the Catechism (redeemed me, and all mankind) p. 109    
CHAP. XII. Of the Sacraments in general: and of Baptism, p. 110 

Of the two Sacraments, generally necessary to salvation, pag. 211. Of the visible sign, 113. Of their necessity to salvation, pag. 115. Of those words in Baptism (unless a man be borne of water, etc.) p. 117. Of the sanctification of water in Baptism, pag. 125. Of Godfathers, pag. 126. Of the naming of Children, pag. 128. Of private Baptism, p. 129. Of women's baptising, pag. 131 Of conditional Baptism, p. 132    
CHAP. XIII. Of the Cross in Baptism, p. 134 

The Cross in Baptism, no breach of the Commandments, no Idol, p. 134. No Idolothite, p. 142 As we use it, there is no Superstition in it, p. 143 neither cause of Scandal, p. 146    
CHAP. XIV. Of Confirmation, p. 150 

Of Confirmation, both in the sign thereof, p. 151. and grace thereby, p. 152. Not preferred by us before Baptism, p. 154    
CHAP. XV. Of the Lord's Supper, p. 157 

Of those words (lest after that holy Sacrament, etc.) and whether judas received the Lord's Supper? p. 157. Of kneeling at the Communion, p. 160    
CHAP. XVI. Of the Visitation of the Sick, p. 173. 

Of the necessity of the Communion, p. 173. Of the Communion in private, p. 174. Of Absolution with authority, and to particular men applied, p. 175    
CHAP. XVII. Of Matrimony. p. 177 

Of the straight charging of the parties to be married, p. 177. The Oath ex Officio, p. 178. Of the consent of Parents before Marriage, p. 179. Of error in the Person, p. 180. Of Eunuches, Hermaphrodites, Leprosy, Falling Sickness, etc. ibid. Of separation by death, p. 181. Of infidelity, and adultery, and how they make separation after Marriage, p. 182. Of those words (with my body I thee worship) p 184. Whether Saint Paul were the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 185. Of ask Banes in the Church, pag. 187. Of the married parties kneeling before the Communion Table, p. 189. Of those words (consecrated to such a mystery) ibid. Marriage not accounted by us a Sacrament, ibid. towards the end, and so to the end of the Chapter. Of the Ring in Marriage, p. 195    
CHAP. XVIII. Of Churching: and Burial, p. 196 

What purification is abrogated, p. 196. & how, p. 197. Our Churching of Women, no judaisme, and of the Veil then used, p. 198. and of the Offering imposed. p. 199. Of Tithes, ibid. They are God's Stipends, not Alms, p. 200. They are not jewishly Ceremonial, p. 201. They are due to Ministers, and so proved, ibid. Of competency, p. 204. City Tithes, p. 205. The Apostles were not maintained by Alms, ibid. Priests bury not, but assist the Funeral, p. 207. Of Prayers then used, and of Sermons, p. 208. The place of Burial, p. 209.      

The second Book.  

CHAP. I. Of the Book of Tobit, p. 211 

THe Apocryphal Books no Canon with us for Doctrine, p. 211. And yet, upon good grounds, read in our Church, p. 212. As namely, for the explanation of the Canonical Scriptures, p. 215. Why they are called Apocryphal, pag. 216. Of the Angel Raphael, in the Book of Tobit, p. 220. Of the seven Angels in the twelfth Chapter of Tobit, p. 221. That number is neither Magical, nor Popish, p. 223. The Office of Angels, p. 224. Whether they pray for us? p. 225. Whether the Angels eat really? p. 227. Of the Angels speaking, p. 228. Of Asmodeus, the evil spirit, p. 230. Of the Nature of Angels, both in their Affection, ibid. any limitation, in respect of the means, and manner, p. 232. Of Alms, and how they purge sin, p. 235 Of contract before Marriage, p. 237    
CHAP. II. Of judeth: and the Song of the three Children, 

p. 241 Of the word Titans, and of borrowing words from Peets, p. 241. The time of Iudeth's Story, p. 249. Of Bethulia, p. 248. Iudeth's fasting, whether superstitious? p. 249. Her prayer whether impure? p. 251. Her craftè whether wicked, p. 254. Her course is warranted by the like of jael, in the Book of judges, p, 257. Of the Song called Benedicite, & the use thereof, p. 259. The clearing of that Historical Fragment from objections, p. 260 The Story of Susanna vindicated, p. 262. The Story of Bel, and the Dragon opened, p. 264    
CHAP. III. Of Wisdom: Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, p. 265 

Of the Book of Wisdome's, Author, p. 265 The explanation of those words (But rather, being good, I came into an undefiled body) p. 266. And of those (when a Father mourneth grievously for his Son, etc. p. 268. Of Tammuz, ibid. Of the Argument of Ecclesiasticus, p. 269. Of the Prologue, p. 270. Of the Treatise, p. 272. How Enoch is said to be taken away, p. 273. Of samuel's death foreshowed, ibid. Of Elias, pag. 274. Of the time when jerusalem was burnt in Baruch's account, p. 276. What he means by those words (Hear the dead Israelites) p. 277. Of jeremies' Epistle, p. 278.    
CHAP. IU. Of the Translation of the Psalms, p. 280 

Of the Psalmes-Tiles, p. 280. Of words detracted, p. 283. The sense not corrupted in that 68 Psalm, verse 27. p. 284. Nor in the 105. vers. 28. p. 285. Of additions to the Psalms in sentences, p. 287. In words, 288. Of the obscurity in translation (or ever your pots be made hot, etc.) p. 291 And of that (humbly bringing pieces of silver, etc.) p. 292. And of that (it shall not break my head) pag. 293. Of falsehood in translation, as in that (thou shalt learn frowardness) pag. 294. And in that Psalm 125. 3. shall not fall) ibid. And in that Psalm 107. verse 40. (though he suffer them to be evil entreated of Tyrants) ibidem. And in that, Psalm 68 6. (Men of one mind) p. 295. And in that Psalm 75. 3. (when I receive the Congregation) ibid. And in that (than stood up Phinees and prayed) pag. 296. And in that (make me to delight in good) ibid.    
CHAP. V. Of the Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels. p. 297. 

Of the omission of Chapters, p. 297. The term of Lesson, p. 299. Of that translation, Luke 1. 36. (this is the sixth month that is called barren) ibid. Of cutting the Bible into Epistles and Gospels, p. 300. Of those words left out, Col. 3. 12. (Holy and beloved) p. 101. Why we call Prophecies, Epistles, p. 302. The place Galat. 4. 5. cleared p. 303 How we are the natural sons of God, ibid. How Paul calleth Timothy his natural son, ibid. God, in a different degree, loveth us as his son Christ, ibid. john 1. 1. Cleared page 304. Of that Gal. 4 25. bordereth for answereth, pag 305. Of that Ephes. 3. 5. (Father of all that is called Father) ibid. Ephesians 5. 13. cleared, p. 306. Heb. 9 25. cleared, ibid. Rom. 12. 11. cleared, pag. 307. Luke 1. 48. cleared, ibid. 1. Cor. 9 27. cleared, ibid. Phil. 2. 7. cleared p. 308. 1. Pet. 3. 20. cleared, ibid.       

A Dialogue concerning the Liturgy OR The Book of Common Prayer.  
The Speakers. 

NOVATUS. A curious Corrector, of things indifferent.  
IRENaeVS. A peaceable Conformer to the state of the present Church.    

CHAP. I.  
General arguments against the Liturgy.  I. 
GOod morrow to you friend Novatus, how have you fared this cold Christmas.  N. 
Brother Irenaus, as my body is in health: so my mind is ill paid to hear your good morrow; savouring of Paganism (being drawn from Bonum mane, used by the Romans) and your Christmas of Popery, which joineth the Mass to Christ, as an Ass to an Ox; or Dagon to God's Ark.  I. 
The Latin word mane properly seemeth to signify nothing but gracious or peaceable: whence we translate Manes, good spirits: and immanis Cruel. In which sense if we interpret Bonum mane: it shall betoken nothing but grace or Peace be with you: which kind of salutation soundeth more of heavenly Scriptures, then of earthly heathens. But if mane be taken for the morning, as being the most gracious time of the day: wherein the brain is Cooled: the stomach strengthened: the heart tempered: and the spirits repaired: How can this greeting of good morrow more displease then hail, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by 
a Luke 1. 28.  the Angel to the Virgin: which as it seemeth to be deduced from 
b jonice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ut in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a season: So before Luke used it, the heathens did usurp it. For Agylla (chief City of Hetruria) was called Coere (as some think) of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which was used by a Citizen in scorn to a Pelasgian besieger, the same day the City was surprised.  N. 
To let your Latin and Poetry pass: prayer in common talk betrays little reverence. Again 
john 10.  we ought not to salute or pray with them, whose religion is to us unknown.  I. 
To let pass your hard Censures, by which you cut out the tongues of tongues: and pluck out the hearts of arts: Is there not a prayer expressed in the common talk of 
c Ruth. 2. 4.  Boaz and his reapers? Though the phrase hail were abused by hypocritical judas, and the profane heard of the people, (which prefer their salutations before their salvations:) Can it not therefore with convenient reverence be used by the Angel? Are not some sudden ciaculations, reverend prayers? As for your Scripture it is wrested. For Saint john forbiddeth only familiar greetings of known heretics. The same Apostle elsewhere, permitteth us to pray for all, (except the 
d 1. john 5. 16.  sinners against the holy ghost.)  N. 
I esteem not what you speak of prayer, who seem to be ignorant of the meaning thereof: forasmuch as you love the mass, a fatal enemy to all true prayer. And this appears not only, because you familiarly name Lammas: Michaelmas: Christmas: Candlemas: But also because (I take it) you have there in your hand an English Mass-book.  I. 
The Saxons used this word Mass, or Mes for a feast: in which sense these times are so termed by us, without any imitation of the Popish mass. Now if you can prove that the book of Common prayer is a Mass book, I shall not be so backward as not to consent: nor so froward as not to confess the truth.  N. 
First in general I thus object against your Liturgy: That which is taken out of the Mass book of the Pope, who is an Idolater, Antichrist, and out of the Church: the same is to be reputed as the Mass book. But such is your Liturgy. Ergo, etc.  I. 
I answer to your Mayor: First, that the two former attributes which you ascribe to the Pope are impertinent: except your speech be thus limited. That which is drawn from the Pope as he is an Idolater, etc. For else Saint 
e Acts 17. 28. 1. Cor. 15. 33. Titus 1. ●2. james 1. 17.  Paul and Saint james had erred in borrowing the speeches of heathenish and Idolatrous Poets.  N. 
But it is written 
f Deut. 12▪ 4.  thou shalt not do so: Therefore we may not pray as Idolaters do.  I. 
If we refer that precept to the fift verse: where the Hebrews are forbidden to sacrifice elsewhere then at the Tabernacle: it is merely Ceremonial neither can bind us: But if it be referred to Images in the third verse, it is moral indeed, but forbiddeth only communion with idolaters in that wherein they are such, and not otherwise. For example kneeling in prayer before jupiters' image is forbidden. Hear simply and absolutely in prayer kneeling is not interdicted. For it is a Dictate of nature that kneeling is a gesture agreeable to God's worship: But to do this before the idol of jupiter (who was but a King, or is but a Planet, that is only prohibited as idolatrous.  N. 
We shall dispute more largely of the particular objections, wherefore I proceed; The Pope is Antichrist: Therefore whatsoever is taken out of his Portuise, is Antichristian.  I. 
This is not unlike an argument of a certain Arrian, confuted by Zanchius. The Trinity is Defended by the Pope who is Antichrist, It is therefore Antichristian. In like manner we might thus reason: The Turk (whom some count Antichrist, and all an Apostate) yea the Devil acknowledgeth one God: The Pagans also believe that there is a God. To acknowledge therefore and believe these things is Turkish, Devilish, Heathenish. In all these arguments there are the same 
g Ab accident. A dicto simpliciter. Principij petitio non causa, etc.  fallacians for ignorance of a limitation.  N. 
Antichrist is an Arch-heretic, whatso-soever therefore he maintaineth is heretical.  I. 
To the old error you add a new, like Drunkenness to thirst; the old appears in the Consequence. For heresy (as the Greek 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to choose.  word showeth) is a choice of some error direcly impugning the foundation of Religion. Now, where election is, there must needs be some refusal, so that he which revolteth from all points of truth, ceaseth to be an heretic, and becometh an Apostate, A Pagan, An Atheist: or some other monster. Your new error is in the antecedent, wherein you say that Antichrist is a chief heretic: For antichristianity consisteth not so much in error, and heresy. as in tyranny over men's Consciences: to which it joineth things indifferent, as necessary to Salvation.  N. 
I am glad you have swallowed this bait: For I shall hereafter prove by this definition that your Service Book is Antichristian: Mean while tell me is the Pope's third attribute (namely that he is out of the Church) impertinent also to the matter?  I. 
More pertinent, but less true: For though the Pope, were neither in nor of, the Catholic: 
Better Catholic.  yet certainly he is in the visible Church; As thus may appear. First Antichrist (whom you take to be the Pope) sitteth in the Temple of God; that is, in the Church visible: Secondly, the Pope (by your confession) is an heretic. Now, that an heretic is in the Church, we know, both because none can be excommunicated but tbose that are within the Church. Neither will any deny that heretics do deserve excommunication. As also because heretics, repenting after excommunication, are received into the bosom of the Church, without new Baptism: which could not be, if they werc utterly cut off from the Church. Thirdly no Baptism can be out of the Church: But in the Pope's jurisdiction is true baptism, which by no means can be iterated, unless there come some violent 
h Smith at Amsterdam.  spirit which for haste will rebaptise himself. Not unlike a frantque man, who though meat be present: yet, upon pretence of hunger, eateth the flesh of his own arm. The Pope therefore remaineth within the territories of the visible Church. Hitherto of your Mayor. Now to your Minor we say. That we extract our Liturgy, not from the loins, or lines of the Pope, but from God's Word, and the primitive Church: howsoever the Pope may seem to have used, or usurped the same.  N. 
Let not him that putteth on the Sword boast as he that putteth it off: For I hope shortly to refel what you have said. Now from the Platform of your Liturgy, I come to treat of the 
i Second general objection: the Liturgy a Lethargy.  end and purpose thereof: which seemeth to be, first, the hindrance of Preaching Sermons.  I. 
Prove that, and then rail your ●●ll.  N. 
That, whose length is such, that it taketh from the Minister, both conveniency of time, alacrity of mind, and strength of body, in regard of preaching; the end thereof is the hindrance of preaching: but such is your Liturgy: Ergo.  I. 
A cloud without rain. Your minor is untrue: For first oftentimes the Preacher is not the same with the Reader: Especially in Catherall Churches and Chapels, as also where there is a Curate, or coadjutor. Secondly, one of the Chapters is in many Churches read by the Clark. Thirdly, part of the Psalms, and other answers, are dispatched by him and the people. Fourthly, the Commination; Litany, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and diverse other things are not appointed at all times to be read. Fiftly, many things may be omitted at the Minister's discretion, according to times, places, persons, actions. By all which it appeareth that the Minister is not so much tired before he begin to preach, as you pretend.  N. 
In stead of medicines, you reckon so many diseases: as shall hereafter appear. Now the second end of your Liturgy is to quench all zeal in the people by the wearisome prolixity thereof:  I. 
Your faction (so infamous for long prayers, under colour whereof widows houses are devoured) should in this point have been more silent. Again the length of this duty should breed a certain reverence in vulgar minds, which use to contemn those things that are passed over with perfunctory brevity: Lastly, the variable delight which cometh by hearing, singing, answering, doth rather kindle, then weary devotion.   

CHAP. II.  
Of set Prayer imposed by men, and of subscription.  N. 
IT followeth now: That we produce those special arguments which impugn the Liturgy. Which Book is of two sorts. The old, compiled in the days of Edward the sixth: which wanted the Psalms, Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels: and the new composed in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and now established.  I. 
Remember by the way, that you oppose yourself not only to Religious Princes: but even to the glorious Martyrs.  N. 
Princes and Martyrs might err. And it may be that Hooper, and some other Martyrs, did afar off descry this land, which now we have found out. Upon whose authority notwithstanding I rely not; but proceed to the old Liturgy. Wherein I will handle, First, the Circumstances, than the Substance. The Circumstances are four. First, the person enjoining. Secondly, time. Thirdly, place. Fourthly, Ornaments enjoined. Concerning the Person enjoining, or the authority thereof, three questions may seem to be moved: First, whether Prayer may be set? Secondly, whether it may be imposed by men? Thirdly, whether Subscription may be yielded thereunto?  I. 
As in that which is called Parelius, though three Suns appear, there is but one true Sun; the other being only reflections thereof. So these questions three in appearance, are but one in substance. For if prayer may be set, it may be imposed by men. Neither may we refuse to subscribe to that which authority doth lawfully impose.  N. 
Confound you the questions as you please. I will first thus argue against Set Prayer. Every thing lawful is commanded in the Scripture: Now; Set Prayer is not commanded. Ergo.  I. 
Your Mayor I thus oppose. Things indifferent are not commanded and yet lawful: Some lawful things therefore are not commanded.  N. 
I mean things lawful in God's worship.  I. 
To bring a Bible to the Church is not commander. Nevertheless it is lawful in God's worship. Ergo, etc.  N. 
It is commanded not Directly, but by Consequence: as being an help to God's worship.  I. 
To sit, or stand in Preaching is not commanded by the Consequence, and yet lawful in God's worship, as being used by Christ: Ergo. Besides your Minor sails. For Set Prayer is commanded. As appears by Scriptures. Numb. 6. 23. Deut. 26. 13. & 15. Psalm 78. in 
john 7. 37. and 18. 12.  the title. jer. 10. 11. Matth. 6. 9 Luke 11. 1.  N. 
These testimonies shall be examined, when we entreat of the Lords Prayer. Now further, I thus reason. True Prayer hath the spirit of Prayer. But Set Prayer hath it not. Ergo.  I. 
The Spirit of Prayer is double. First, by infusion, which giveth ability to invent extemporal Prayer. Secondly, by Assistance. Thus a man may read a Prayer, with the spirit of him that devised it. With this spirit of searching diligence being assistant, Saint Luke wrote 
Luke 1. 3. jude 3.  his Gospel, and Saint jude his Epistle.  N. 
Set Prayer to private men may be granted. But that it should be imposed upon Ministers, who should not be destitute of the spirit of conceiving prayer; cannot be affirmed without blushing. And that it may not be imposed I thus prove. No part of God's worship may be imposed by men's authority: But such is set Prayer. Ergo.  I. 
Prayers in Hebrew may be commanded, and yet are parts of God's worship, as being parcels of the Bible. Ergo.  N. 
They may be commanded among the jews, not amongst us. For though Prayer be a substantial part of Religion; yet the language is only a Circumstance.;  I. 
No less is the setting of prayer, but a circumstance thereof.  N. 
Surely such a one as devours the substance, for it quencheth devotion.  I. 
Nay, it reviveth devotion, being most available to three things: Order, Decency, Edification. Order is helped two ways. For first, by reason of Unity comes Uniformity, which is the pith of Order. Consider I pray you if every man might at his own arbitrement device prayers, would there not be as many Liturgies as there were gods among the Ethiopians, where each man had a peculiar god? Secondly, order in Prayer, that is a methodical disposition of Petitions, gratulations, and the like, is most readily found in Set Prayer. Whereas your extemporal and undigested prayers are ordinarily as uncertain as the sands of Hammonia. The decency of Set Prayer is manifest by the unseemly Tautologies, which carry the mind of him that prayeth without praemeditation, like Paul's ship between two Seas. Edification is two ways ministered by Set Prayer. First, the hearers mind is called to concur with the Minister. Secondly, a full compliment of Petitions is hereby purchased, which on the sudden could not be conceived.  N. 
To grant you that Prayer may be imposed by authority, yet subcription to the Liturgy is an iron yoke.  I. 
Before you attempt to prove this, observe these two things. First, that as the furies were the three daughters of the same night: So from the same night of error do issue the Separatists denying Set Prayer. The Anabaptist renouncing humane authority. The Novalist denouncing war to subscription. For when the Barrowist will admit no meditation in prayer, doth he not seem to hearken after the revelations of the Enthusiast? And when the all purging reformer will not subscribe to authority. Doth he not sing the same catch with H. N.  N. 
I regard not the Brownist nor Familist: but only the truth in sincerity.  I. 
We ought to mark, not what you follow in words, but what followeth of your words.  N. 
To let go your carping consequences: we detest the Anabaptist: and protest against the Barrowist.  I. 
I will demonstrate the former, upon an other occasion to be most untrue, or unprobable. Against the latter I thus reason. Of them that think the Church of England to be no Church; they less transgress against their conscience which do forsake it. But the Barrowist and you, imagine so of our Church: The Barrowist therefore is more excusable than you.  N. 
Your Minor is uncharitable. For we hold it to be a true, though a corrupt Church.  I. 
You condemn her Liturgy, Ministry, Government. Ergo.  N. 
What we condemn shall be tried in due place.  I. 
Mean while take this second observation. Do you impugn Subscription in Word, or Deed? for many Conform which will not Subscribe.  N. 
We approve not them: For a daily public Conformity, is more than a single, and almost solitary Subscription. Now generally against Subscription I thus dispute. To subscribe to a thing that shall be altered is unlawful: But a new Translation is expected: and new Homilies promised to be set forth by common authority. Ergo.  I. 
If your Mayor were firm. How might 
Ceremonia dicta est, à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to remain for a time.  the jews in ancient time have subscribed to the Ceremonies in Moses Law, which were to be altered by Christ. Or how may Subjects swear to the observation of a Law, which is repealable at the next Session of a Parliament? Again your Minor doth rely upon two dreams. For first you suppose that in the new Translation all things shall be innovated according to your doubts, as Polycletus made an Image according to the mind of the multitude. Secondly, whereas one and twenty Homilies before promised are now extant, you still suspect that some errors shall be obtruded upon you by authority.  N. 
We have as little cause to hope the first, as just to fear the latter. My next reason than is this. To subscribe to known errors, is little better than heresy. But in your service-book is a mass of Errors. Ergo.  I. 
The Mayor of this reason is refelled by the Minor of the former argument. For if the Translation shallbe corrected by reason of some errors supposed therein. It is clear that the intent of Subscription is only to oblige us, to think that no fundamental error is lurking in it: seeing no Book (save the authentic Canon of the text) can claim to itself simple immunity from error. The mass of errors 
Errorum massa Missa.  mentioned in your Minor, will be to massy a work for you to prove.  N. 
My last argument doth thus proceed. It is a crying sin to subscribe to antichristianism. But such is your Liturgy according to your own former definition, as being imposed upon the Conscience with pretended necessity. Ergo.  I. 
Your Minor is a misprision: For I said that Antichrist imposeth things indifferent as necessary to salvation. But you, altering the state of the question, entreat about necessity of Conformity, under the penalty of Deprivation, 
Ignorantia Elenchi.  not of eternal life, but of a momentany living: And yet all both Nations and Religions have urged this uniform order.  N. 
Doth not then Subscription bind the Conscience?  I. 
It binds, as it is an oath tendered to God directly: and yet indirectly also, as it is an humane constitution. So ill Positive Laws tie the Conscience by virtue of the fift precept of the Decalogue.  N. 
Things indifferent cannot bind Conscience: But Ecclesiastical Laws are about things 
Figura dictionis & quatuor termini.  indifferent. Ergo.  I. 
Your double medium causeth your argument to play fast and lose. For Obedience in things indifferent is necessary, not indifferent.  N. 
What, then are we bound to obey our lawful Superior in all things?  I. 
In things necessarily good, we do immediately obey God: men only by consequence. If men command things evil, we obey by tollerating what they inflict, not by performing what they enjoin. In the first they declare what God commands to be done: in the latter, what to be endured. Wherefore it remaineth that things indifferent alone, are the proper object of humane Commandments.  N. 
No action is indifferent, but each thing commanded is an action. Ergo.  I. 
Your medium hath two faces like janus. For an action is to be considered, either simply and alone: and so it is good; as being a motion depending on the first mover. Or jointly, with Circumstances, and that in a double manner. First, in regard of the ability or possibility whilst it may be done. Secondly, in the act, when it is performed. Before it be done, it is indifferent; but once breaking out into act, it becometh distinctly good or evil, according to the Circumstances which determine the same. Now an action commanded, is supposed as not yet done (whereupon the Hebrews call the Imperative Mood, the first future) and so remaineth many times indifferent.   

CHAP. III.  
Of Feasts, and Fasts.  N. 
TO omit your winding Sophistry, and sundry other arguments against Subscription, not as feeble, but expecting a fit place: From the person commanding, I pass to the things enjoined: Time, Place, Ornaments. Time I divide into Feasts and Fasts. Against your Festivals I argue thus. Days made holy by men, are lawless; But such are your holidays. Ergo.  I. 
Your Mayor is refuted by 
k Ester 9 21. 1 Mac. 4. 59 john 10. 22.  the Text.  N. 
These Feasts were appointed by Prophetical inspiration; therefore not merely by men.;  I. 
This answer is like that of Sympathy, and antipathy, or influence of Stars, and the like refuges of ignorance. How know you that Queen Hester was a Prophetess? or Mordecai a Prophet? Would you trust the Story of the Maccabees, if there you should find it written that judas was a Prophet? Is not this one of the Books that you would hisse out of the Church? Nay, may we suppose that judas (had he been a Prophet) would have translated to Levi, that dignity which appertained to the Tribe of juda.  N. 
Day's wherein God hath permitted man to labour; may not by men be sanctified: But such be your Church Holidays. Ergo.  I. 
Your Mayor is doubtful, and dangerous. For if you mean, that days which are not consecrated by God, may not by men to him be dedicated, you will soon deface all the outward face of Religion: whereof the most noble act hath, and doth consist in dedicating Goods and Lands to the Church. But if you intent that days because they are indifferent, may not by authority be restrained and determined; then do you bring into the Church an anarchy. In the one you follow Swingfeldius, in the other the Anabaptist; against which rock, I perceive you often rush.  N. 
I let slip your captious inferences, and hasten to the third proof. Your holidays are dedicated to creatures; therefore unlawful. My Antecedent thus appears: The Sabbath or Lords Day, you call Sunday, giving it to the Sun: which as it is reproved by Papists: So some have 
Rhemists upon Apoc. 1. 10.  ignorantly turned it to the Son of God. With the like vanity you give Monday to the Moon. Tuesday to Tuisco, or Mars. Wednesday to Woden, or Mercury. Thursday, to thundering jupiter. Friday to Frico or Venus. Saturday to Saturn: which Devils were adored by Pagans.  I. 
We do no more dedicate our days to creatures by whose names we term them, than the Hebrews did the month Abib to an ear of Corn: for so doth the word import. Further I marvel that you call the Lords Day the Sabbath: for the men of your rank were wont to style this a jewish name. But there be some opinions that be as short lived as certain creatures by the river Hyppanis, which live but a day. Yea but the Rhemists do mislike the name Sunday. By this you may conjecture that our Liturgy was not borrowed from the Missal. Besides what needed Alesius to turn it into Latin, if it had been before extant in the Portuise? Whereas you pretend, some have derived Sunday from the Son of God: true it is, they deduced it from the Son of righteousness, who is indeed the Son of the living God. Lastly, those Devils which you pretend were, and are Planets, of whom every day is named, according as the Planet ruleth at midnight before: As upon Saturday night from twelve to one the Sun reigneth, so the day ensuing is called Sunday. Besides that; a Musical reason is rendered: Namely, that the fourth Planet is inclusively to be reckoned from the former. For example, Saturn hath his dominion upon Saturday, then omitting jupiter and Mars, you shall come to Sol, whose 
Dion in Augusto.  most effectual working is upon Sunday.  N. 
What speak you of the Superstitious ruling of Planets: or ridiculous Music of Stars?  I. 
As it is idolatrous to worship Stars, or prophesy by them; ●o to deny all their natural operations and dominions in things inferior, is wilfully to repeal the Statutes enacted in the Parliament of experience. No less frivolous is it, to deride the long observed harmonious consent of Planets.  N. 
With the same boldness, have you consecrated the months to janus. Februus, Mars, julius and Augustus Caesar: which names you have borrowed from the Heathens: whereas the numeral names of months were thought in Scripture most convenient.  I. 
Why may not months be styled according to Planets, aswell as Saint Luke named a 
Acts 17. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a hill of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doric word, for a Spring: because Springs issue out of hills. Acts 17. 34 & 18. 24. Rom. 16. 1. & 14. Phil. 2. 25. Col. 1. 7. Acts 28. 11. joshua 15. 10. & 41. Dan. 1. 7.  place Mars his Street or Hill? Or why not aswell as men have retained the names of Planets after their Baptism; For example, Denis was surnamed of Bacchus, Apollo's of the Sun. Epaphras and Epaphroditus of Venus, Hermes, and Mercurius of Mercury. So Phebae of the Moon: Was not the badge of the ship wherein Paul failed, called Castor and Pollux? Is not the like to be seen in the Old Testament; both in the names of Places: as Bethshemesh, the house of the Sun: and Beth Dagon, the house of Dagon? As also of Persons? I will not insist, as some might do upon this: That january is not named of janus, but of janua, a Gate, as being the entrance of the year. Nor February of Februus, but a febribus of Agues, being a month obnoxious to that disease. No, nor March of Mars; but because things bred therein are martial and valiant, agreeable to the Planet, not to the Idol Mars. Now whereas you are displeased that months have their appellations from julius and Augustus Caesar: Why might not this be endured, aswell as the City of David; or Gibea of Saul? 
2. Sam. 6. 10. Esay 10. 29.  If Places, why may not Times be termed after men? But these names are borrowed from Heathens. Did not the Hebrews borrow the names of their months from the Chaldeans? (Except we think the fourth month Tammuz 
Ezek. 8. 14.  was taken from the Egyptians) Was not Abib the first month, surnamed Nisan? Tisri, the seventh, Ethanim? Chisleu, the ninth, Bull? Of these some are apparently, Chaldean words. Lastly, whereas you pretend, that the numeral names of months (as the first, second, etc.) were thought most convenient. This to be untrue, you partly now perceive, by the other names attributed to them in Scriptures. Also you know that September, & the three months following, have names from number: and that in old time july, and August were called Quintilis and Sextilis.  N. 
To let pass your Heathen names of Days and Months: I proceed to your Popish names, by which you honour Creatures: and especially Saints.  I. 
Religious worship of Saints, is against the stream of our Church Doctrine. If we praise them, and God, in and for them; If we propound them as triumphant lights and marks of imitation: with what viperous teeth can envy carp at us, unless the same also do gnaw out the bowels of the Primitive Church?  N. 
Observation of days is forbidden by Paul. 
Gal 4. 10.   I. 
Namely, as parts of God's worship, or as such necessary works, as without which salvation cannot be obtained.  N. 
Two days you observe in honour of the Virgin, which you hold as merely necessary: the Purification, and the Annunciation.  I. 
We ascribe to them no necessity but of order. Now whereas four days were kept in Popery, for the Virgin Mary, we have abolished two. First, the day of her Conception. Secondly, of her Assumption; the one being blasphemous, the other fabulous. Concerning the other two, we consecrate them not to the Virgin, but to Christ: whose Conception is remembered upon the day of the Annunciation: and Presentation in the Temple, in the day of the Purification: as may be collected both by the Collect; as also because we reckon the year of our Lord from the Annunciation Day.  N. 
Besides this; you celebrate a day for Michael the Archangel; whom you make a Creature.  I. 
If some of your own spirit were present they would reprove your method, for placing the Virgin Mary before the Angels.  N. 
I did it, because I suppose you prefer her before them: her that sinned before them that were ever sinless.  I. 
Some doubt not, but that all men elect are in Christ his humanity exalted above Angels. How much more doth this agree to her from whom did immediately proceed that which was assumed by the Godhead through the personal Union? Again Christ took not Angels but the seed of Abraham.  N. 
The Elect indeed are said to be equal to 
Luke 20. 36.  Angels: wherefore it seemeth they are not superiors to them.  I. 
They shall be equal to them in immortality, as also in that they shall not need procreation. Nevertheless in some other respect, they may exceed them. But now, that Michael is a creature, appears first by Daniel: where 
Dan. 10. 13. & 22.  Michael is called one of the chief Princes: and therefore may not be Christ.  N. 
The Hebrew word which you translate Chief, may be turned former.  I. 
First, this cannot agree to Christ, who is not one of the former, but the first Prince: unless you make three Princes of the three Persons in the Trinity; which speech will not endure the Hammer of a good construction. Secondly, neither will it accord with Gabriels' relation, who had not made mention of any former Princes.  N. 
If this your interpretation should be granted, yet Michael is but one of the Chief, not absolutely the chief Angel, or the Archangel, as you seem to insinuate: which as it contradicteth your Communion Book, mentioning Archangels: So can it not be balanced with reason.  I. 
Observe: First, that by this place in Daniel, we prove Archangels to be; which some have disliked. For Chief Princes and Archangels seem to us equipollent. Secondly, though we style Michael an Archangel: yet by this we do not simply pronounce him to be Chief of all Angels. For though many Chief Priests do seem to be reckoned: yet each of these was not High Priest, but some one, or at the 
Mat. 26. 3.  most two, in the corruptedst time's. The like may be said of the word arch-heretic, or Patriarch. Thirdly, nevertheless, we do probably think, both that there is one Chief created 
Diabolus found only in the singular number. Daemon and Daemonium plurally.  Angel: seeing Beelzebub is the Prince of Devils: as also that this Archangel is Michael: not only because no other name of any Archangel is extant in Scripture, but principally because the last and greatest work of Angels 
1. Thess 4. 16.  (namely, the raising of the dead) is said to be committed to his Ministry.  N. 
But Michael is called the Prince. Now the Prince and Captain of the Church is Christ.  I. 
Though we should yield that story in joshua to be meant of Christ, (which yet hardly will 
joshua 5. 14.  be evinced) notwithstanding we deny it here to be so taken: First, because a Prince may either be absolutely so named (so is Christ alone) or by power delegate (and this may aswell agree to an heavenly Angel, as to an earthly King.) Secondly, because he is called here Prince, with a term diminishing (at least in your construction, as you shall hereafter understand) for the Angel saith, There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your Prince. Again we prove Michael to be a creature out of the Thessalonians before cited. For first, the word Archangel seemeth to signify rather a principal Angel, than the Prince of Angels. Secondly, it is there said, The Lord shall descend with the voice of an Archangel: by the Lord, we understand 
Compare john 17. 3. with 1. Cor. 8. 6.  Christ, as being opposed in relation to God. This speech than will have no Coherence, Christ shall descend with the voice of the Archangel, that is of Christ.  N. 
It seemeth the latter words; (the trumpet of God) do interpret these that come before (the voice of the Archangel.) Besides it is certain that Christ's voice shall raise the Dead. 
joh. 5. 26. & 28.   I. 
It is the voice and trumpet of God the Father, and the Son, in regard of the authority and power thereof: and yet of Michael in respect of his Ministry. As the same is termed the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon. Again we prove the same by Saint jude, where 
judges 7. 20. jude 9  it is said Michael durst not: which word little beseemeth the majesty of Christ.  N. 
The Greek word may be translated he could not endure, that is, he could not abide to revile because it was a sin. And it may seem the Story is taken out of Zachary: So that by the 
Zach. 3. 1.  body of Moses, it may seem we are to understand the Religion of the jews.  I. 
That signification is new to Interpreters: As for your exposition it is so violent, as if it were allied to the Inquisition. The Literal sense may not be relinquished, till necessity do enforce. Lastly, we confirm the same by the Prophecy of Michael, where it is said that 
Apoc. 12. 7. 11.  he and his Angel, overcame the Dragon, by the blood of the Lamb.  N. 
But the name Michael signifieth who is like God: which appellation can agree to none but Christ.  I. 
This reason is weak, being built upon the sand of Etymology. Again, why may not this word signify who is like to the strong one: and so fitly be applied to a created Angel.  N. 
From Angels I come to Apostles: Where I observe first, That you have disannulled the holiday of Paul's Conversion; as also of Barnabas:; and yet to them have ye assigned Epistles and Gospels.  I. 
It was thought convenient, that the Church should not be oppressed with multitude of holidays: wherefore only the twelve Apostles were remembered, of which number Paul and Barnabas were not.  N. 
You seem to intimate that Barnabas was an Apostle: and so indeed you style him in his Collect.  I. 
The reason thereof is: First, because he was chosen with Saint Paul: yea and seemed at that time to be preferred before him. Secondly, because he chose Mark the Evangelist for his attendant; aswell as Saint Paul did Silas. 
Acts 13. 2. Acts 15. 39, 40. 1. Cor. 9 5. 6.  Thirdly, because he seemeth to be reckoned amongst the Apostles.  N. 
Next after the Apostles, I descend to the Martyrs: amongst whom you have placed the Children of Bethlehem, whom I wonder you term Innocents'.  I. 
Were they not innocent, whose Parents were jews, who were in the Covenant of Circumcision.  N. 
But it may seem: That this Divine judgement overtook them because their Parents inhumanely refused to lodge joseph and Marie.  I. 
Saint Luke yields a milder censure: 
Luke 2. ●.  namely, because there was no room in the Inn: as it might be by reason of the multitude of them, which hastening to be taxed, prevented their coming.  N. 
Can they be Martyrs who could not understand, much less acknowledge Christ?  I. 
Martyrs they were not, either as Saint Stephen in will and suffering: or as Saint john, in will but not in suffering: yet they were Martyrs insuffring for Christ: as the Children of the Israelites drowned by Pharaoh were in like manner Martyrs under the Law.  N. 
Not the punishment but the cause makes a Martyr, which they could not understand.  I. 
The cause was Christ, a most fit cause of martyrdom; which though they understand 
Math. 18. 10. Heb. 1. 14.  not, yet because God's Angels defend infants, aswell as the rest of the Elect, God upon his divine knowledge might avenge upon Herod their blood, aswell as of other Martyrs.  N. 
Your division of Martyrs is untrue: For 
Matb. 20. 23. compared with joh. 18. 11  john died a violent death as appears by the prophecy of Christ concerning him.  I. 
First, it may be; the Cup may signify aswell affliction as death. Now that Saint john was afflicted, it appears by his confining in Pathmos; which is said to be under Domitian. Secondly, the speech of Christ may be conditional, not positive; as if he had said, though you should drink of the cup of my death, yet might you not sit at my right hand, etc. Now an hypothetical speech doth not infer a positive assertion. Thirdly, though Saint john were a Martyr like Stephen: yet because Steven was the first voluntary Martyr; Saint john (though best beloved) must be placed after him: yea and after them both, the Innocent Children; as being Martyrs in another kind, dying for Christ beside, or before knowledge.  N. 
But Herod's daughter's child (who then was at nurse in Bethelem) is said to be slain with them: Can he also being the uncircumcised Nephew of a usurping Tyrant, an be termed an innocent Martyr.  I. 
First, if the most part were innocent; we draw the denomination from them: even as we name them the Psalms of David, howsoever Psal 90. was made by Moses, and Psal. 137▪ was framed in the captivity of Babylon long after David. So we say the Acts of the Apostles: and yet in that book are described actions of Stephen, Silas, Apollo's, and others which were not Apostles. Secondly, what if God would hereby show, that he intended to have Martyrs aswell of the Gentiles, as of the jews: yea, and of infants as of men in years; seeing Christ is the Saviour of them both. Thirdly, may we not say, that he which descended from Herod, was in a sort a Martyr that is, a witness of God's power, who made Herod to kill his own Son for rage, and yet delivered Christ? Is not the like said of infants upon a fare less respect by David?  N. 
From your Feasts I proceed to your Fasts: 
Psalm 8. 2.  and first I wonder at your Set Fasts?  I. 
Mean you by Set Fasts, as you did by Set Prayers? Have not many Ministers of your opinion proclaimed and set sundry Solemn Fasts?  N. 
I mean your set yearly, and weekly Fasts: which should not be celebrated but when occasion 
Math. 9 15.  of sorrow is presented. Now it may be that some occasion of public joy may be offered at the time of your Anniversary Fast.  I. 
God appointed a yearly Fast in the tenth 
Levit. 16. 29. & 23. 29.  day of the seventh month: and it might be that some occasion of common joy might then have fallen out: So that you must either acknowledge a dispensation of God's precept for a time: or that a particular and accidentary joy could not prejudice a statarie and general sorrow for sin. Whereas you pretend that Christ said, his Disciples should not fast till after his departure, only because they should not till then have just cause of mourning and Fasting, it is unsound: Seeing that in the verse following, he rendereth another reason: namely, for that they were weak like old garments and bottles: and therefore uncapable of this new discipline of Fasting.  N. 
I might return you this answer: That the Fast mentioned in the Law was Ceremonial: But, to grant that God might ordain a yearly Fast; How appeareth it that the same liberty is permitted to men?;  I. 
Indeed to fast upon the tenth day of the seventh month was a ceremony; Nevertheless a yearly set Fast, could be no more Ceremonial then to rest once in seven days: the terms are altered the quantity remaineth. Further that men may decree Set Fasts, it appears by the jews, who fasted every Year in remembrance of the siege of jerusalem, the winning 
See junius upon Zach. 8. 9 Math. 19 14.  thereof, and burning of the Temple, as also the death of Gedalia. The like is to be seen in the custom of the pharisees, and john the Baptist. Lastly, some gather the same out of the story of Hester. 
Hest. 9 31.   N. 
Though Set Fasts might be allowed: yet your Lent is but an apish imitation of Chrst his Fast.  I. 
No more apish than the custom of the Israelites, which they took up in remembrance of jacobs' wrestling with the Angel▪ Now the 
Genes. 32. 32.  custom of Lent, is not only civil, for the preservation of Cattle, and employment of the Sea, and Rivers: nor merely moral to temper lust, which riseth with the blood in the Spring: to enable men for deeds of Liberality: but even in a sort Religious (not as a part, but as a help of Religion) first to kindle Prayer, much dulled with plethorie of the body, and multitude of business. Secondly, to help us in the acknowledgement of our unworthiness of God's creatures. Thirdly, to prepare us for the solemn Communion at Easter: Besides, that we may fast and pray for the increase of grace, is clear by the example of 
Act, 10. 30, 31.  Cornelius.  N. 
But what shall we think of your Ember weeks?  I. 
They are preparatives to the Ordination of Ministers: Before which how laudable it is 
Acts 13 2.  to fast is manifest by the separation of Barnabas and Paul.  N. 
What grounds have your Fasts upon Wednesdays, Fridays, and saturdays.  I. 
Friday was by all observed because Christ died on that day. Some kept Saturday, for that Christ on that day lay in the grave, which was to all Believers a season of great heaviness. Others chose rather Wednesday, for that, upon that day judas sold our Saviour for money. Besides these causes a convenient vicissitude or exchange of Fasting with eating was judged most requisite. Which also was the cause of our Holiday Eaveses.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of Place; and Ornaments.  N. 
IT is now time; that from Time we should remove our Speech to Place, and Ornaments, enjoined in the act of Uniformity. Wherein although Chancels only be mentioned, yet Churches also seem necessarily to be presupposed.  I. 
This is not unlike Solon or Romulus, who made no Laws for Parricides, because they hoped such villainy would not be committed. So it may be our Lawgivers', did not there mention Churches, supposing no Christian would be of so leaden a heart, and brazen a forehead, as directly to wish the abolishment of Churches. For what I pray you? Are you one of them that would have Churches turned into Dove-coates and Alehouses?  N. 
Though that were justifiable by the example of jehu: yet it is sufficient for us, if they were 
2. Kings 10. 27.  demolished. Nevertheless I speak not this of mine own opinion, but according to the intent of some of the Brethren. The first reason is this. Churches are abused to Idolatry, therefore to be destroyed.  I. 
By this argument, salomon's Temple being abused by King Ahaz to manifest Idolatry, should have been razed by King Ezekias? Besides, what need you accuse the Barrowists? it is your own argument: Will you leave the nest like the Raven, because the young ones colour doth not in all points resemble you? Is not this your own reason: The Cross is abused to Idolatry, therefore to be abrogated? As for the example of jehu, it moves us not. For neither was jehu a good man: neither is every action of a good man, lawful: though lawful, yet not necessary in regard of imitation.  N. 
We insist not upon jehu his fact. Neither is our only, or principal reason against the Cross, drawn from the abusing thereof to Idolatry (as shall appear in due place.) Neither would we simply therefore have Churches defaced, for that they are so abused: but upon more important causes: Else should we wish also the ruin of Universities; which notwithstanding we are contented should remain, if these things only were reform. First, if humane Arts were less studied. Secondly, if Degrees in Schools were interdicted. Thirdly, if Marriages in Colleges were permitted.;  I. 
Arts may not properly be called humanc, seeing they have God for their Author, and are aids to expound divine Scripture. First, for Grammar. Without the Hebrew and Chaldee, the Old Testament cannot be understood exactly, because not only some part of the text is written in the Chaldean tongue: but principally because the Chaldee Paraphrase is the most apt interpreter of the Bible. The Greek tongue is also needful in regard of the Septuagint, whom the Apostles more frequently cite then the Hebrew text. The Greek to be needful in the New Testament, all acknowledge. The necessity of the Syrian would appear, if more diligence herein were used. As for the Latin, it is the tongue of the intercourse of all the Learned in Christendom. Furthermore, he that will conceive Isaiah without Rhetoric; and Paul without Logiove: the Psalms without Music and Poetry: the Ark and Temple, without Geometry: the perfect Chronologie of the Scriptures, without Arithmetic and Astronomy: Leviticus, job, and Canticles, without natural Philosophy and Physic: the Law of Moses without Ethiques, and Civil Law: the Stories of the Kings without Policy: Daniel, and the Apocalips without History; the same must assay with Xerxes to sail through the mount Athos; and walk dry-shod over Hellespont. This age is too superficial in knowledge: Cast it not into a more lazy Lethargy, with this your unseasoned zeal. Touching Degrees I say. Shall the meanest Mechanic Trade distinguish the Apprentice from the journeyman: him from the occupier: and all from the Master or Warden of the Company? And shall there be no difference between Levit & Priest? Priest, and High Priest? Lastly, what you say of Marriage, bewrayeth that you never slept in Parnassus: so great is the penury of those places: and so dangerous the Marriage of persons Collegiate, unless they be Masters, Provosts, or in the like Supreme place. But now return from our Mother the University, to her Daughters the Churches: and show us those important causes for which you would have them violated.  N. 
Places built for Idolatry; should be destroyed: But such are your Churches. Ergo.  I. 
The proof of your Mayor is mistaken. Groves, Altars, Images are by God's appointment to be destroyed, or burned (namely, the Tabernacle, or Temple remaining.) But that every house or Church built to an Idol should be pulled down, and by no means converted to a Synagogue, cannot be enforced out of this place. Again your Minor wants weight: For some of our Churches were built before, some since the days of Popery. Besides those which Papists did erect, were built for true prayer to God in Christ: what if much Idolatry were mingled? Shall the silver be reprobate because of the store of Tin.  N. 
Churches are those habitations of Antichrist, 
Apoc. 18. 1.  which are to be ruinated.  I. 
Some others would interpret them to be the Abbeys, Nunneries, and such like cages of superstition. But it is not safe to build a doctrine upon so mystical a prophecy.  N. 
They are built East and West, which the 
Ezek. 8. 16.  Prophet seems to dislike.  I. 
No marvel: For they worshipped the Sun rising. As for us, we think that God is the God of the East, as well as of the North: and of the West, as well as of the South. Neither have we any such custom as to be content ious for singularity.  N. 
Their Dedication savours of Superstiton  I. 
If in ancient time any unmeet prayers were used, we abandon them in our Dedications. Notwithstanding, that Churches may be dedicated, both that they may be appropriated to God, and alienated from all Secular use, so that occasion of alteration be cut off: As also that more reverence may be added to God's public service, appears; First, by the examples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and judas Maccabeus, who consecrated that Temple: the last whereof did then dedicate it when it had been three years and a half polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes: whereas by your doctrine he should have leveled it with the ground. But our Saviour was of an other judgement, who many years after graced that Feast of Dedication with his own presence. Secondly, the same is clear by the rule of the Apostle, avouching all things to be sanctified by the Word and Prayer. The equity of which 
1. Tim. 4. 5.  Canon seemeth to rely upon the Law of God, whereby the builder of an house is exempted from service in war, till he hath performed the Dedication of his private building. 
Deut. 20. 5.   N. 
Chancels seem to be ordained partly out of Superstition, partly, out of Pride: advancing the Minister above the people.  I. 
It was no Superstition among the jews to separate the wives from their husbands, by certain partitions in the Temple: as is probably collected out of the Prophet. The 
Zach. 12. 12.  like is to be said of parting Minister and People. Neither may we think this done in imitation of the jewish Temple only, considering there is nothing like the Holy of Holies in our Churches: but only a distinction of places, that hearing, and receiving the Communion, by this difference of place, might beget a certain diversity of reverence. As for the pride objected; it showeth your disordered mind, who by cutting off all differences of Degrees and Orders, would soon bring back the people to the Chaos of irreverence. Think you that Ezra when he made the Pulpit of wood, whereby he was advanced above the People, did it 
Nehem. 8. 4.  of pride, or only that his voice might be the more audible? Might not this also be intended: That by the height of his place, he might strike a certain awful regard into his hearers hearts? Did not God for this cause give to Moses, a shining face? Did he not therefore allot him, and Aaron the Priest, a place in the Mountain, distinct from that of the multitude; that there might be conceived a kind of pre-eminence and dignity of the Pastor above the sheep? Is any man ignorant that the vulgar sort is led by forms, and external differences in all affairs? Lastly, the charge of the Chancel being imposed upon the Minister, may seem to challenge forhim a peculiar allotment of place.  N. 
To overpass the place: the next circumstance is in Ornaments: whereof the most scandalous is the Surplice. Against the which I thus reason. No humane Rite may be ordained in God's service: But such is your Surplice. Ergo.  I. 
The method by yourself duly propounded, explaineth your Mayor, but disclaimeth your Minor. For whereas you placed the Surplice among Ornaments: and ranked them amid the circumstances: Your Mayor must thus be expounded: That humane rites, howsoever they may be circumstances of God's worship: yet ought not to be enforced as any substantial part thereof: and so your Minor will not abide the Touchstone; seeing this garment is not ordained in, but about God's worship. In sum, we place therein, not necessity of holiness, but peaceable uniformity of order.  N. 
You seem to tie certain holiness unto it: and so to incorporate it into God's service: both in that you repute sundry Minsteriall actions being done without it, as not at all performed. As also in that you put a bar of Silence before their mouths that refuse it.  I. 
Your first allegation is little less than calumnious: For you know, there is a main difference between a nullity, and a true act unlawfully executed. For example, if Baptism be administered without this attire, howsoever the action be disorderly, yet may not the Sacrament be iterated: and therefore this act cannot be adjudged for a mere nullity. Your second affection was refuted before when we entreated of Subscription▪ To which notwithstanding this might be added. First, might Solomon put Shimei to death for violating his 
1. Kings 2. 37.  commandment concerning a thing in it own nature indifferent▪ Namely, that he should not pass over the river Kidron? Nay, might he tender an oath unto him, to the intent that his obligation might be more firm? And may not we, both urge you to Subscription to things indifferent? & inflict punishment upon you, if either you refuse to Subscribe: or if subcribing you afterwards transgress your promise? Might Shimei plead to the King, the thing you require me to swear to, is in it own nature simply indifferent: & therefore this oath is but a burden to my conscience? Can the King have wished a more direct pretence of putting this malcontent to death, than such an unseasonable allegation as this? Secondly, could jonadab by his commandment for ever interdict the Rechabites, the dwelling in houses, sowing of 
jer. 35. 6, 7.  Corn, planting Vines, drinking wine; (which all were things indifferent) and cannot the like necessity of obedience to our Laws in things of equal indifferency seem reasonable? Thirdly, the rule of Saint Paul ought to be remembered; If any man consent not to the doctrine, 
1. Tim. 6. 3.  according to godliness, he is puffed up, etc. Is not consenting, a kind of Subscription? Are not things indifferent and convenient agreeable to the doctrine according to godliness. These 
2. Thess. 5. 14.  people therefore that are unorderly, and leave their station: are to be xeduced to a sound mind, even with some moderate correction.  N. 
Though the Surplice were indifferent: yet is it not convenient, as thus may be demonstrated. That garment which was worn by the Priests of Isis, jews, and Papists, is by us to be refused as inconvenient: But such is the Surplice; Ergo. The Minor is plain by Story: and concerning; 
Apoc. 18. 12.  the Papists in part by Prophecy.  I. 
Your new found story of the women Priests of Isis▪ refuseth your Mayor. For I trust you cannot prove that the Priests of Israel ware the linen Ephod before the Priests of Isis. Which if it be so, then consider again your Mayor. The garment worn by the Priests of Isis, may not be worn by the Levites. But this is manifestly untrue. The first part of your Minor is uncertain: namely, that the garment of the Egyptian and Hebrew Priests, was like our Dalmatique, or Surplice. The latter concerning Papists is weakly confirmed. For first that word which is translated Linen, by learned men is avouched to be meant Silk. Now where will you find a silken Surplice? Again if all linen used by the Whore of Babylon, should be abolished, what should become of the linen at the Communion Table: nay, what should be done with the silver Chalices? for they also were abused by her: and are mentioned likewise in that very. Lastly, it were easy to prove out of antiquity (but that you reverence not herhoarie head) that the Surplice was, before Popery was hatched.  N. 
Popery, being Antichristianitie did work in the days of the Apostles, by sundry both errors and rites: Of which number the Surplice to be one, is proved by this Argument. Every Rite, or Ceremony should edify (so saith your own Liturgy.) But so doth not your Surplice. Ergo.  I. 
It doth edify, not by any proper action thereof: but by a profitable signification.  N. 
Humane significations cannot edify: But such are those of the Surplice. Ergo.  I 
Kneeling in prayer is but humane, though it signify reverence to God. The like may be said of sitting at the Passeover: And yet some of your own combination have said, that it signifies a spiritual familiarity with God.  N. 
They have said so of sitting at the Lords Supper, but not at the Passeover, and yet indeed those two Sacraments are but one in substance. Besides though the things were humane: yet the significations were and are divine: I mean in regard of the things themselves, not in respect of the appointment which was from men, led by the light of Nature.  I. 
In this sense, the signification of the Surplice is divine: First in general to testify a reverend distinction between the Minister and People. Secondly, in more Specialty to be a symbol of 
a Eccles. 9 8.  alacrity, of 
b Apoc. 3. 18.  integrity, of our long expected 
c Matth. 17. 2. Acts 10. 20. Apoc. 3. 4. & 6. 11.  glory in heaven.   

CHAP. V.  
The Preface. Of the Common Prayers.  N. 
ARguments drawn from Scandal (though very forcible against the Surplice) yet shall be omitted till we come to the Cross. Now from the Circumstances I proceed to the substance of the Liturgy. Whereof there be two parts. First, only Speech. Secondly action, joined with Speech, called a Rite or Ceremony. Concerning the first, either the people speaketh, or God. The people speaketh to God by Prayer, or by Confession. Prayers be either ordinary and common (which are continually read) or peculiar to some times (termed Collects.) In the Preface Inuitatorie to the Common Prayers we dislike two things. First, the words: (At what time soever, etc.) seem to be alleged out of Ezekiell: which neither be there to be found: and withal, seem to promise salvation to them, which defer repentance to the very moment of death. For they insinuate, that a man may repent, at what time soever he will.  I. 
It is not a just citation of the Prophet's words: but an explanative allegation of the sense: For first, the word if, in the Prophet is 
Ezek 18. 21, 22.  equivalent with these words in the Liturgy (at what time soever.) For it is a Logic maxim, that a temporal proposition is equipollent to a conditional. Secondly, these words, (from the bottom of his heart) in the Liturgy, are explained by those in the Prophet (will return from all his sins that he hath committed: and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right) for he that performeth these things doth indeed repent from the bottom of his heart. Thirdly, these words in the Prayer Book (I will put them out of my remembrance) 
The like citations are in Rom. 5. 5 & 1. Cor. 2. 9 out of Esay 28. 16. & 64. 4.  are answerable to those in the Prophet (they shall not be mentioned to him or remembered. The Hebrew word signifying both: By all which it is clear, that late repentance is aswell fished out of the Prophet, as out of the Liturgle. The truth is, If a man repent at any time, he shall be saved. It followeth not hereupon that a man may repent at what time he will assign, seeing repentance only comes from God.  N. 
You have now contradicted a speech delivered by yourself: Namely, that late repentance 
In a certain Sermon.  is not good.  I. 
To admit of your own disjointed report. First, That is, late repentance, which is presumptuously procrastinated to the Catastrophe of life. This is ordinarily as weak and sick as the body, and is entombed with it. Secondly, Though this repentance by some miracle might be true, yet is it not good, that is, dangerous, and 
d 1. Cor. 7. 1.  scandalous. For the repentance of Adam and Solomon, are therefore not mentioned directly, because their offence did more hurt, than their repentance did good.  N. 
The second thing disallowed in the Preface, is in these words (saying after me.) By which the people are commanded to repeat the Confession after the Minister.  I. 
I never heard of any man punished for not repeating this in the Church.  N. 
If the thing were lawful and convenient, this Commandment might sufficiently bind. But the inconvenience thereof may thus appeane. As it is before a Prince, so it is before God: But it is not seemly before a Prince, that a 
Mal. 1. 8.  whole Incorporation should speak together. For which cause a Speaker as a common mouth, is chosen to propound their suit. Wherefore it is unfit that the people should recite the Confession with, or after the Minister.  I. 
First, were your Mayor true, then were it unfit to sing Psalms in God's presence. For it will be hardly decent before a Prince to declare a suit singing:) Which argument, some of your feather have taken up against Church Music: not remembering that with the same they impugn all Psalmody: Secondly, this propsition would assist the Popish invocation of God by Saints. Seeing we hardly approach to Princes, but by manifold mediators. Thirdly, the reason of the dissimilitude is this. No mortal Monarch can at once understand all suitors: which is to God most easy: being the eye that sees all: the ear that hears all; and the hand that writes all. As for the argument of the Prophet Malachy, it is of an 
A magis probabili. For it is the meaning of the place, à maiore ad minus.  other colour, and indeed drawn from an other place. He reasoneth from the greater to the less: For it is more likely, that a mortal Prince (whose breath is in his nostrils) should accept of an imperfect present: then God who turneth the hearts of Kings, as rivers in the South. Your reason is drawn from the equal, which is a most unequal comparison. Lastly, though the people rehearse the Confession after the Minister: yet is he their mouth, both in going before, and instructing them: and so the latter part of your Minor, is like a broken reed.  N. 
It seemeth the unlearned should answer no 
1. Cor. 14. 16.  more then Amen.  I. 
First, from a conceived to a set Prayer, the argument is weak. Secondly, If this interpretation of the place were rendered (how shall the unlearned say Amen that is, how shall he understand, and consent unto those prayers, which I utter in a strange tongue) how impertinent will your reason be? Thirdly, though it might be proved elsewhere, that the people is bound to answer Amen; will you hereupon infer, that they may utter no more. But more 
Deut. 27. 15.  of this, when you come to the Responsals.  N. 
But by this practice a woman is allowed to speak in the Church, which Paul doth prohibit. 
1. Cor. 14. 34.   I. 
He forbids women to teach, or propound questions in the Church: but not to answer Amen, or pray jointly with others.  N. 
This Confession, as it is repeated by the people; is neither public prayer (as being rehearsed by private men) neither yet that kind of Prayer which we term private or solitary (being recited in a public place) and therefore no true kind of prayer.;  I. 
This is like an ancient plea in Law. A private man's money was stolen out of a Temple. The question was; whether it were theft or sacrilege? But as I suppose the latter opinion should there prevail: So here I answer, That this is public Prayer, as being dictated by a Minister, and repeated only by the whole Congregation in a place most public.  N. 
It seemeth strange, That the people is enjoined to repeat after this manner only this Prayer: the Confession, in the Communion: and the Creed of the Apostles.  I. 
The reason is obvious: because in the Confession of our sins, and faith there is required a most personal application: whereby many serious motions are stirred up in the heart, otherwise most adamantine.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Lord's Prayer.  N 
AFter the Preface I come to the ordinary Prayers: which either be delivered in prose, and pronounced in plain direct speech: Or else are hymns. Of the former kind, The first we dislike is, the absolution: which of late hath gotten a new name of remission, at the instant request of some of our men.  I. 
Not unlike the commander of the Turks: who will not be styled King or Emperor, but Turk, or Great Turk: a name surmounting all ambition.  N. 
What reason we had for the change of that name, you shall hear when we treat of the visitation of the sick. Now we will proceed to the Lords Prayer: Wherein some brethren are displeased, because it is used as a Prayer. But we not allowing of their Zeal; do notwithstanding dislike your battalogie: seeing you repeat it eight times at one meeting, upon sundry occasions. As also that you omit the Doxology, or conclusion of the Lords Prayer (for thine 
Matth. 6. 13.  is the kingdom, etc.) which is found in the Gospel: And this omission is so much the worse, because it fetcheth the pedigree from the Mass-book.  I 
Although you relinquish the brethren of the Separation (which is she English word for a Schism) yet I pray of all courtesy, let me over entreat you to answer their arguments concerning this matter.  N. 
Although you seem to turn the buckler into the sword: and to shoot at suspicious rovers: yet lest you should imagine me to be smoked with Barrowisme: I will attempt to answer the reasons, if you propound them.  I. 
The first reason is this: It is said: pray thus (that is in this manner, to this effect or sense.) It is not written pray this prayer (that is conceive or take together these very syllables. This interpretation is confirmed; first by the like in Moses, where it is written, thus shall ye bless (thus I say, and not this:) Secondly, 
Numb. 6. 23.  because else we were obliged to use no other form then the Lords prayer.  N. 
The reason faileth: First, because by this 
Eight times in Amos 1. & 2. Deut. 7 5.  argument: when the Prophet saith, thus saith the Lord, and when God saith, Thus shalt thou deal: we should conceive the rehearsal of the very words: and the performance of the very deed not to be enjoined. Notwithstanding we know that the Prophets had not only their matter and method, but even their very words from the never erring spirit; and that God's Law may not be illuded: Secondly, it is written in 
Luke 11. 2.  Luke, Pray saying: so that not only the observation of the matter, but even the repetition of the words is commanded. The place in Moses is not aptly paralleled. For in what language will these words receive a good construction. Bless, this (that is, use this precise form of blessing:) last, whereas they pretend, that we should be bound to use no form of Prayer, but the Lords: This only indeed may be instead thereof: Namely, that we ought to use this Prayer both as a mirror, and exemplary direction to all our suits: and as an absolute compliment of our imperfect Prayers.  I: 
The second argument is this: We read not that this prayer was ever used by the Apostles.  N. 
We never read that the Apostles prayed together in public, but once: and upon a particular 
Acts 4. 24.  occasion (I mean where the words of their prayers are specified.) Upon this negative testimony, we may not conclude in a matter of fact. For I have heard some report out of old Books, that S. Peter used it in Baptism. Howsoever this be, (for it is uncertain) yet as God commanded a Feast, and Elias promised a double 
Levit. 16 29. 2. Kings 2. 10.  portion of the spirit to Elisha, though the performance of these be not set down, yet no scruple is to be made of them. So, forasmuch as Christ commanded his Disciples to use this prayer, we may not doubt of their obedience herein, though it be not expressed.  I. 
I render you due thankes for this digression: Howbeit, you shall now perceive that we have not digressed at all. To come then to your first exception of battology. We answer, that vain repetition is, when words are repeated, being directed neither with reason of art, neither with zeal of the heart▪ neither with a supposal of a justly implied necessity. The two first seem to be in that famous repetition (for his mercy endureth 
26 times in the 136. Psalm Matth. 26. 44.  for ever:) the third in that rehearsal of Christ: All three appear in our use of the Lords Prayer. For seeing that we know not what to pray as we ought, we make this prayer as a compliment of all our imperfections, and that with art and zeal (we hope) sufficient.  N. 
But why do you iterate it eight times at one meeting?  I. 
It is as rare a thing to come to such a meeting as to behold a Tree bearing Nuts, Figs, Cherries, and Apples. But first we use it almost in the entrance of our prayer after the Absolution: Secondly, after the Creed: whereof one reason may be drawn out of the Queen's Injunctions, wherein it was appointed, that after the second Lesson (if there were no Sermon) the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and ten Commandments, should be read for the instruction of the ignorant: Another reason may be this, many are not present at the rehearsal of the Lords Prayer: seeing the mulet of absence is not inflicted, if men come whilst the Psalms are in reading. This prayer therefore, being so necessary, is conveniently then repeated, to aidee there the negligence or necessities of many comers. Thirdly, we join this Prayer to the Litany, because it is oftentimes said alone (as upon Wednesdays and Fridays.) Now this (as also all other Prayers) were imperfect without this supplement of the divine Prayer: which if you deny, you fall into the quick sand of Brownisme. The other fine times, namely, at the two Sacraments, Marriage, Churching, Burial) because the actions are many times distinct and alone, yea and seldom, or never all concur, may severally seem to require the annexing of this heavenly Prayer.  N. 
You have invented shifts in appearance for your needless repetitions: But how can you cleake the omitting of the Doxology?  I. 
First, you never heard of any man molested or rebuked for repeating the same: For indeed the rehearsal thereof is not prohibited: Secondly, it is omitted, not only in the vulgar translation but even in one ancient Greek C●p●e (as Beza witnesseth.) Thirdly, it is also left out in Luke, who would not have neglected 
Luke 11. 5.  an essential necessary part of so exact a Prayer.  N. 
If this be wanting, Prayer will be defective: as containing Petitions, but ●● Thanksgiving.  I. 
First, some might say: That CHRIST taught us to ask, but not to give thankes: not because gratulation is less needful, but more east. For to a man that asketh according to knowledge, if his demands be granted, it will be no great difficulty to bring in the harvest of thankes, according to his own Seedtime of Petitions: Secondly, some do avouch that in each petition all kinds of Prayer appointed by Saint Paul, are by 
1. Tim. 2. 1.  consequence implied: Thirdly, these words hallowed be thy name, if they be interpreted as a Thanksgiving, your argument were at an end: Fourthly, this conclusion of the Lords Prayer will hardly be enforced to be a Thanksgiving, but rather a Doxology or Recognition of God's due.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of short Prayers.  N. 
FRom the Lord's Prayer, we descend to those Prayers which are invented by men. These be either but bits of Prayers, and short wishes, rather than Prayers: Or drawn into length (called the Litany.) Of the first kind are these: O Lord open thou our lips. O Lord make haste to help us, and the like, whose general fault is their curt brevity.  I. 
I remember you were offended at the length of our Liturgy: & now you are displeased at the shortness of our prayers? Not unlike them, which being called Papists, do answer that they should be styled Catholics: And then being termed Catholics, thus come upon us at the back door, that we be Heretics, because we contradict them being Catholics. Or not unlike children which cry for ice, and when they have it, cry because it is cold.  N. 
Leave your descants: Though your Liturgy be long: yet some of your Prayers are but cuts, poor pittances, and crumbs of Prayers.  I. 
If these also were enlarged, our Service Book would be longer than a Westphalian mile, or the 
b Which some have fabled to contain twenty months, each month twenty days Gene. 19 20. Numb. 10. 35. josua 10. 12. judg. 15. 18. & 16. 28. Matth. 26. 39 2. Cor. 13 13. Gal. 6. 18. Gene. 18. 23. 1. King. 8. 23. 2. King. 19 15. Isa. 38. 10. Dan. 9 2. jon. 2. Hab, 3. joh. 17.  year of the Cubans. But now to approach to the matter, we find many short prayers in the Scripture, not exceeding, nay scarce equalising these of ours in length. As for long prayers, besides the Psalms (which yet are not all of them prayers) we find not many. In all not above nine: whereof three are subdivided into sundry Sections (namely that of Abraham, Solomon, and the Lords Prayer.) The other six only seem to have continued length. By which it appears that we have sufficient precedents, for both kinds of prayers. Again, shortness of prayer is then most convenient, when we intent some greater action of an other nature, and yet holy, or at least lawful: For this cause, long Grace, by discreet men is not allowed Lastly these short prayers, are certain quick 
Parce Civibus Miles faciem feri.  provocations to ardent Zeal, not bnlike Caesar's brief Apothegms.  N. 
Besides the defect in quantity: These prayers are also vicious, in regard both of the person uttering; and the matter uttered. The person uttering is named first a Priest: a term not convenient to the Ministers of the Gospel.;  I. 
Do you term our Ministers Evangelicall, being ordained by Bishops; men in your opinion Petty Popes, and servants of Antichrist?  N. 
For the present we grant them to be true Ministers. For we contend not about the substance, but for the title.  I. 
It seemeth your altercation is about words, which be the wool of a Goat.  N. 
The word Priest is, by Consequence, dangerous: and therefore to be changed.  I. 
Before you change this term, how would you have these men to be entitled?  N. 
Let them be called Pastors Doctors, Preachers, Ministers, Bishops, Elders.  I. 
First, if Pastors be translated Shepherds, you will hardly allow the baseness of that name: Secondly, if Pastors be turned Feeders; and Doctors, Teachers, how can men, feed or teach, but by preaching? So that your three first terms are confounded. The name of Minister is in Greek all one with Deacon: which after your construction is only conversant about alms. The style of Bishop I can prone to be only proper to him that may ordain Priests.  N. 
I will not now be entangled with that controversy: Wherefore let them be called Elders or Seniors; but Priests by no means.;  I. 
First, the name of Elder is given by the Hebrews to the Civil Magistrate: and by you 
Deut. 2. 4. judges 8. 14. Ruth 4. 2.  to certain Laymen, which assist the Pastor in the Consistory: and by us to men of another quality than Priests. For who can be ignorant what be Aldermen in Towns, and Seniors in Colleges? Secondly, the name Priest, is deduced from the 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek word, which signifieth Elder. And now tell I pray you, why you disallow the term Priest?  N. 
First, because it signifieth a Sacrificer.  I. 
First, neither is this the proper signification of the word: for in Hebrew it betokeneth 
Gen. 41. 45. 2. Sam. 8. 18. Hence the Tartarians call their King Can of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sacerdos of Sacer, and Does. For Does in old time was of the masculine gender.  a Prince, aswell as a Priest: In Greek, a holy man, or one conversant about holy things: In Latin, a holy Dowry: of the English you heard before. Secondly, and though it should signify a Sacrificer, yet were not the term dangerous. For the Priest of the New Testament, doth offer unto God, the Sacrifice of prayer: and administereth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is also a Sacrifice.  N. 
How can this be spoken without Popery, which maketh men to eat Christ? A thing more infamous, then either that of the Cannibals, where men eat men; or that of the worshippers of Moloch, where God was thought to eat men: for here man devours God.  I. 
The Romish Sacrifice we allow not: And yet in four respecs, the Sacrament may be termed a Sacrifice. First, because therein we offer ourselves to God, as a reasonable Sacrifice: Secondly, because we present him with the fruit & calves 
a Rom 12. 1. Some conjecture that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hose 14. 3. that is calves was read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is fruits, Heb. 13. 15.  of our lips, the most acceptable sacrifice: 3: For that we give him the Sacrifice of Alms: Fourthly, & principally because it is the Remembrance, Sign, Seal, & Instrument of applying to us, the only Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross.  N. 
The second cause of our disliking this name Priest is, for that the Scripture doth not yield it to the Ministers of the Gospel. I  I. 
The Prophet calleth them Priests and 
Esay 66. 2●.  Levites.  N. 
That is only done in the Old Testament, 
Mal. 1. 11.  by allusion to the Priests of the Law: as elsewhere Prayer is called a clean Sacrifice, in the like sense.  I. 
And yet (as even now you heard) the author to the Hebrews calleth prayer a Sacrifice by virtue of this allusion: whereby also the Prophet was moved to call our Ministers, Priests.  N. 
This he did not because they should be so styled: but because they should succeed them, not in action but in Office.  I. 
Not in action? Did not the Priests of the Law both pray, and teach the people? Had they not many of the same outward Rites that we have (howsoever they may seem something to be varied in Circumstances?) Did not they use Water, Bread, Wine; all which notwithstanding were by Christ retained?  N. 
But you cannot show in the New Testament, this name, in this meaning.  I. 
The name is given to all Christians by 
1. Pet. 2. 5. & 9 Apoc. 1. 6.  two Apostles: And why should we deny it to Ministers, to whom principally it doth appertain?  N. 
That name is common to all: and therefore may not be appropriated to them.  I. 
It may be ascribed to them, though not properly, yet principally: because they offer to God, not only solitary and private prayers (as other Christians do) but even the public Supplications of the whole Church. For all true Israelites, were by the merits of Christ 
Exod. 19 6.  (though to come) made true Priests in this general sense: and yet this hindered not, but that they of the house of Aaron, might be called Priests.  N. 
But the New Testament doth no where attribute directly this name to our Church Officers.  I. 
You still reason from negative testimonies which are but dumb witnesses.  N. 
I reason from the practice of the Evangelists and Apostles: which did of purpose avoid this name: because the Legal Priesthood and Temple were yet standing. In like manner should we eschew this term because of the Popish Priesthood.  I. 
I hope in Isaiahs' time the Priesthood and Temple were not abrogated, and yet he called our Ministers Priests. As for the Popish Priests, they can no more hinder us from the use of this name, than the Priests of Tammuz could hinder the Priests of Israel. Did the Fathers therefore abstain from this name, because the Priests of Saturn and juno were at Carthage, or jupiter at Rome, Pallas at Athens, and the like?  N. 
From the Priests we come to the People: which also do utter public Prayers: For like Priest, like People.  I 
I had thought you had been satisfied when we treated about the Preface of the Common Prayers.  N. 
You did then only endeavour to show that the People might say after the Minister, not that they might answer him: The reason and end whereof I cannot conceive.  I. 
The end thereof: First, is to ease the Priest: Secondly, to raise up in the People, memory, attention, and zeal: the first to prepare the mind; the second to make it concur with the Priest: The third, to apply the Public sayings to each private man's use.  N. 
If a good intention might make a good action: the money changers in the Temple might be justified, which helped the people to the money of the Sanctuary, but where is the warrant of your practice?  I. 
Our warrant is drawn from proportion: As the Priest would not suffer David and his followers to taste of the holy bread unless they had been separate from women, by analogy to God's Commandments upon Mount Sinai: So we cause the People to answer 
1. Sam. 21. 4. Exod. 19 15.  the Priest by a proportionable reference to the practice of Miriam and Anna. Again, seeing diverse of the Psalms are prayers: And 
Exod. 15. 20, 21 Luke 2. 38. Consider the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  public psalmody is approved by all men of tempered wits: We know not why the people's Responsals or answers in prayer should be rejected.  N. 
There is no less error in the matter then in the persons. The first fault of the matter is their using of Gloria Patri, which is but an human: invention.  I. 
Were it so yet were it tolerable (as we shown when we spoke of Set Prayer.) But true it is that Athanasius, a man, invented it: and the whole Church approved it: which (as we think) had the Spirit of God.  N. 
That whose first use is decayed, aught to be abolished: but the use of Gloria Patri is now decayed (which was to detest Arrians and Macedonians denying the Godhead of Christ. and of the Holy Ghost) now therefore it is to be abrogated.;  I. 
First, the Mayor is untrue: For though the first use of the Ark, were to preserve Noah with his Family: yet Moses made an Ark for 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ark to preserve things alive. Gen. 6. 14. whence Thebes was called by the houses thereof built of Cadmus' ships. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ark to keep things without life. Exod. 25. 10.  another use: And though the first use of Manna were to feed the people, yet it was reserved in the Golden Pot many hundred years. The like is to be said of the Brazen Serpent, which though it healed not them that looked on it: yet was it kept till the days of Ezekias. Again your Minor is weak: For at this day we know (by a certain migration of souls, or art of Endor) sundry both Arrians and Samosatenians and Tritheites, Turks, and jews, which do no less impugn the Trinity, than did the Old Heretics. Besides the Grecians denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son, deny withal (in our opinion) the son's equality with the Father, which seemeth to be acknowledged by this Gloria Patri. Are there not amongst us many Familists, which are said to disclaim the Godhead of the Holy Ghost? Are there not many stiffnecked Atheists, which all in their lives, some in plain words, deny the Glory, Trinity and Eternity of God, which three things are orderly combined in this Doxology? Nay, is any man of that transcendent capacity, to whom it shall not be available to have this more than Supercelestial Mystery often inculcated into his flitting memory?  N. 
The words we might better endure were they not so unseasonably reiterated at the end of all the Psalms; and sundry Hymns.;  I. 
You complain (as I hear) that Alleluia (Praise ye the Lord) is omitted seventeen times in the end of certain Psalms: and yet when we, at the end of every Psalm, do most distinctly praise God, (which Alleluia doth enjoin us to do) you seem to be in Choler. Again the end of this rehearsal, is, First, that the ignorant, which cannot read, may be advertised where each Psalm endeth: Secondly, that the true use of Psalms (which is the praising of God) may be manifested in practice: Thirdly, That many irreverent persons by means of this (which seemeth to be a kind of prayer) may be put in mind of the duty which is most decent in the hearing of the Psalms, namely, vailing the Bonnet, which many do (with as little regard) neglect, as they which depart from Baptism, before the Thanksgiving. Of which kind of Sacrilegious profaneness, we observe many lamentable trials among the dissolute multitude.  N. 
The second fault in the matter of these prayers, is found in these words after the Apostles Creed, There is none other that fighteth for us but only thou O God.  I. 
Are there not sins enough? why make you more? what is the knot in this bulrush?  N. 
First, you seem to pray for peace in your own time, without regarding the posterity.  I. 
We pray for the one as being a blessing of God promised to two worthy Kings of juda: 
2. Kings 20. 19 & 22, 10.  the latter we neglect not. Only we dare not presume that peace shall remain with us with her wings clipped for ever. When we ask bread for this day, do we neglect to morrow? Do we not tread as near as may be in the steps of Christ, who forbids us to take care for to morrow?  N. 
Again, when you pray for peace, because none fighteth for you but God: you seem to intimate that you would not fear war if any should fight for you but God.  I. 
This is rather our meaning: That we fear no war, but expect an eternal peace if God defend us, who is the Lord of Sabaoth, (that is of Hosts) At which word in the Te Deum some have cavilled: not remembering that it is found in the Greek Text of Saint Paul: For had it been in the Te Deum: Sabbath 
Rom. 9 29.  not Sabaoth might not that also be justified? Did not sundry ancient jews term God, the Lord of the Sabbath Day? Is he not indeed the Lord of rest, which that word implieth? But to return from this seeming digression: God is our 
a Psal 18. 2. & 121 4 & 127. 2  shield, and 
b Psal. 73 25.  watchful keeper: him only we have in Heaven and Earth. And now remember you avouched 
c Dan. 10. 21.  Michael to be Christ. Consider the words there written. There is none that holdeth with me in these things but Michael your Prince. If Michael here be Christ, are not the words the same in effect with these in our Liturgy at which you stumble? In sum, though Angels and Men fight for us ministerially, and in the nature of instruments; yet God only fighteth as principal Agent, teaching our 
d Psal. 18. 34.  hands to fight.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Litany.  N. 
THe Short Prayers being handled, I proceed to the Litany: being a more continued form of Prayer: which (as I take it) doth want things needful, and abound with things needless or evil. First, than it wanteth a Thanksgiving, which is as necessary a part of Prayer as Petition.  I. 
If there be six or seven Petitions in the Lord's Prayer (for there are of both opinions) I believe the Lords Prayer will have the same defect.  N. 
The conclusion of the Prayer, in these words (for thine is the Kingdom, etc.) is a Thanksgiving: so that the prayer is not herein defective.  I. 
I shown before, that to be no Thanksgiving: But, if it be, then is not the Litany destitute of Prayers in this kind. For these words, O holy, blessed and glorious Trinity: and these, O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, are they not a direct Doxology? Have we not elsewhere sundry forms of Thanksgiving prescribed both in your larger sense, (as that of Gloria Patri: and that in the beginning of the Gospel: Glory be to thee, O Lord; together with Te Deum, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, Benedictus, and Benedicite: as also in the more strict acception of the word (for example after Baptism:) likewise in the Communion, in Churching, yea and in Burial.) Doth not the Church upon all occasions (besides the yearly Solemnities, which are nothing but Thankesgivings to God for his benefits in his Son, Angels, Saints) appoint many Eucharistical forms, publicly to be celebrated? What should I speak of the four and twentieth of March: and five and twentieth of july: the fift of August, and November; whose gratulatory memorial, are observed with all Symbols of Christian joy.  N. 
But why do you not ordain a continual Thanksgiving to God, whose mercies are continual?  I. 
We read the Psalms daily, with sundry Hymns of Thanksgiving. Besides, if you suppose our gratulations should be as particularly determined as our petitions, you turn Earth into Heaven: In Heaven there shall be an eternal Alleluia, & cause or matter of Thanksgiving: But on Earth, though our wants be many of them, standing and continued, and so our petitions unalterable: yet the variation of the benefits which we receive, doth many ways diversify the forms of our gratulations. In prescribing whereof Our Church is not negligent, when new occurrences fall.  N. 
From the want of things needful, I go on to the store of things needless or evil: and that either in the form or matter, and object of Prayer. In the form we dislike these words: By the mystery of thy holy Incarnation, etc. which either we take to be Oaths (things most strange in Prayer) or certain magical Exorcisms, and Conjurations: other sense of these words we cannot imagine.  I. 
You have at once, hatched four errors: whereof the two former concern an oath. The first is, that wheresoever you hear this word by; you presently conceive an oath. Whereupon, when you read these words, by the life of Pharaoh: you conjecture that joseph 
Gen. 42. 15, 16.  learned to swear in Egypt by the life of a King: whereas the Hebrew hath simply Pharaoh life's: which phrase notwithstanding sounds but harshly in our English ears: And yet some of your men doubt not to tell the people, that this was an oath.  N. 
Therein they do not err. For did not juda say to jacob: the man charged us by an oath? 
Gen. 4●. 3.   I. 
First, the Hebrew Text may be thus rendered: the man did in contesting, contest, or in protesting protest to us, that is, he did charge us with an earnest protestation. If this sense stand, your oath doth vanish: But because the word may signify to attest▪ or call God to witness: or to adjure, (that is, to cause another to swear) though the ordinary Translation be not changed: yet we may say: that either he charged them to swear they would bring Benjamin: or himself did call God to witness, if they brought not Benjamin they should not go unpunished? wherefore seeing Charity craveth the most favourable exposition; no necessity doth enforce us to think that joseph his saying, by the life of Pharaoh was an oath. The second error is: That you make an Oath and Prayer things repugnant: whereas the two ingredients of an oath (the attestation of God, or calling him to witness: and the supplication made unto him, that he would reveal the truth, and revenge falsehood) are both found in Prayer: wherein we both call for his presence; and use many times as well imprecation conditional, as postulation.  N. 
What? then would you have men to swear when they pray?  I 
Nothing less: But only by this you see that an Oath and Prayer agree in substance, howsoever they seem to differ in circumstance of terms. Your third error is, in that you suppose all charging of God by the remembrance of his former benefits to be mere conjuring. Think you Dido conjured, when she said, Per Connubia nostra, that is, By our 
Aeneid. 4.  Marriage I entreat you Aeneas to return to me?  N. 
I pass not for your Poetical instance. What good construction can you make of these words in the Litany?  I. 
Therein stands your fourth error: For the interpretation of the words be plain: That we desire God to aid us: by applying to us those fifteen benefits there rehearsed, as every man of mean capacity may conceive.  N. 
From the form let us go to the object: according to which your Prayers may be divided into Intercessions and Deprecations. Your Intercessions are three: First, you pray that God would have mercy upon all men: whereas Christ would not pray for the world.  I. 
Christ knew the number of the Elect; so 
john 7. 9  do not we: wherefore his example herein is unimitable. But now (I pray you) consider this reason. Whom God would have saved, for them we may pray that God would show them mercy: But God would have all men saved: we may therefore pray for his mercy towards all. 
1. Tim. 2. 4.   N. 
Though your Minor might be answered 
The will of the sign is whereby God offereth grace in the preaching of the Gospel. Acts 17. 30.  with those three known distinctions (First, that God willeth by the will of the sign: not of his good pleasure. Secondly, he willeth it now: namely, since the death of Christ. Thirdly, all men: not every particular man: but men of all orders, to be saved:) Nevertheless, your argument may be thus retorted upon you: whom God will not save, for mercy towards them we may not pray: But God wils not that all men should be saved (for then there should be no reprobation or use of Hell) we need not therefore pray thus for all men.  I. 
Your three distinctions upon the place of Saint Paul may clear our Litany: For as God wils all men to be saved: so do we pray for his general mercy. Nevertheless, I thus answer your argument: First, then to let pass your faults in reasoning. Your Mayor is ambiguous: For if you mean the secret will of God: 
All the Propositions are negative: The Minor negative in the first figure. So they did in old time to parricides.  put the case your Father were appointed by God, to endure some horrible death: if you notwithstanding should not pray against it, were you not worthy to be sowed in a sack, with a Cock, an Ape, a Dog and a Snake, and so forthwith to be cast into the Sea?  N. 
But I speak of Gods revealed will not of his secret. Now God hath revealed in his word that 
Rom. 9 21. 2. Tim. 2. 20.  some are vessels of dishonour, and cannot be saved.  I. 
Hath God revealed that he will not have all men now living to be saved? As for prayer for the dead, it is repugnant to the doctrine of our Church.  N. 
Howsoever this point shall be more fully tried in the Catechism: yet it seems you pray for the Dead in your second Intercession, wherein you say, remember not the offences of our forefathers.  I. 
Through the sides of the Litany you strike at Baruch, and the writer of the Macchabees. 
Baruch 3. 5. 2. Mac. 12 42.   N. 
We think they all err alike: seeing they defend Popish Prayers for the Dead.  I. 
What think you of the Prayer in the Psalm: Remember not against us the former 
Psal. 79. 8.  iniquities: That is (as Baruch expoundeth it) the wickedness of our Fathers: which God oftentimes visiteth upon the children. And so judas Macchabeus prayed, that the sin of the slain men might not bring destruction upon the whole Army: as the sacrilege of Achan did upon the host of joshua: and as the sins of Saul, jeroboam, and Achab brought forth ripe punishments in the days of their successors: For God punisheth the transgression of the fathers in the children two ways: First, with eternal punishment: when he delivereth the children into a reprobate sense: that they may imitate their father's fault, which fault notwithstanding is their own in regard of action: howsoever it be imputed to their Parents in respect of example. Secondly, with temporal Chastisement, although the Children be godly.  N. 
The former iniquities mentioned in the Psalm; may be expounded of those sins, which men that are here brought in praying, had committed before the time of this punishment, and not of the sins of their Ancestors.;  I. 
But is this interpretation against the analogy of faith? Doth not God indeed punish the sin both of the Fathers upon the children; and of the Dead upon the Living?  N. 
Though this be granted yet judas Macchabeus 
2. Mac. 12. 43, 44.  cannot be justified who both prayed, and offered a sin offerring for the Dead.  I. 
Howsoever you trust not us: yet believe some, of whose skill and good intention herein you cannot doubt. The sum of the answer 
Reynolds de Idololatria.  is this: judas prayed for two things: First, that the offence of the slain men might not be imputed to his Army? Secondly, He entreated for their joyful resurrection, charitably hoping that they had in the act of death repent of their sin. Again the sin offering for the dead may be understood Causally, not Subiectively: For their sins were the cause why it was offered, yet were they not subjects capable of the benefits arising thereby.  N. 
This shift is cut off by the last words of the Chapter, which are these, that they might be freed from sin: And this clause can be referred to none but the slain men.  I. 
These words (if they be not corrupted) as the same author conjectureth (for you know that we neither hold them Canonical, nor read them in our Churches) must be referred to the men in his Army, which were alive: Again, some have not doubted to answer that sin may be forgiven after this life, Because 
Sir Edward Hobby against Higgins.  the full pardon thereof is not declared till the general judgement. But now to return to the Litany; do you think that our prayer is popish?  N. 
I suspect, that according to the Papists, you think the guilt to be taken away by death, and yet the punishment in Purgatory to remain.  I. 
The Papists imagine the guilt of Venial sin only to be removed by death. Now this sin (wherein the Soldiers of judas died) was mortal as cannot be denied: Wherefore we gratify not the Papists in allowing this History. Again, where is your Charity, when you charge us with purgatory, seeing the stream of our Church's Doctrine runneth against it.  N. 
I care not for your stream: For you look Eastward, and row Westward: I will now pass to the third Intercession.  I. 
Before you pass; let me know what you mean by this word Intercession?  N. 
What should I mean but a Prayer which we make for other men?  I. 
When we pray for all men, do we not pray for our selves? And when we pray that God would not remember against us, the sins of Our Forefathers, is not this Prayer made in behalf of ourselves; that God would not inflict punishment upon us for their transgressions.  N. 
I had thought; when you said all men: you meant all but yourselves: And that in the other Prayer you had been Suppliants for the dead. Now your third Intercession is Illuminate all Bishops, etc. Pray you herein for true, or for false Bishops?  I. 
In your opinion we cannot pray for true Bishops▪ For you imagine true Bishops to be only ordained by your Discipline which we have not. Also you think that you are not bound to pray for men of a contrary Religion to your own: But the truth is, we pray for both: namely, that God would give the beginning of light to the false; and the increase thereof to the true Bishops.  N. 
It is unseasonable now to tell what we think in this point: For I will not at this present be enwrapped in this question: Only we think that you pray for Popish Bishops: Against which I thus reason. For Antichrist; we may not pray: But Popish Bishops are the servants of Antichrist: therefore not to be prayed for.  I. 
First your Mayor is doubtful to me: For I believe, by Antichrist you mean the Pope.  N. 
I mean so: what scruple is there in it?  I. 
A scruple which you can never remove: As I will thus confirm. Antichrist is not one man: But a state or succession of men: Now the Pope is only one man: and therefore cannot be Antichrist. The Mayor is affirmed by all Protestants: the Minor is confirmed by common sense.  N. 
By the Pope I mean the Papacy or Succession of Popes: not this or that individual Pope.  I. 
What then? May we not pray that this Pope that now sitteth at Rome may be converted, although he be in in the seat of Antichrist? May we pray for a Pope, and not for the Popish Bishops? Again in your Minor you change the Medium; and turn the state of the question: For from Antichrist, you run to Antichrist his servants.  N. 
Between him and his servants there is as much difference as between Hell and Gehenna.  I. 
Your charity is too hot, and smells of the Brimstone of that place whereof you speak: Think you that Antichrist can be saved?  N. 
I think he cannot No more can his servants.  I. 
Can they not relinquish his service, and become Reformed Christians.  N. 
They may, but then they cease to be his servants.  I. 
You mean then, That we may pray for them as Bishops but not as Popish. Now we pray that God would illuminate all Bishops, that is, deliver them from the darkness of Popery, and all manner of errors. Again, why beat you the bush in this manner? I know you mean that our Lord Bishops are Popish, and the servants of Antichrist; Neither can you be ignorant, that for their sake principally this Prayer is intended.  N. 
If it be so, I am the more sorry, except you mean to pray for their conversion. Howsoever it be, I will not now enter into that combat. But from your Intercession I make haste to your Deprecations: which either concern things spiritual or temporal. Of the first kind is this Prayer: From fornication and all other Deadly Sins: wherein you seem to make fornication no sin.  I. 
Do we pray to be delivered from it as from a Punishment▪ or as from a Sin?  N. 
You made the doubt yourself. Be you the Oedipus: sure I am, you make it no sin as may thus be proved: All sin is deadly (as no Protestant will deny) But fornication, in your Litany, is no deadly sin; and consequently no sin. The Minor thus appears, You say; Fornication, and all other deadly sins: whereby you distinguish Fornication from the other, as not being of that kind.;  I. 
When David saith, Sheep and Oxen yea, and the beasts of the field: doth he exclude Sheep and Oxen out of the number of the beasts of the field? When Saint Paul saith, As the Apostles and the brethren of the Lord; and Cephas. Doth he deny the Lords brethren and Cephas to be Apostles? Do not the Papists themselves acknowledge Fornication to be one of the Deadly sins? And do you vilify us in respect of them?  N. 
You vilify yourselves in making seven deadly sins like Papists: which some humorous men have applied to the seven Planets, according to the days of the week: As Pride to the glorious Sun: Envy to the pale Moon: Wrath to fierce Mars: Covetousness to subtle Mercury: Gluttony or Drunkenness to prodigal jupiter: Lust to wanton Venus: Sloth to dull Saturn.  I. 
I dispute not now whether these men did invent this method, partly for memory, partly to show that lanets, though they compel not man's mind, yet they incline his affection unless he break and tame his natural disposition. Only this I demand: Do the Papists make no other deadly sins than these seven? Is not heresy with them capital? Do they not make six sins against the Holy Ghost? Presumption, Despair, Final Impenitency, Obstinate Malice, Inuidence, or Envy against God's grace in our brother: resisting of the known truth.  N. 
Yea yourself made Envy, not long ago, 
In a Sermon upon Rom. 1. 29  a sin against the Holy Ghost.  I. 
It was then declared, that there is but one sin against the Holy Ghost: and therefore that those six things reckoned by the Schoolmen out of Saint Austin, are rather parts than kinds of that sin. Also it was showed that Envy was of two kinds. The first, whereby one desireth another's happiness to be translated to himself: Another, whereby he is sorry that any virtue remaineth in the 
Matth. 13. 28.  world. This latter is in him that is called the envious man: and may be a part of that dreadful sin against the Holy Spirit.  N. 
But you said in another Sermon that Witches sin against the Holy Ghost.  I. 
I said it not of myself, but recited it out of the King's Majesty's Book called the Demonology: The worthiness whereof I thought to be such (though it had been written by a man unknown, or merely private) as might stop all Cavils. But now what can you allege against it? Do not some Witches plainly renounce God, and that with a voluntary and direct obstinacy? Do they not often blaspheme that God whom they have known and acknowledged? Can this iniquity be distinguished from the sin against the Holy Ghost.  N. 
It was affirmed (by them that reported it to us) that these were your assertions: Witches sin against the Holy Ghost: Envy is the sin against the Holy Ghost.  I. 
Men of your profession should be diligent hearers, and slow believers. For you know that Fame is like the urine, which, till it be chafed, and tried, is as deceitful as an Harlot.  N. 
Well if the Papists and you make more deadly sins then seven: why are these seven only reckoned?  I. 
Let the Papists themselves tender a reason of their own popular division: As for us, we account all firm in it own nature to be mortal.  N. 
But you seem to imply the vulgar Popish distribution of Sins into Mortal and Venial.  I. 
Do none divide Sin in this manner but Papists? Doth not Bellarmine tell you, 
Bellar. lib. 2. de peccato.  that Lutherans hold all the sins of the Elect to be venial: of the reprobate to be mortal? Dare you deny the Public Doctrine of our Church, that all sins (except that against the Holy Ghost) howsoever, in their own nature, they be deadly, yet are made through the merits of Christ, venial, and pardonable.  N. 
From spiritual things I come to temporal: Whereof both the number and matter are by us disliked. Touching the first. The number of your prayers for Temporal benefits, exceedeth them which are made for Spiritual graces: whereas of the six Petitions in the Lord's Prayer, the fourth only is for Temporal things.  I. 
When we pray in the sixth Petition: Led us not into temptation, against what temptations do we pray?  N. 
Temptation is from God, either immediately without means (as that which is termed the Divine temptation, namely, when the wrath of God doth immediately seize upon the Conscience:) Or else by means, which are three: First, the Devil who stirs up the blasphemous temptation: Secondly, the flesh, or part unregenerate, from which do issue both the temptations of sin, affrighting the Conscience, and of Fancy molested with Melancholy: Thirdly, the world, by and in which are raised outward temporal afflictions.  I. 
I will not now dispute about your division: Only you confess, that in this sixth Petition you pray against temporal affliction, and so for a temporal blessing. But now tell me I pray you, when in the seventh Petition we say Deliver us from evil; what evil is understood?  N. 
These words not the seventh: but a part of the sixth Petition: For the conjunction But, knitting them to the former words, doth make them but one sentence, and one Petition.  I. 
By this your reason there will be but four Petitions: Considering to these words, Give us this day our daily bread, the rest of the Prayer is annexed by three conjunctions: Namely, twice And, and For. Again, Beza telleth 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you, that the word But, is oft times taken for And.  N. 
To grant that these words may make the seventh Petition yet by the word evil, we are to understand the evil one, that is the Devil.  I. 
The word may be put in the neuter gender, and so may signify 
a Math. 5. 37. john 5. 19  evil, or wickedness: Again, though we should receive your interpretation concerning the Devil, were not Iob's afflictions inflicted by the Devil, merely temporal? you perceive then, that here also we pray for temporal security. Further I pray you consider these words, forgive us our sins: do we in this fift Petition desire the remission of the guilt of sin: or also of the punishment thereof.  N. 
I am no Papist to separate the punishment from the guilt?  I. 
Are there not temporal, aswell as eternal punishments of sin?  N. 
What will follow thereupon?  I. 
That, in this Petition also, we make supplication for things temporal. And now retire (if you lift) to the second Petition: Thy kingdom come. Do you here understand the kingdom of power, of glory, or of grace?  N. 
The kingdom of grace, as it is exercised in the Church Discipline: erected by Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons, Widows.  I. 
Is not this an external and temporal government? (for I hope it shall not last in Heaven) do you not pray for the outward peace of this your Disciplined Church? Here also it is plain; that for things temporal, this Prayer is tendered. There remains the first Petition (as you call it) Hallowed be thy name: What exposition thereof do you give?  N. 
Namely; That God's name may be sanctified by us; doing his will.  I. 
If this be true: the third Petition (Let thy will be done) is merely void.  N. 
It may then thus be expounded; Let thy name be hallowed in the confusion of the enemies of thy Church.  I. 
Do you desire their eternal, or only their temporal confusion?  N. 
We desire first their conversion: then the repressing of their malice: and for the quiet of the Church, we crave their temporal ruin. As for their everlasting downfall, we commit that to the sole Moderator of such dreadful executions.  I. 
Then some thing temporal is requested in this Petition also: So that of the seven Petitions, all but the third do in part implore God's aid aswell for Temporal, as for Spiritual benefits. Further (I pray you) read salomon's Prayer: wherein of fifteen Petitions, you will hardly make One for things merely 
1. Kings 8. 23. & 54.  Spiritual.  N. 
First, the jews were a People much led by sense: and therefore by sensible Objects to be alured unto Religion: Secondly, although the things prayed for, in show be Temporal: yet God's blessing annexed unto them is Spiritual.  I. 
Our people are no less carnal, at least in part: For who hath so much of the spirit as is not in great measure allayed by the flesh? Again if your second caution may stand (as indeed it must) remember these two things: First, that the fourth Petition craveth Contentment and God's blessing, in the attainment, use, and loss of the things of this life: which you cannot but agnize to be Spiritual: Secondly, that the Prayers in our Litany, may admit the like construction. Further your argument may be answered, two other ways: First, that all the suits that we present to God for temporal things, may easily be reduced to the fourth, sixth, and seventh Petitions: Secondly, these are but one and twenty in number, whereas our Prayers for things spiritual, are in a manner numberless.  N. 
We insist not so much upon the number, as upon the matter of these Prayers: and specially of two of them: First, you pray against Lightning and Tempest: whereas Lightning is but rare in Winter.  I. 
We pray not simply against Lightning. (For we know it to be a Meteor, very beneficial in nature) but against the damage arising thereby, which is in the Winter more perilous; because less usual. Again, (according to the ancient division of the year, into Summer and Winter) we pray against the dangers of the whole year: Namely, against Lightning most frequent in Summer, and tempest in Winter. Or thus, against Lightning most terble in Winter; and Tempest in Summer.  N. 
The second error in the matter of your Prayer, is: That you pray to be delivered from sudden Death. This to be defective, I thus prove. Against that which ought not to be in the Elect, we ought not to pray: But Death ought not to be sudden to the Elect: (who should rather be prepared and await for it,) we ought not therefore to pray against sudden Death.  I. 
Although it were more fit for you to lick 
The Minor negative in the first figure: and all the reason standing upon negations: nor indeed being capable of-amendment.  your reason as a Bear doth her whelps (for as yet it is all shapeless.) Nevertheless I deny your Mayor upon this reason. Against that which ought not to be in the Elect, we ought not to pray: But sin ought not to be in the Elect: Against sin therefore we may not pray.  N. 
To let this pass, I come to another Argument: That, against which we pray is either a sin, or a judgement: But sudden Death is neither (for it hath befallen the Elect.) In vain therefore do you pray against it.  I. 
If you imagine that no sin hath befallen the Elect; you will rush upon the Libertine error of Coppyn and Quintaine, two Belgian Cobblers; which patched up this opinion, that sin in the Elect is but imaginary.  N. 
You traduce me. I brought it, to prove that it is no judgement.  I. 
In the former reason you said it ought not to be in the Elect: and now you avouch it to be no sin: How will you solder these things together?  N. 
Howsoever it may be a sin: yet it is no judgement to the Elect.  I. 
Though it be no judgement, May we not pray aswell against sins, as against judgements? But why is it no judgement?  N. 
Because it doth befall the Elect, which no judgement doth.  I. 
Why then doth the Apostle 
a 1. Pet. 4. 17. Read more of this in the last Book of the Bishop of Winchester against H. I.  say, judgement doth begin at the house of God? Again is it not lawful to pray for a comfortable Death? Is it not some comfort to die with renewed Faith, Repentance, Reconciliation, and Setting of the house in order? Lastly, is not Sudden Desolation, a judgement threatened to the 
b Prou. 1. 27.  wicked?  N. 
But there is no 
c Rom. 8. 1.  condemnation to the Elect.  I. 
Yet some of them die with more scandal, and less joy of conscience, yea and enjoy less joys in Heaven than others of their brethren: and may not we pray for the best gift.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of Hymns.  N. 
FRom your ordinary Prayers in Prose, we come to your Hymns: which we disallow both for form and matter. Touching the form: we like not your Church Music, Vocal, and Instrumental: Against which some have thus reasoned: Music was invented by jubal, One of the 
Gen. 4. 21.  wicked stock of Cain: and therefore not to be used in the Church.  I. 
Touching the Antecedent, I demand first, How you prove that he invented Music?  N. 
He is said to be the Father of all that play upon the Harp and Organs: under which words all kinds of Instrumental Music are comprehended.  I. 
To grant that (which yet you can never evict:) yet the word Father doth not signify an Inventer: For in the former verse jubal is said to be the Father of cattle, that is, of feeding cattle: Did not Abel keep sheep before him?  N. 
But here are meant greater cattle: or else that he perfected the art of Shepherds, begun by Abel.  I. 
The force of the word, will not establish 
Peculium à Pecudibus dictum. Vnde & pecuculari & peccare.  the first, considering it signifieth Possession, which may agree aswell to Sheep and Goats as to Oxen and Horses. As for the latter, though it be not credible, that Abel should want art, yet to grant it: By this you perceive that jubal did not invent, but adorn it. The like is to be said of jubals Music. For you shall never persuade that a liberal art was invented by a man. Secondly, did jubal invent Church Music?  N, 
No: But if he, being of the cursed race of Cain, did invent it, we may not use it in the Church.  I. 
This is your old sandy consequence: 
Genes. 36. 24. Deut. 22. 10. 1. Kings 1. 33.  upon which you built your first general objection: But did not Anah find out Mules? and yet neither David, nor Solomon refused to use them. Are therefore tents unlawful or the feeding of cattle: or the works in Iron & Brass: because the two first (as you expound it!) were invented by jubal, and the two latter by Tubal Cain?  N. 
Things done in the Ceremonial Law, are to be abolished: But such was Church Music: Ergo.  I. 
Balance the words of your Mayor. Was not saying and reading used in the Ceremonial Law? Will you have these also abrogated?  N. 
These things did concur with it, but were not parts of it▪ as was Music.  I. 
Then is your Minor but a broken reed: As may thus be proved. All parts of the Ceremonial Law were set down by Moses: Now Church Music was not ordained by Moses: But by David and Solomon: And therefore not Ceremonial.  N. 
Your Mayor seems to want weight: For Solomon not Moses did erect the Temple: and yet I trust you will not deny it to be a part of the Ceremonial Law.  I. 
The Temple was but the Standing Tabernacle enlarged: and so in substance all one withit.  N. 
Church Music doth not edify: and therefore to be disallowed.  I. 
Touching your antecedent, I demand first. What Music you entreat of? Do you dislike all singing in the Church: which some of the Separation have termed the croaking of Ravens?  N. 
No: but your artificial Music, which because it is not understood doth not edify.  I. 
Secondly, than I demand: Did you 
1. Cor. 14. 26. Ephes. 5. 19 Col. 3. 16.  ever hear of Music that was not artificial? were not the Psalms and Hymns (mentioned by Saint Paul) made by art, or that which is above art (namely the spirit of Prophecy.) If your vulgar Psalmody be good (as no doubt it is) how much more excellent shall your Artificial Music be? which also is so plain, that every man of mean diligence and capacity may conceive it with reverend delight. And now let me advertise you of your double contradiction to yourself: First, you said that Music was not lawful in the Church, because it was invented by jubal: and yet after made it a part of the Ceremonial Law, and could not deny the use thereof by David and Solomon: Secondly, yet stumbling again, you avouch that it doth not edify: As if any part of the Law Ceremonial, or any thing instituted by David and Solomon, were such as could not tend to edification.  N. 
Music did edify then, but not now.  I. 
You should have produced some reason of your assertion: Mean time we had rather believe Athanasius in the East, Ambrose in the West: Augustine in the South (which did partly erect, partly allow Church Music) than your bare spirit of Contradiction.  N. 
Saint Paul shows that Music cannot edify, 
1. Cor. 14. 7.  because the vulgar knows not what is piped.  I. 
First, the Apostle speaketh of a Pipe, in whose sound there is no distinction: Secondly, of such a Pipe, he saith, how shall it be known what is piped? His meaning is, how shall the most expert Musician know the meaning thereof? Now can you charge our Music with indistinction of sounds.  N. 
Your Music is indistinct being barbarous: 
1. Cor. 14. 11. Barbarus bic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli.  And that so it is, it appears by the Apostle in the same place, because the multitude doth not understand it.  I. 
Doth not the multitude conceive that the words of Te Deum are sung or some such like Hymn?  N. 
But they cannot understand the Musical Proportions: and so the Music doth not edify.  I. 
If you mean an exact understanding, some will doubt whither any Musician hath it, being a matter of so deep contemplation: But if you conceive a confused and general knowledge, this may not be denied to the multitude.  N. 
I mean a competent understanding of Music, without which no man can judge thereof.  I. 
Though it require much skill to judge: yet a mediocrity of Science will serve to be delighted, and thereupon to give a certain confused judgement. For there is a natural sympathy between man's soul and melody. Now observe, if your argument were good, than the vulgar might not hear a Sermon, because they cannot distinctly judge of the method, and ornaments thereof; being taken from the Armoury of Logic, and Wardrobe of Rhetoric: nor of the truth of the Citations which are drawn from Hebrew, Chaldee, Syrian, and Greekish fountains: And thus in stead of Church Music, you would abrogate Sermons, especially before the multitude. In sum; As God loveth a cheerful giver, so much more a cheerful worshipper. So that Music is requisite that devotion may be refreshed by delectation. And take this for a Maxim, An enemy to Music, an enemy to Muses.  N. 
From the form we come to the matter 
Luke 1. 46. & 68 & 2. 29.  of Hymns: which are either taken out of Scripture, or invented by man: Of the first kind are these; Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis: wherein we first disallow; that being uttered at the beginning upon a particular occasion, they are now converted to a common use.  I. 
First, If that were true: What think you of the Epistles of Saint Paul to the Galathians, and to Philemon, being written upon most special, and urgent necessities?  N. 
There are contained in them, most Ecumenical doctrines for the universal good of the Church.  I. 
The same may be said of those Hymns (as you term them) for indeed it may be doubted, whither things taken out of the Scriptures be Hymns: Forasmuch as properly they be termed Hymns which be invented by the art of Ecclesiastical men. Secondly, you will hardly allege any particular occasion of these Songs, especially of the two former.  N. 
But of the last we may: For Simeon desired to die, because he had seen Christ.  I. 
He desired to be dismissed in peace, because he had seen Gods promise fulfilled: And so may we desire to be with Christ, upon the acknowledgement of his revealed will in the Gospel.  N. 
The second thing that we dislike is; That these Psalms are more often repeated, than the Psalms of David.  I. 
You know it is written: That the least in 
Luke 7. 8.  the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than john the Baptist: So we say, That the Songs of the New Testament, are greater and more to our edification, than those of the Old Covenant, because they concern the Gospel, which is both a greater and a nearer light.  N. 
We will speak more of the Magnificat, when we come to treat of the translations. The second kind of Hymns was invented by men: As Te Deum, and Benedicite: wherein first we dislike that men's inventions should be obtruded upon the Church.  I. 
Why set you before us twice sodden Coleworts? Set Prayers to be lawful we have proved before. Now Hymns invented by men are nothing but Set Prayers: And therefore lawful.  N. 
In the Te Deum we dislike those words When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. Whereby we suspect you mean that Christ after his death, delivered the Fathers from Limbus, from which time all believers immediately enter into Heaven.  I. 
Did not Christ first go into Heaven to 
john 3. 13. & 14. 2. Heb. 9 8. 1●. & 11. 40.  prepare a place for us, as saith the Scripture?  N. 
He went thither first not actually, but virtually: because he merited our going thither.  I. 
Did he merit it by any other means, then by the virtue of his Death, Resurrection, and Ascention?  N. 
He did not: But we feared some Snake, lurking under this grass.  I. 
I leave your jealous suspicions: Forasmuch as you know that Lymbus Patrum is generally rejected by Our Church.   

CHAP. X.  
Of Collects, and Creeds.  N. 
I Should speak of the Benedicite, but that it is amongst the Apocryphal Books: and therefore it shall be deferred till we speak of the Lessons: Now from the Ordinary Prayers we proceed to the Collects: whereof the most be extraordinary. But in the forefront of them we will place the third Collect for Grace being also an ordinary Prayer: and taking part of both: wherein we approve not these words (Grant that this Day we fall into no sin.) Against which we thus reason: It is impossible, that we fall into no sins: And therefore to pray for it utterly unlawful.  I. 
Your Antecedent is ambiguous, as may thus appear. Not to sin is possible: But to fall into no sin, is all one with not to sin: and therefore possible. The Mayor is proved by Saint john who saith, he that is 
1. john 3. 9  borne of God, sinneth not: neither indeed can sin.  N. 
That place admitteth sundry good expositions: As first, the regenerate cannot finally fall into sin: Secondly, no not totally for a time: Thirdly, a man, so fare forth as he is regenerate cannot sinne, but only in regard of the flesh, which lusteth against the spirit.  I. 
Which-soever of these interpretations you apply to this place; there may be sufficient iustifications to the words of the Collect especially the two former: For it is very lawful for us to pray, that we may neither finally nor totally for a time, fall into sin: That is, (as the Prophet saith) that we may be kept 
Psal. 19 3.  from sins presumptuous: Again; this truth may be thus manifested: Not to be led into temptation is possible: But not to fall into sin, is all one in effect with not to be led into temptation: And therefore equally possible.  N. 
Your Minor seems to reel: For a man may be led into temptation; and yet not fall into sin: For Christ sinned not: and yet was led into temptation.;  I. 
The speech were blasphemous, were it not uttered of ignorance: For to be led into temptation is to be carried into the midst thereof, and to be overcome by it: which (as you know) cannot agree to Christ. This exposition may thus be proved: Either we pray that we may not be led into temptation: or that we may not yield to temptation: The latter to be lawful no man doubts: But the former I hope you will not aver. It remains therefore: That the scope of the Prayer is, that we may not be surprised with temptation, so that it may occasion us to fall into any crying and habitual sin.  N. 
There be other Proper Collects, at whose words and doctrine we are offended: The first Defect in the words is obscurity.  I. 
By this argument you might condemn many of the Psalms: which though they be mere Prayers: yet in many places are as obscure as truth, which is hidden in Democritus pit: But what is the obscurity which you pretend.  N. 
In the Collect upon Trinity Sunday (as you term it.) These words are as dark as the leaves of Sibilla: (and in the power of the Majesty) to worship the unity.  I. 
No marvel in a matter as profound as Hell, if some phrase be not so clear: For if a man should demand of you, the difference between the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the Holy Ghost? Or how the Son should be called a Distinct Person, and yet be in his Father: Or how the Father should communicate all his being to his Son; and yet continue his own being distinct from that of his Son. Or how the Father by the Son should actively breathe out the Holy Spirit? Or how the wisdom of God should differ from his justice (considering in God there can be admitted no composition) I believe though you had the aid of all Phrasologistes, you would hardly reconcile and explain these phrases; which notwithstanding are received in the Church, as most necessary. But as for the difficulty, at which here you stumble, it is of no moment: For it is plain that we worship the Unity of the Three Persons in the power of the Divine Maieistie, acknowledging them Three to be one in powerful Majesty, or Majestical power, according to a vulgar 
a Hest. 1. 4. & 7. Acts 8. 23.  Hebraisme known to children.  N. 
There are some other words, in show dangerous: as first the term of Penance in the Collect upon john Baptists day.  I. 
Either Penance is an old word, signifying Repentance: or else it betokeneth the Ecclesiastical Absolution which is given to men that show the sign of penitence.  N. 
The former signification is uncertain: Of the latter we will reason in the Visitation of the sick. Your second perilous term is that of Chances in the first Collect after the Offertory: Whereas this name Chance, howsoever it be used by the Heathen Philistim Priests: yet is it 
1. Sam. 6. 9  not found in Scriptures taken up by the Godly. And no marvel, seeing by this word the Providence of God is denied: and our ignorances of second Causes proclaimed.  I. 
This term is taken up by Christ himself, 
Compare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luke 10. 31. with the verse of Empedocles cited by Aristotle, Phis. Lib. 2. cap. 4.  where he saith, that by chance there came a Priest. Now for the denying of God's providence, it is untrue, Chance being either mere or mixed. Mere Chance derogateth from the all-seeing providence of God: so doth not mixed chance: For although all things be most certainly appointed, and foreseen by God: yet he ordaineth some second causes to be unfallible: some to be mutable and contingent. This is most manifest in the will of man, which though it be not free from the necessity of infallibility, (whereby the secret operation of God, doth bow it to what side of the balance he will) yet is it most free from the necessity of Coaction. So that our actions, howsoever conditionally they be necessary (namely in regard of God's Decree) yet absolutely in their own nature they proceed from a cause contingent, and changeable.  N. 
By this you perceive that by GOD'S Decree, there can be no Chance.  I. 
There are two degrees of God's Decree: First, general, whereby he decreeth things in their own absolute nature to be contingent, and free. Secondly, more special, whereby he determineth the indifferency and contingency of things, inclining them according to his own good pleasure. In regard of the former, Chance may, and must be allowed; not only in respect of the second causes (as the common opinion runneth) but even in regard of God's Determination, the first cause of the being of all things.  N. 
Besides words, we blame Doctrine intimated in your Collects: The first whereof is, the Doctrine of Merit, insinuated in these words upon Ash-wednesday, or the First Day in Lent (that we worthily lamenting our sins, and knowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness.) Here, the cause of the pardon of sins is made to be our lamentation for them, and acknowledgement of them.  I. 
It is not the cause, but the concurrent, concomitant, or rather antecedent, thereof: and that not for the purchasing of it, but of the assurance of the same to our consciences. For although the forgiveness of our sins be in nature before repentance (whereof the things named in the Collect are effects and signs:) Nevertheless in regard of apprehension thereof (which some call Certioration) it doth oft times follow the same. Tell me; when Christ said, Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved 
Luke 7. 47.  much; Did he make her love, the cause of the remission of her sins?  N. 
No, but rather the contrary; For he maketh her to love much, because her manifold sins were pardoned: So that her love was an effectual sign not an efficient cause of the condonation of her iniquities.  I. 
The like may be said of those things which are mentioned in the Collect.  N. 
Nay, but you make forgiveness of sins to be obtained by these things.  I. 
Did not Elias obtain the restraint of rain 
1. Kings 17. 1. james 5. 17.  by Prayer?  N. 
Not by the merit of his own Prayer: but for that his Prayer issued from faith, which apprehended CHRIST: upon whose merit all the efficacy of Prayer doth depend.  I. 
So our Lamentation, etc. proceedeth from Repentance; Repentance issueth from Faith; Faith layeth hold upon Christ: of whose only merit, all the force of our lamentation, and Confession of sins dependeth. And what is all this to Popish Merit? If your jealousy did not provoke you to coin unthought of errors in our Liturgy.  N. 
The second is the Doctrine of Despair, which you manifest in two Collects: First, in that upon the twelfth Sunday after Trinity, in these words giving to us that that our prayer dare not presume to ask: Secondly, in the fift Collect after the Offertory: Those things which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us: In both which we espy a double fault: First, a contradiction: for you pretend that you dare not ask and yet do ask.  I. 
What think you of that contradiction? I believe, Lord, help my unbelief? 
Mark 9 24.   N. 
It is only in appearance, For he might in a confused generality believe that the Messiah was able to perform this Miracle, and yet in distinct speciality did not believe that this jesus was the Messiah: Or else, he might doubt, because he had no particular promise: howsoever he believed Gods Universal Power and Goodness: Or lastly, he might distrust in regard of his own unworthiness; and yet conceive no scruple of Christ's potent mercy.;  I. 
So may we ask that of God through Christ, which we dare not crave when we consider our own unworthiness; looking down (like the Swan or Peacocke) to our foul feet.  N. 
The second fault offensive is, that you 
Pro. 28. 1. Ephes. ●. 12. Heb. 4. 16.  renounce that boldness, and confidence which Solomon; Saint Paul, and the Author to the Hebrews do commend.;  I. 
Why? was not Saint Paul the Author to the Hebrews?  N. 
We shall reason of that in Matrimony: return therefore to your argument.  I. 
The same Solomon then that ascribeth the boldness of Lions to righteous men, doth elsewhere pronounce him blessed that feareth 
Prou. 28. 14.  always: And the same Apostle, which exhorteth us to confidence, doth charge us to finish our salvation with fear and trembling: for we 
Phil. 2. 12.  may be bold in regard of God's endless mercy, and yet fear in a double respect: First, with the fear of reverence, which causeth the Angels to cover their faces with their wings: Secondly, with a fear of God's displeasure, 
Jsa. 6. 2.  upon the deep consideration of our own indignity, in regard of our manifold transgressions, partly secret, partly breaking out upon the least occasion. By the first we do weigh our own infirmity, as we are creatures: by the latter our vility, as we are Sinners, and have the flesh mingled with the spirit. Besides this caution which is plainly expressed in the latter Collect in these words, which we for our unworthiness dare not: whereby we intimate, that yet we dare through the Dignity of Christ. There is yet an other clause in the former Collect, namely, in these words, which our Prayer dare not presume; whereby all scruple is removed. For you that talk so much of the spirit of Prayer; will you reckon Presumption among the virtues thereof?  N. 
No, but we reckon it among your vices that make confidence presumption: For to crave what God in Christ hath promised is no presumption, but confidence: and to doubt thereof is Diffidence not Humility.  I. 
To doubt in regard of Christ is diffidence: but to make a demur in regard of our own imbecility is true lowliness.  N. 
From the People's Prayers, we come to the Confessions uttered in the three Creeds: that of the Apostles, the Nicen, and the Atbanasian. The matter whereof howsoever we allow: yet first we dislike that you use the often rehearsal of them: and seem to equalise them to the Canonical Scripture.  I. 
We hold it expedient oft to rehearse the 
2. Tim. 1. 13. Heb. 6. 1.  patterns of wholesome words and doctrines of the beginning of Christ: and these Symbols we place next the Scriptures: not only because they are extracted out of them: or by reason of their Antiquity, (the first of them being penned either by Apostles or Apostolic men) but in part also for their perspicuity and perfection joined with brevity: the utility whereof is now discovered by miserable experience. For the Grecians at this day by reason of their bondage under the Turks, being not able to travel much in Scriptures, or other Learning, have only these ancient Symbols left them; as arguments for their judgement; and Monuments for their faith.  N. 
Secondly, we do principally dislike. That the Creed of the Apostles is rehearsed by the Minister and People standing.  I. 
Concerning the People's answers, I 
In the fift and seventh Chapters.  have spoken before, both in the Preface and Short Prayers.  N. 
Yea, but what reason can you render, why the People should stand?  I. 
The ancient cause thereof was, That 
1. Pet. 3. 15. compared with Mat. 10. 18 & 1. Tim. 6. 13. Consider the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke 18. 11. & 13. illîc situs, hîc distantia notatur.  men might show their readiness to profess their faith, when they were to stand before persecuting judges. But now there is an other reason of great use, Namely, to advertise the people, that this is A Creed and not A Prayer: for then kneeling were more convenient than standing: whereas commonly Children take it for a Prayer by tradition from their ignorant Elders.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of God's speech in the Liturgy.  N. 
FRom the speech of the people to God (uttered in Prayer and Confession) we ascend up to the speech of God himself to the people: declared partly in the Ten Commandments, partly by their sanction: and that either by threatening or commination: or by instruction which is offered, either to the younger sort (in Catechism) or to the Elder (in Homilies) In the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, these words are omitted which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
a Or bondmen. Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 31. Pro. 30. 6. Apoc. 22. 18.  bondage? Against which, thus I reason? No part of God's Law may be omitted: But these words are a part of the Law, and therefore not to be omitted.  I. 
The proofs of your Mayor are impertinent: and so commonly the men of your condition do use to lad their Margins with Texts of Scripture, as men do Camels till they cry. For whereas these Scriptures do forbid omission in practice, or interpretation at the most, you apply them to reprove omission in rehearsal: But now confirm your Minor, and all shall be granted.  N. 
First, the Hebrews point these words as they do the Commandments: and number the letters of them among the six hundred fifty three letters of the 
b In the five Books of Moses are found written 653. Commandments, namely, 288. affirmatives (according to the joints of the body) and 365. negatives (according to the days of the year:) Read for these Philip Ferdinando the jew.  Law. Secondly, they seem to be the affirmative part of the first Commandment: whereby we are (by implication) charged to have, and acknowledge the true God.  I. 
Parts of the Commandments are of two kinds. Substantial and Circumstantial (called Sanctions.) The Substantial part, we find omitted in the rehearsal of the Tenth Commandment used by Saint 
c Rom. 13. 9  Paul. For I believe that these words, thy neighbour's house, thy neighbour's wife, etc. declaring the objects of concupiscence, cannot be denied to be essential parts of the precept. As for the Sanction, we find it left out in the repetition of the fift 
d Math. 19  Commandment: for so these words are accounted that thy days may be long in the land, etc. Now your first Argument doth only enforce these words to be a Sanction, or proem of the Precept, considering the Sanctions of the second, fourth, and fift Commandments, are so pointed by the Hebrews (although with a difference:)  N. 
It may seem strange that the second Commandment, and the three following should have Sanctions annexed; and the first be destitute thereof.  I. 
The ratifications adjoined to them do follow them: But the confirmation (for which you contend) doth come before the first Commandment. And therefore your argument hath no firm proportion: Again this Sanction may be general to the whole Decalogue: Neither can you necessarily prove it to be appropriate to the first precept: And though it it were peculiar to the same, yet why may it not be omitted in the repetition? especially so fare forth as it particularly concerneth the Children of Israel, which only were freed from the iron furnace of Egypt.  N. 
We are also delivered from the Spiritual Egypt of Sin and Popery. So that for this reason 
Apoc. 11. 8.  likewise it should be mentioned.  I. 
When Moses repeateth the Law, the second time, he omitteth the sanction of the fourth Commandment, which was added to it in the first promulgation thereof: Namely, God's rest after the six days of Creation: and in place 
Exod 20. 1. Deut. 5. 15.  thereof doth put the deliverance from Egypt: by which we observe two things: First, that all Sanctions are not of necessity to be inculcated in the repetition of the Law: Secondly, that this confirmation drawn from the Deliverance out of Egypt, doth pertain as well to the fourth, as to the first Precept. Besides when Saint Paul doth rehearse the fift Commandment, 
Ephes' 6. 3.  instead of the Land of Canaan he nameth the Earth, because Canaan was peculiar to the Hebrews. In like proportion, howsoever Egypt may spiritually signify Sin; Popery, or rather Hell: yet because we have promises of a better Testament, we may omit the mention of Egypt, according to the saying of the Prophet. Your second argument is overthrown 
jer. 16. 14, 15.  by the first. For if these words be therefore part of the Commandments, because they are pointed like them (I mean as a Sanction may be termed a part accidental) then may they not be styled the affirmative part of the first Commandment, because they are not 
All the Commandments, but the fourth and fift have two accents in each word: they only but one.  pointed like the Fourth and Fift, which are counted affirmative Precepts. Besides where will you find a Commandment, wherein the affirmative and negative part are both expressed?  N. 
It may be found in the fourth Precept. For as we are charged to sanctify the Sabbath: so are we especially interdicted all work upon that Day.  I. 
Were that granted, which may not be, (because the affirmative speaketh of Sanctification, the negative of rest:) yet how will you make these words, I am thy Lord thy God, etc. an affirmative Commandment? Considering that in them there is no assertive charge, but only a narrative claim of God's right, unless by implication of Consequence you frame an affirmation: by which kind of Art, you may find an affirmative in each precept.  N. 
The sceond thing we dislike, in your rehearsal of the Law, is the Prayer inserted by the People between every Commandment: (Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.)  I. 
Is there not a Prayer put between every Commination in Deuteronomie? Is not (Amen,) 
Deut. 27 15. &c  or (So be it,) a direct Prayer joined with an assent? Is not this Prayer of the People in our Liturgy directed by the pattern, and 
d Exod. 19 8. Deut. 5. 27 & 29 & 1●. 18. & 32. 29. Psal. 81. 13.  words of Scriptures?  N. 
After the Commandments comes the Commination; wherein we dislike these words (until the said discipline may be restored again: which thing is much to be wished.);  I 
I have heard some of your brethren say that these words are very laudable: because in them is partly promised, and partly wished▪ at lest in their opinion) that Discipline of the Church which you pretend to be most ancient: but we avouch to be so new that hardly any of you can agree about the fundamental points thereof  N. 
At first we hoped some such good motion was in the minds of them that framed the Liturgy: But since that time we have found the true meaning of the riddle, namely, that the intention thereof is only a Popish Lent Penance.  I. 
Had you ploughed with our Heifer; and read the words immediately going before, this should have been no riddle or Aenigma: The words are these: In the Primitive Church; there was a godly Discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons as were notorious sinners, were put to open penance. But you as cunning in compounding and deviding, as he that left out these words of the Psalm 
e Psal 91. 11. Math. 4. 6.  to keep thee in all thy ways, have only remembered these words. In the Primitive Church there was a godly Discipline: and so building Castles in the air, benighted yourselves, in wand'ring in the wilderness of your own fancies. But tell me do you dislike our open Penance.  N. 
What we dislike you shall know, when we come to the Visitation of the Sick. Now there remain two things: The Catechism and the Homilies. The Latter whereof shall be deferred to some fit opportunity. In the Catechism these words are most dangerous: Redeemed me and all mankind; by which the error of universal grace seems to be defended.;  I. 
Saith not the Scripture that the benefit by Christ is come to 
f Rom. 5 18.  all even to justification: and that he died for 
g 2. Cor. 5. 14, 15  all: and what difference put you between all men, and all mankind.  N. 
By all there, we understand all the Elect.  I. 
So here we may interpret all the Elect of mankind. Again, how are Sinners against the Holy Ghost sanctified by the blood of the 
h Heb. 10. 29. 2. Pet. 2. 1.  Testament? and how are Seducers bought by our Lord?  N. 
Some say in Appearance and Profession; others say better that Christ died sufficiently for all men but effectually for believers alone.  I. 
Your latter answer cleareth all the doubt: For Christ his Blood was sufficient for the Redemption of all Mankind, had they believed. Others more subtly answer, That as the Law intended to condemn all: So Christ purposed to save all though upon a different respect) And this they exemplify by the diverse letters of Ahashuerosh: and by the resistance made by the Angel: but this is as 
Hest. 8. 14. Dan. 10. 13.  Subtle as Safe.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Sacraments in general: and of Baptism.  N. 
OTher exceptions against your Catechism (because they belong to the Sacraments) shall be handled in them. Now therefore, from Speech only, we come to Speech and Action mingled: of which are compounded both Sacraments and other Rites. Touching the Sacraments in general: we dislike these words in the new addition to your Catechism (too generally necessary to Salvation:) wherein you discover your error concerning both the number and end of the Sacraments. The first may be thus proved: Where there be two Sacraments generally necessary, there more than two be necessary in special: But the latter is unsound: Therefore also the former.  I. 
That your Mayor is daubed with untempered mortar may thus appear: Where four elements be generally necessary for living creatures, there more than four are in special necessary. But the latter is untrue; Therefore likewise the former.  N. 
Your Mayor is doubtful: For this word 
Which last is not only in trees but even in Minerals.  generally, may be referred to the predicate, thus. That the four elements are in general necessary for all things which partake of Life (whither it be the life of Motion, of Sense, or of Vegetation) and so the Speech is true: But if you refer it to the Subject, and make four general elements, and more particular besides: you will run within the praemunire of an error.  I. 
In like manner, must our speech be interpreted: Namely, that there be two Sacraments, generally necessary for all men. But now confirm your Minor, for I believe you founder in this opinion.  N. 
Sacraments may not come by the corrupt following of the Apostles: Neither may they be only States of life commended in Scripture: But principally they may not want a visible sign, or Ceremony ordained of God: But the five Popish Sacraments, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are such; And therefore can be no Sacraments of the Gospel. And by consequent, there are only two, Baptism, and the Lords Supper.;  I. 
First, your Mayor is not so sure as you dream of. For (tell me I pray you) must the sign of each Sacrament be visible? Might not Ahijah the Prophet be partaker of the Passeover after his sight failed him?  N. 
I did not mean that every receiver must see the sign but that the sign must be visible, at least to some.  I. 
And not to the receiver? To him then, it is not a visible sign: and so no actual Sacrament.  N. 
Some by Visible understand Sensible. Namely, that which may be apprehended by any outward sense.  I. 
This exposition as it is large, and yet true; So will it be prejudicial to yourself. To come next to your Minor: First, tell me, Did Matrimony come from the corrupt following of the Apostles?  N. 
That first clause of the Minor is only meant 
Mark 6. 13. james 5. 14.  of anoiling, taken from the imitation of the Apostles, howsoever the gift of healing be now ceased.  I. 
Yea, but is Anoyling, a state of life commended in Scripture?  N. 
That part of the Minor is to be applied to Orders and Matrimony.  I. 
Belike than you affirmed that jointly of all the Sacraments, which should have been divided among them.  N. 
We most insist upon the last clause: Namely, that they have no visible sign.  I. 
Neither is that built upon a Rock: For have not Confirmation and Orders the visible sign of imposition of hands? Can you conceive of Matrimony without handfasting: Or of Extreme Unction without Visible Infusion of oils? Nay, if Sensible be Visible: and Audible be Sensible: Is not Confession in Penance directly Audible, & so Visible by your own interpretation?  N. 
What then? Do you revive the Seven Popish Sacraments?  I. 
Nothing less: But only I manifest unto you, with what leaden weapons you impugn the iron enemy, namely, the Papist. Against whom while you defer to fight, our Church becomes like the Oak cleft with wedges made out of her own body.  N. 
If this Argument be weak you condemn the Book of Articles, which propoundeth the 
Art. 25.  same reason.  I. 
You mistake the meaning of the Book, yea, and the words also. The words are thus: Being such as are grown, partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles: Partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments, with Baptism and the Lord's Supper: for that they have not any visible Sign, or Ceremony ordained of God. Here first, you perceive that the word Partly was twice left out of your argument: whereupon came your fallacy of Compounding and Dividing: And so it may be the having of a visible sign (taking Visible in his proper sense) doth exclude Penance They being only a state allowed in Scripture doth shut out Matrimony, as the corrupt imitation of the Apostles doth Anoyling. Some such like thing may be thought of Confirmation and Orders: But it is uncertain.  N. 
Yea, but they all five are denied to have a visible sign.  I. 
Some conjecture, that by Visible is meant that which is perceived by many senses: and this kind of Sign may be proper to Baptism and the Lords Supper. But the plain answer is: That no Sacraments excepting those two have a visible sign generally necessary to salvation.  N. 
Without Orders there can be no Ministry: without the Ministry no Visible Church: without which there can be no ordinary salution.  I. 
Orders are mediately necessary for all: but immediately for Ministers alone.  N. 
From the number of the Sacraments I come to their end: Namely, their necessity: against which I thus argue: Those things without which salvation may be obtained, are not necessary to salvation. But such are the Sacraments. Ergo.  I. 
I thus encounter your Mayor. Those things without which salvation may be obtained, are not necessary to salvation. But without Miracles, Salvation may be had, And therefore Micracles (even those of Christ) shall be needless to salvation.  N. 
Miracles are no ordinary means to salvation, but extraordinary.  I. 
So Sacraments are not extraordinary, 
Which heresy denieth all outward Sacraments.  but direct and ordinary means: for unless you be a Swingfeldian; you must acknowledge that neglect or contempt of Sacraments is a Barto life eternal: And so both the doubtfulness of your Mayor, and falsehood of your Minor, do at once appease in their colours.  N. 
My second reason is this: Things necessary to salvation do confer grace: But Sacraments do not; and so are not necessary.  I. 
Your Mayor is not well poised. For, is therefore the Sabbath needless to salvation, because it doth not confer grace? Again your Minor wants the bridle of bondage, and limiting distinction. For though Sacraments do not actively, Physically, and by infusion confer grace, yet none but public enemies to all Sacraments, will deny that they bring grace passively, and by the assistance of the concurrent Spirit of God. Even as the Circles of Magicians and Spells of Witches, are said to be operative, not of themselves (being mere quantities) but by the concurrent assistance of Satan with whom the bloody covenant is stricken. Now that Sacraments are necessary to Salvation, it appears by three things: First, because they are Gods Ordinances, and so most needful: Secondly, because they are marks of the Church visible, out of whose bosom there is no ordinary salvation. Thirdly, because faith is begun in Baptism: and strengthened in the Lord's Supper. The necessity whereof is greater, then of water and fire: nay, then of friendship.  N. 
This shall be tried in the particular Sacrament to which we now descend. It seemeth then, that you make five Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, The Lord's Supper, Penance, and Orders: which last because it is not expressed in the Liturgy, we will now omit.  I. 
You confessed before, that we made only two Sacraments generally necessary: why do you then place Confirmation between Baptism, and the Lords Supper? And where do you find our Sacrament of Penance?  N. 
The reason of these things, shall afterwards be 
z In Confirmations and the Visitation of the sick.  declared. Now I come to Baptism. In the dignity you give to Baptism we note two errors. First, you corruptly cite the words of Christ to Nicodemus (Unless a man be borne of water, and of the Holy Ghost.) For by water you understand the Baptism of the Flood (as you term it) Whereas indeed by water you should conceive nothing but the purging efficacy of the holy Spirit.  I. 
We embrace the literal sense: why do you fly to a figure without important necessity?  N. 
Yea, necessity doth urge us so to do: For else we should grant the necessity of external Baptism to salvation.  I. 
You heard before, that Sacraments were thus necessary: Why do you now roll the same stone?  N. 
Prove in particular now, Baptism to be necessary to salvation.  I. 
First, Circumcision was thus necessary: For the soul uncircumcised was to be 
a Gen 17. 14.  cut off from the people of God. Yea, God would have slain Moses because he neglected the Circumcision of his 
b Exod. 4. 24.  Son. Nay, the neck of the Asse-coult not 
c Exod. 13. 13.  redeemed, was to be broken, which redemption was proportionable to Circumcision, as appears by the 
d Exod. 22. 30.  time thereof. But Baptism is answerable to 
e 1. Pet. 3. 21.  Circumcision: therefore equally necessary. Secondly, Baptism is termed the laver 
f Titus 3. 5.  of regeneration, whereby the Church is 
g Ephes. 5. 26.  sanctified: It is also called the Baptism of repentance, unto remission 
h Mark 1. 4. Acts 19 4.  of sins. Yea, Peter and Paul being demanded what men should do to be saved? The one in direct words, both in practice, did urge 
i Acts 2. 37, 38. & 16. 30, 33, 34  Baptism, aswell as belief. Yea, Christ himself saith: He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be 
k Mark 16. 16.  saved. And Peter peremptorily averreth that Baptism 
l 1. Pet. 3. 21.  doth save.  N. 
First, it seems by these places: That salvation is not ascribed to Baptism, but rather to Faith (in the Acts) to Repentance (in Mark:) to the putting away of the filth of the flesh (in Peter.)  I. 
Tell me I pray you by whom are these three things wrought?  N. 
By the Spirit of God.  I. 
And what relation hath the Spirit to Baptism?  N. 
It is the essential inward form thereof: whereby the water is assumed, as the manhood by Christ's Godhead.  I. 
If that were true, why do you separate the form from the matter; which God hath conjoined: But I must here advertise you, that you stick in a vulgar error. For I demand: Is a Sacrament a thing simple or else compounded.  N. 
It is compounded of a thing earthly, and a thing heavenly.  I. 
What is that heavenly thing?  N. 
The Spirit of God which purgeth our sinful souls, as water doth our unclean bodies.  I. 
Then observe this argument: Those things of which a thing is compounded; are the matter thereof: but of water and the holy Spirit 
Arist. Phys. lib. 2 cap. 3. Met. lib. 1 cap. 3. & lib. 4. cap. 2.  Baptism is compounded, these therefore are the matter thereof.  N. 
What then do you make the form of Baptism?  I. 
The union of the Water and the Spirit: as the union of Christ his Deity and Humanity is the form of his Person: And as the union of the soul and body, is the form of man. And this to be true, you might have learned by Athanasius Creed: the matter whereof you 
Observe by this that most heresies in divinity do proceed from errors in Logic and Philosophy.  could not before disallow; The words are these. For as the reasonable Soul, and flesh is one man: So God and man is one Christ. By this you may observe, That the Spirit is not disjoined from the water in Baptism: considering, they both concur to make the matter thereof.  N. 
But we cannot be assured: that the Spirit doth always concur with the water, howsoever you do confidently avouch that Children, 
In the rubric of Confirmation before the beginning of the Catechism.  being baptised, have all things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved. Touchinh the former clause thereof, I entreat you now to be silent, because I will object it in Confirmation.  I. 
The latter clause then needs little defence: For seeing Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation: why should we causelessly doubt of their Salvation, which have been made partakers thereof? For not only Charity, but even Equity forbids us to doubt.  N. 
Yea, but some scruple remaineth because we want the certainty of infallibility.  I. 
That certainty is needless in our ordinary censures of other men's eternal state: For where prudence upon necessity doth not weigh down the balance, Charity must heave it up: and (according to the Law) favours must be enlarged. And now let me admonish you of the like cavil, made against the words in our Liturgy in the Burial; which are these: In sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life: By which we do not imply a certainty of infallibility, but of equity alone. For although persons be baptised, yet, if they be excommunicated▪ or other ways heinous Malefactors, we deny them the use of Christian Burial: Forasmuch as by the rule of prudence we presume not to speak of them in that manner.  N. 
Of your Popish Superstitions in Burial, we shall treat in due place. Now against your Scriptures brought for the necessity of Baptism: although I might except against these words in Genesis (shall be cut off from his people:) as being meant of Temporal Death, not of Eternal Damnation: yet because I find some of our own men, so to expound it also, I will omit it; and come to my second exception, which is this. You pretend that Baptism is before Faith: whereas both in Mark and the Acts it is set in the latter 
Acts 8. 37.  place. Yea, and Philip requireth faith of the Eunuch; before he would admit him to Baptism.  I. 
We deny not but in men of year's faith may come before Baptism.  N. 
By Faith alone we are saved, what need then of Baptism?  I. 
If you speak of absolute necessity, God could have saved us, not only without Baptism, but even without faith: yea even without Christ. For if he had given us immutable grace before our fall, Christ's death should not have been necessary; and so faith had been void, and consequently Baptism. But, if you intent a conditional necessity in regard of God's Decree: it will appear that Christ's death was an efficient cause howbeit not the principal (for that was God's love) but a working 
john 3. 16.  meritorious cause. As also that faith is an instrument active, and Baptism passive: applying to us the merits of Christ's death. Again, whereas you say, that we are saved by faith alone: Do you imagine that faith may be void of good works?  N. 
I detest that Popery: But what is this to Baptism?  I. 
Is it not a good work and fruit of faith, to seek for external Baptism?  N. 
Yet by this it is manifest, that Baptism succeedeth faith, which contradicteth your assertion.  I. 
Though Baptism do only confirm faith in men of years, is it therefore needless to Salvation? But yet Infant's faith is apparently concurrent with Baptism, by which it is begotten. For as Infants may be elected by Predestination; and also may be comprehended in the Covenant, and faith of Parents: So withal, there must be required in them the Spirit of God, which shall work analogical faith, or the Seed-plot thereof: from which at the time of effectual Vocation, or Conversion, shall issue the seasonable fruits of Sanctification.  N. 
My third exception against your Scriptures is this: Whereas it is said, He that shall believe and be baptised, shall be saved: it is immediately added, He that shall not believe shall be condemned: So that Baptism is omitted as no necessary means of salvation.  I. 
Your proofs are taken from silent witnesses (which cannot be of force.) In this manner: Baptism is not mentioned as needful, and therefore is not needful.  N. 
Yet according to the rules of discretion, Baptism should be named aswell in the negative, as in the positive.  I. 
By the same rule, what is largely set down in the former, is understood in the latter: because it is presupposed that no hearty believer will neglect Baptism.  N. 
Besides these exceptions against the texts by you alleged, we have other reasons to disprove the necessity of Baptism. As first many Persons Circumcised and Baptised, have yet failed of eternal life: And therefore it seemeth, that these are not necessary means of salvation.  I. 
Many that have had sufficient cold and drought in their bodies, have yet died of grievous diseases: and therefore these qualities are not means of life.  N. 
Heat and moisture must also concur: or else these are insufficient.  I. 
So the Spirit must concur with Water, or else it is not available: For though the Spirit be not tied to Means: yet may we not vilify the means as uneffectuall: or move causeless doubts touching the assistant cooperation of the Spirit.  N. 
I secondly thus argue: Paul came not to 
1. Cor. 1. 17.  baptise: Therefore Baptism is not necessary to salvation. The Consequence is apparent: For Paul without controversy, came to procure all things necessary thereunto.  I. 
Your Consequence is ambiguous: For an ordinary Pastor's office, is necessary to the salvation of many: And yet Saint Paul, being an Ecumenical Apostle, who had the care of all Churches, could not attend that function. Again, your antecedent is impertinent: The meaning is open, That he was sent rather to preach, then to baptise. For, that he baptised some, appears out of that place. The like Phrase is in these words: I will have 
Math. 12. 7.  mercy and not Sacrifice? That is, rather mercy than sacrifice. What? will you make Sacrifice not necessary in the time of the Law? By all this it appeareth: That for fear of the necessity of Baptism, you relinquish the letter of the text without necessity.  N. 
Though this were yielded: yet for two other reasons, we may not here expound water literally. First, because where the Holy Ghost and fire are conjoined: fire may not be taken according 
Luke 3. 16.  to the letter: unless we will follow the vain custom of the Aethiopians, which set fiery prints upon their Infants through the mistaking of this text.  I. 
We need not go so fare as Aethiopia for our interpretation. Compare the Story of the Acts, and there will be no ambiguity: for 
Acts 1. 5. & 2. 3, 4.  as john foretell, and Christ promised: So the Apostles indeed were baptised with the Holy Ghost by the Ministry of fiery tongues: which if the Aethiopians could procure, we would not blame their fiery Ceremony.  N. 
Our second reason is this: The scope of Christ's speech, is to entreat of regeneration: which is the work of the Spirit alone: And therefore, 
john 3. 8.  it is not probable that there he should speak of outward Baptism.  I. 
Your sequel is evidently refuted by the words of Christ: If when I tell you earthly 
john 3. 12.  things you believe not, etc. where by things earthly we understand things elementary: which appellation may well agree to water, in Baptism. In sum, remember this: That whereas many, through a seeming subtlety do embrace tropical expositions: they bewray themselves to be of stomaches distempered, not enduring solid ordinary meats.  N. 
The second thing whereby you magnify Baptism, appear in these words: By the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son jesus Christ, didst sanctify the flood jordan, and all other waters, to the mystical washing away of sin: where find you any warrant for this new device?  I. 
I wonder where the knot lieth, for I conceive it not as yet: Is it in this? That we say, that all waters are sanctified to the mystical washing away of sin in Baptism? Think you that Abana and Pharphar are better than other Rivers? Can you prohibit any kind of 
2. Kings 5. 12.  water to be used in Baptism?  N. 
That is fare from our meaning. But we dislike that you ascribe the Sanctification of water to the Baptism of Christ, as to the cause.  I. 
Why was Christ baptised?  N. 
That all righteousness might be fulfilled. 
Math. 3. 15.   I. 
What? do you mean the righteousness of the Law?  N. 
I mean of the Gospel.  I. 
Did he fulfil it for himself or more principally for us?  N. 
I am no Papist, to dream that he merited any thing for himself.  I. 
Nay, was he borne: did he live or die for himself?  N. 
All for Us without doubt.  I. 
He was then baptised for us.  N. 
I may not deny it.  I. 
Wherefore as his Birth, Life, and Death did sanctify the same things in us; So by the water of his Baptism; all waters are sanctified: even as all beasts drink safely when the Unicorn hath put his horn into the water. So that he may be called the firstfruits of the Baptised, aswell as of the Dead.  N. 
Hitherto of the Dignity and holiness of Baptism. Now follow the actions of witnesses, (or Godfathers as you call them:) which are four. First, you admit questions to be propounded to them: Secondly, they promise sundry things for the Children: Thirdly, the Children by their means, are said to have Faith and Repentance: Fourthly, They impose names upon the Infants. Of which the three first, are absurd, unreasonable, and almost ridiculous: and therefore profane, or blasphemous: The fourth is unjust, considering it is the parents due to give names to their Children.  I. 
I should marvel much (but that amongst Novelists, nothing is to be wondered at) that you can tolerate Godfathers: But now I remember myself, they be suffered in Geneva. Now tell me (pray you) by what Scripture do you allow them.  N. 
Some pretend an ancient custom begun by a Roman Bishop (in the days of Antoninus Pius) who first ordained that certain choice witnesses should present the Children to the Congregation, in case their Parents were dead, or fled for persecution: Others allege the witnesses recorded in Isaiah the Prophet. 
Isa. 8. 2.   I. 
But now you know are the times of peace: and so the former cause is void: As for the latter, it was drawn from a Prophetical and singular practice, and therefore hardly may be urged as imitable. Can we produce no firmer Scriptures for our Ecclesiastical practice, than such as those, would you not cry out upon us as Hercules Furens, or as Orestes.  N. 
What better proofs than have you for your Godfathers?  I. 
Children are truly said to be baptised into the faith of others: which speech is by many mistaken. For they suppose they are baptised into the faith of their immediate Parents only: which being granted; the Children not only of Pagans, and Turks, which are taken in War, but even of persons excommunicated, yea of all that are destitute of true faith shall be interdicted the use of Baptism: Whereas the truth is: that Infants are received into the faith and bosom of the Church, which is the Keepresse of the Covenant. The Church therefore chooseth certain witnesses as representative persons: to whom the questions are tendered: and by whom the promises are uttered in the behalf of the Babes. No marvel then, though by their means, Infants be said to have Faith, and Repentance; and to receive their Christian names from them, as being their Fathers in God: and therefore not unaptly termed Godfathers. The general proof of which thing is drawn from all Laws; which allow sundry actions done by Guardians in the minority of their Wards, to be as firm as if the Pupils themselves had performed them in their own persons being come to the years of discretion.  N. 
To admit this reason: yet to prejudice the Parents, who should have the right of naming their Children, cannot but be very injurious.  I. 
You are worse afraid than hurt: For they are very contentions Godfathers which ask not the Parents consent in this matter. But where be your Scriptures to prove that this is only the privilege of Fathers.  N. 
We have the example of Adam, jacob, 
Gen. 5. 3. & 35. 18. Luke 1. 63.  and Zacharie.  I. 
We could oppose to these the examples of Leah: and the wife of Phinees. 
Gen. 29. 32. 1. Sam. 4 21.   N. 
Leah did it only by the consent of her husband jacob: as may be collected by his practice in changing Benoni to Benjamin: As for Phinnees wife she was a Widow.  I. 
Your examples also are not void of all scruple: For it is said, That Sheth received 
Gen. 4 15.  his name from Euah: which (as it may seem) requested Adam that this name might be imposed. As for jacob; it seems that his wives did over entreat him for the names of his Children, except only the last. Now for Zacharie, 
Luke 1. 59  your instance is impertinent: For it is probable by the Story that the friends and kinsfolk did of Custom name the Child. And that Zachary did countermand them only by virtue of the Angels Charge: But you contend 
Luke 1. 13.  for trifles.  N. 
From Public Baptism, we come to Private. The necessity whereof we dislike, as imitating the Popish Limbus Infantum.  I. 
I had thought that the necessity of Sacraments in general, and of Baptism in particular, had been confirmed sufficiently, why do you now seethe the same Coleworts?  N. 
It seems you pretend necessity of Baptism to salvation: and therefore would have it administered at home in such cases.  I. 
These things are ill understood, and worse conjoined: For the necessity we intent, is not that of Salvation, but in regard of infirmities or other inconveniences: As for example, If a Child amongst the Hebrews, had been sick on the eighth day, Circumcision, upon necessity should have been deferred: would you have called this the necessity of salvation? Again, if we say that Children unbaptized, and so dying, are (in respect of ordinary means) forlorn; and out of the course of Salvation, may not the Speech, being well tempered, be truly justified?  N. 
You had need of good skill to temper the mettle of this speech.  I. 
These Cautions will serve to allay it, namely, That if there be neither Baptism, nor desire of the same: and that neither in the Infant nor in his Parents, nor in the visible Church (wherein he is borne, or into which he is casually brought;) Then, without extraordinary grace, he is excluded from the means of salvation. And what is all this to the Limb of Infants? For although the Child be damned, nay, though he suffer a less degree of torment, (for degrees of Hell pains I hope you 
Mat. 5. 22. & 10. 15. Luke 10 48. 1. Cor. 19 41.  will not deny) yet this will not make the Popish Limbus: which is (as the Papists determine it) the punishment of loss, and not of sense: Or of sense outward, but not inward: the fire, but not the worm. In sum, the Papists make a new kind of punishment: we only another degree.  N. 
Be this as you say: yet you cannot prove Baptism to be so necessary, that it should produce both Lathro-baptisme: and Anti-baptisme (which latter is a kind of Anabaptisme:) In your Lathro-baptisme (or private Baptism) first we disallow that it is administered privately in houses.  I. 
Were not Circumcision and the Passeover 
Exod. 4. 25. & 1●. 28.  both celebrated within the walls of the house? Did not Philip baptise the Eunuch in the next 
Acts 8. 36.  water he met with not expecting any Ecclesiastical Assembly to assist him? Hath not the Church been confined to a 
a Acts 1. 13.  Chamber? and to a private 
b Rom 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19  house? Was not the jailor with all his Family baptised by Saint Paul within 
c Acts 16. 33.  doors? Are not Private Chaplains allowed in the Houses of great Personages? But of all men, you should be silent herein, whose Classes and Conventicles, have been like to the House of Lecca to Catiline.  N. 
The second thing we dislike is: That you allow private Persons (even women) to administer Baptism, upon this pretended extremity.  I. 
First, our Laws disclaim it, as a thing not expedient: Secondly, notwithstanding we hold it lawful: But here mistake not our meaning: For although both before, and in the doing, we allow it not, yet, being once done, we account the action for no nullity.  N. 
We know that you defend Zipporah for circumcising her child: but we are of another mind.  I 
If a man should demand of you a place of Scripture, where Priests and not Private men; Nay, where men and not women are commanded to circumcize Infants, I believe you would sooner find the head of Nilus, than such a place. Might not every one offer the Passeover in his own house? Nay, in case the mistress of the house were a widow, and had none of her Family but of the female sex. Can you prove that she was bound to send for a Priest or a Man to slay the Paschall Lamb for her?  N. 
Yea, but Christ commanded his Apostles to baptise: and therefore this cannot be tolerable 
Math. 28. 19  in private men.  I. 
It is said, That Christ baptised more than john: yet in his own person he baptised 
John 4. 1, 2.  none, but only used the ministry of his Disciples. So it may be the Apostles baptised not by themselves but by 
d Acts 10. 48. 1. Cor. 1. 17. Acts 6. 3.  others, which thing is also to be understood of their administering the Lords Supper: as is collected by the speech of the Twelve to the multitude: For a though it seem principally to be spoken of alms: yet because alms were commonly joined with the Communion, it may be both were implied.  N. 
But it is against reason, that any save Ecclesiastical persons should be trusted with Baptism.  I. 
The same is agnized by our Laws, not because the thing is absolutely unlawful (much less for that being performed it is a mere nullity) but only because it is not convenient, as hath been said.  N. 
From Lathro-baptisme, we come to Anti-baptisme: which is a Conditional Baptism: A strange kind of Law: Not unlike some of the Edicts of Claudius Caesar: For in case it be doubted, whether the Infant be truly baptised at home, the Priest is commanded, thus to rebaptize him: If thou be not baptised already, I baptise thee, etc.  I. 
An abundant caution, hurts not (saith the Law.) For (tell me I pray you:) If you should find a young Infant in the streets of some City: and through the bowels of compassion did intent the education thereof, would you baptise it, or no?  N. 
It were the safer course to baptise it.  I. 
It may be than you rebaptize it: For peradventure it was baptised before it was exposed.  N. 
The ignorance of the fact, whereof myself am not the author doth excuse me, because it is presumed to be invincible.  I. 
In like manner, when, by no inquiry, it can be certainly known what was done in Private Baptism, this Cautelous Proviso may take place. And yet some 
c Master Thomas Hutton.  think that this was never yet put in practice. Some rumours have been to the contrary: but the thing is ambiguous.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of the Cross in Baptism.  N. 
HItherto have we treated of the parts of Baptism: Now followeth the consequent or thing annexed thereto: Namely the Cross: which sinneth against the Ten Commandments: and first, against the first precept, by Idolatry.  I. 
Is the Cross an inward Idol of the heart: or else an Idol external?  N. 
It is an Idol: an Idolathite: a monument of, and a motive to Idolatry. Now although it do only tempt to the conceiving of an inward Idol: (which temptation is forbidden in the Tenth Commandment alone) yet properly it is but an Outward Idol, violating the First Commandment and so to be abolished.  I. 
Your speech is as fruitful of errors, as Nilus of slime. At this time it hath hatched six Monsters: whereof the three first are slips in Method, where from, commonly false opinions do proceed. The first is, That you make tempting and motive to be two several things: whereas in this case they both agree. The second is: that you place tempting to Idolatry in the Tenth Commandment, whereas to be a motive to the same sin, is by you made a transgression of the first Precept.  N. 
Tempting may be without Consent: whereas a motive, implyith consent, or assent: and so the former is in the tenth, the latter in the first Commandment.  I. 
Your words are confused: But I haste to your matter. Tell me (I pray you) the order of sins against the Commandments.  N. 
All sins are either against God (forbidden in the first Table) or against our neighbour (interdicted in the second:) Again, the sins against our neighbour are either with consent (prohibited in the fift and the four following Precepts.) Or without the same (restrained only in the tenth Commandment.)  I. 
Where then are sins against God without consent prohibited (namely, the first motions and abstractions from Him?) Are they not in the first? So that you erred, when you made temptation to Idolatry, a sin against the tenth. Your third default is, that you make an outward Idol to be forbidden in the first.  N. 
How may this appear to be an error?  I. 
You err from the opinion, both of the Learned, and of the Vulgar: First, the Learned think, that in the first Precept, the only having, and the acknowledging of the True God, is enjoined: and his true (both inward and outward) worship in the Second. Secondly, the most vulgar wits are of opinion that God's inward worship is commanded in the first, and his outward in the second Precept. By both which sentences, you are cast in your suit: Forasmuch as all external Idols, are to be referred to the next ensuing Commandment. Hence you may learn, First, That your three next errors (namely, that every Idol is to be abolished: that the Cross is an Idol: That it tempteth to Idolatry.) Secondly, that your three next arguments (namely, that it is an Idolothite: a Monument of, and a motive to Idolatry) are to be handled in the Second Precept.  N. 
I proceed then to the second Commandment.  I. 
I pray you let me entreat you, before you proceed, that you would repeat in order the sins against the nine next Commandments committed by the Cross.  N. 
The second Precept is violated by the Superstition: The third, by the Hypocrisy: (for it brings vain fear and trust:) The fourth, by the impiety (for it thrusts out Ministers that would celebrate the Sabbath.) The fift by the Injustice: The sixth by the murder, (for it is scandalous.) The seventh, by Adultery, (as being the punishment of Idolatry:) The eighth by the wrong: The ninth, by the slander. The tenth, by the Concupiscence of the Cross (for it tempteth us to adore Popish Idols:)  I. 
Your ten imputations may be drawn to three: For first Hypocrisy, and profane impiety, cannot agree with Superstition: Secondly, if you prove not the Idolatry, your allegations will be cold concerning adultery and temptation: Thirdly, if the Cross be neither Idolatrous, Superstitious nor Scandalous: you will hardly manifest the injustice, wrong, or slander of the Cross. It resteth then, That you prove the Idolatry, Superstition, and Scandal of the same: The rest of your Snowballs will melt of themselves.  N. 
First, than I prove the Idolatry of the Cross, by those four Arguments which I before remembered.  I. 
But before you repeat them: Consider these Consequences. First, the Church of the Lutherans maintain images, which we term idols, as justly as you do the Cross: Shall we then say, that they be idolaters: Secondly, if the Cross be an idol: Then, either have the Brownists done well in separating themselves from idols: Or we (with the Reformed Churches) have done ill, in pretending no greater cause of Separation from Rome, than her idolatry.  N. 
An Idol may be taken either essentially (such were the Calves of jeroboam from which the Levites did separate 
a 2. Chron. 11. 14.  themselves) Or else by participation and occasion only (such was the Altar of King 
b 2. Kings 16. 11, 14.  Ahaz, from which no Separation was made.) Of the first kind are the Idols of Rome, which make their Church Idolatrous, and justify our Separation from them: Of the latter sort, are the Images of Lutherans, and our Cross: And therefore the Barrowists have erred in their separation from us.  I. 
Our Cross then is only an Idol by occasion; That is, a motive to idolatry; and so your fourth and first Arguments are confounded. Again, What reasoning is this: There is idolatry in the Cross, only by occasion and possibility; and yet you declaim at large against the actual Idolatry thereof: But of this hereafter: Now repeat the first Argument.  N. 
Every Idol is to be abolished, as appears both by 
c Deut. 7. 5 & 12. 3. joshua 23. 7.  Laws, and by 
d Gen. 35. 4. Exod. 32. 20. 2 Sam. 5. 22. 1. Kings 15 13. 2. Kings 10. 26. & 11. 18. & 18. 4. & 23. 12.  examples. But the Cross is an Idol: and therefore to be abolished.  I. 
If your Mayor were true, Then the Sun and Moon so much worshipped by the Heathens. Paul and Barnabas deified by the men of 
e Acts 14. 12.  Listra: yea, and the bread in the Sacrament (as being adored by Papists) should be destroyed, and abrogated.  N. 
My Mayor admitteth two exceptions: First, of God's creatures, (such are the Sun, and Moon: such were Paul and Barnabas.) Secondly, of God's Ordinances (such is the bread in the Sacrament (for these may not be destroyed though they be idolised.  I. 
Your exceptions are neither true, nor sufficient: For first, God destroyed the Gods of Egypt: 
f Numb. 33. 4.  and yet these being (Asps, Crocodiles, Dogs, and the like) were his creatures: Likewise he commanded the Groves (things not to be exempted from the number of his Creatures) to be burnt. josias also put down the horses of the 
g 2. Kings 23. 11  Sun) and yet they were things created by God: Secondly, the brazen Serpent (being God's Ordinance) was (notwithstanding) broken in pieces by Ezekias: Thirdly, Churches of Christians are neither Gods creatures, nor his direct ordinances: yet may not be demolished, howsoever they have been polluted with Idols.  N. 
First, your instances may be disproved: For it is not certain that God destroyed the Gods of Egypt. It may be also that by Gods, are meant the Images only. The Groves were to be burnt, not as created by God, but as ordered by man's art. The Horses of the Sun were removed by the King, but not destroyed: Secondly, Churches were ordained by God, as appears by salomon's Temple. Thirdly, if God, neither spare his own Creatures, nor ordinances, how shall we spare the inventions of men.  I. 
First, your answers to my instances, lean upon uncertain supposals, and wrested distinctions: Secondly, what you say of Churches is untrue: For both the house of 
h 1. Sam. 5. 20.  Dagon was more ancient than Salomon's Temple: and (by your own 
i In the third Chapter of this Book.  confession) this Temple was a part of the Ceremonial Law: and so hath no agreement with the Churches of Christians: Thirdly, you confess your own exceptions to be false: Forasmuch as God neither spareth his own creatures nor his ordinances, being defiled with Idolatry: Fourthly, you seem to answer nothing to the Brazen Serpent.  N. 
I will reserve that to another place: Now what answer you to the Laws and Examples by mealledged?  I. 
They prove only that the same individual idolised things are to be destroyed, but not their whole kind. For example: We may not burn all trees, because one tree hath been transformed into an Idol. And now I pray you confirm your Minor: Namely, that the Cross is an Idol.  N. 
Every humane ordinance, adored by Papists, is an Idol: But such is our Cross: and therefore to be reckoned amongst Idols.  I. 
Your Mayor must be thus limited: Every humane ordinance, which was idolatrous in the first institution, is an Idol: Else Churches shall be Idols: and the Brownist just, that wisheth their ruin: Again, your Minor is untrue: For our particular aerial Crosses were never worshipped by Papists. Now we may not for the abuse of some individuals, abolish the whole kind. Neither indeed is our Cross of the same kind with the Popish, differing therefrom in operations: For their Cross is said todrive away Devils: to Consecrate things unto God, and the like: which things we ascribe not to our Cross. Now the diversity of operations, doth sufficiently distinguish the kinds of things artificial: of which number is the Cross.  N. 
I will in an other sort enforce this Argument. The brazen Serpent ought to have been destroyed because it was worshipped: But our Cross is as the brazen 
l john 3. 14. & 8. 28. & 12. 32, 33.  Serpent: And therefore (being worshipped) is to be destroyed.  I. 
If the premises were true, they would only enforce the destruction of the Popish Cross, which hath no affinity with ours. But indeed, first, your Mayor is untrue.  N. 
Ezekias is praised for 
m 2. Kings 18. 5  it: Therefore he ought to have done it.  I. 
Your Consequence is weak: First, because it may be it was a thing indifferent, namely, whether he would destroy or remove the Serpent. For tell me. A Prince is praised for building a Church or Hospital: shall we say he was bound to do it? Was it not left arbitrary to him, whether he would by this, or some other means declare his Princely magnificence to the Church, or to the poor? Secondly, it is probable, that the King did this by a divine instinct.  N. 
When I used the like 
n In this first book, Chap. 3.  answer, you disallowed, it as unsound.  I. 
But I have a firm reason for my Assertion. A divine ordinance could not be disannulled, but by a divine ordinance and instinct. But such was the brazen Serpent: And therefore without some such instinct could not be lawfully defaced. But this instinct being special cannot be exemplary. Besides, your Minor is not well confirmed out of Saint john: First, because a figure cannot be the sign of a figure, but of a thing figured: except you mean that it was a parallel figure, as Baptism 
o 1. Pet. 3. 21.  to the Flood: But so you honour the Cross more than we: Secondly, these places especially the first (for the two latter make no mention of the Serpent) do resemble Christ to the Serpent, and the Cross only to the Pole, or Instrument on which the Serpent was elevated: So that if you had spoken pertinently, you should have thus reasoned: The brazen Serpent, being worshipped, was to be defaced: But Christ was as the brazen Serpent: And therefore being worshipped, is to be defaced: This conclusion would serve well under the standard of Christ's Enemies.  N. 
My second argument to prove the Idolatry of the Cross is this. The Cross is an Idolothite (or thing offered to Idols: and therefore is with them to be abolished.  I. 
Your reason is firm against the Popish Cross and so draws in the same yoke of impertinency with the former: Again, it is a phrase of hard concoction to say that an Idol was offered to Idols: Lastly, meats consecrated to Idols might not be refused, but in case of 
p 1. Cor. 10 25.  scandal: and therefore you may reserve this bulrush till you come to that place.  N. 
Thirdly, I thus prove the Idolatry of the Cross: It is a Relic and Monument of Idolatry: and therefore Idolatrous.  I. 
If this word Monument be deduced from 
q Monimentum à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (permaneus) vel à monendo monumentum: ut documentum, ac nocumentum, à docendo nocendoque ducta.  remaining, then how can our transient aerial Cross be a Monument. But if it be taken from warning, then is it only a Monument, as it is a motive to Idolatry. And so your third and fourth Arguments justle together, as the Rocks called Symplegades in the Euxine Sea. And this your fourth reason you may let pass till you speak of Scandal: For if it be not Scandalous it is no motive to Idolatry.  N. 
From the Idolatry of the Cross, I fly to the Superstition thereof: which I prove also by four Arguments: First, the Cross was invented by Valentinus the Heretic; and confirmed by a Fabulous Vision fathered upon Constantine: namely, that he saw, the figure of the Cross in the air: and heard these words: Overcome in; 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Or by this, or to this (namely to Christ) of whom this Cross is a remembrance.  this whereupon he is said to have made the sign of the Cross in his Standard: Whereas it is more likely that he saw the Letters of Christ's name: and therefore it cannot be but superstitious.  I. 
That Valentinus used it, we deny not: But you cannot prove that he was the Inventor thereof. This is some thing like your Story you told of jubal the inventor of Music. Again, the Primitive Church was not so nice as you: to refuse all inventions of Heretics. What? will you reject Printing and Guns, because they were found out by Papists? Will the Papists neglect verses in their Bibles, because 
Robert Steven.  a Protestant was the ˢ Author of them? As for that which you relate of Constantine, think you we will not rather believe his eyes, and the consent not only of his Army, but even of the whole Church, than your contradictory, and lately-borne unlikelihoods?  N. 
My second reason to prove the superstition of the Cross is this. The first use of making the Cross is abolished: (Namely, the Profession of Christ's Cross before the Pagans which derided the same.) It is therefore superstitious.  I. 
The weakness of this reason was declared, when we spoke of Gloria Patri: for though the first use were grown old, another equally profitable may succeed: Again, there be too many despisers of the Cross, especially the men of your heat: in regard of whom the first use may remain in his full vigour.  N. 
The Cross at first was used in presence of the Pagans, not in Baptism, whether the Paynims were not admitted.  I. 
The use thereof was ancient in Baptism: even during the time of Paganism: But our contemners of the Cross, are admitted to behold (I had almost said to celebrate) our Sacraments.  N. 
Thirdly, I thus reason. The Cross is added to Baptism, and that as a Sacramental or Signifying Sign: And is therefore superstitious.  I. 
Your Antecedent leans upon an error, and a slander. Your error is, that you suppose Sacraments to be bare signs, and not to convey grace by assistance: The Cross is a sign: yet not Sacramental, but humane and voluntary: not of our covenant with God; but of our profession towards men: As if a man should put a Map of Canaan in the end of the Book of josua: not as a divine addition thereto; but as an humane explication thereof. In like manner the Cross doth historically, not sacramentally describe unto us Christ's death: Wherefore it is a Slander that we add it to Baptism as Sacramental or Essential.  N. 
We may not set an other Altar by that which 
t 2. Kings 16. 14  is God's: nor a threshold by his 
u Ezek. 43. 8.  threshold: and therefore we may not add the Cross to Baptism.  I. 
These places only prove, that Idolatry may not be mingled with God's worship: Now the Idolatry of the Cross you were not able to prove.  N. 
Fourthly, I thus argue against the Cross. It was removed out of the Lords Supper. And therefore in like manner is to be taken out of Baptism.  I. 
First, being a thing indifferent (as we maintain it) it was lawful to abolish it in the one, and to retain it in the other Sacrament. Secondly, the retaining of the Cross in the Lord's Supper, was more dangerous, by reason of the artolatry, (or worship of the bread) as also because there it was more permanent, and durable, then in Baptism.  N. 
Because you make the Cross a thing indifferent, I pass to the third thing, which is a Scandal: as being most conversant about things of that kind. And thus I argue: A thing, though indifferent, yet being Scandalous is to be removed. But such is the Cross: to be removed therefore.  I. 
If all were granted, yet are you bound to Subscription: For in things indifferent, howsoever offensive, the Scandal doth redound upon the Commander, not upon him that obeyeth. For example: If a Master charge his Servant to roast that piece of meat, which is more fit to be boiled: shall the Servant plead indifferency out of his disobedience? Can any Family or Commonwealth long endure with such rude discipline? But to let your Argument stand in force: First, your Mayor must be limited to Scandal given, and not taken: and then is your Minor untrue: For the Scandal of the Cross is not justly given, but unjustly taken. This appears by two reasons. First, as it is commanded, for to use it, is a thing indifferent: but to reject it is the sin of Disobedience to lawful Authority: Secondly, though it were not enjoined: yet is it not offensive for two causes: First, because they which are offended hereby, are neither in number, nor dignity, comparable to them which are not scandalised: Secondly, because a thing scandalous, is an act (that is a deed, speech, or gesture) causing the weak to err out of the way, or to stumble in it: For as much as they are not weak, which pretend themselves hereby to be offended, it cannot justly be termed scandalous.  N. 
They be weak that are offended by the Cross, some within, and some without our Church: within are both Ministers and People.  I. 
The Ministers may not justly be accounted weak: For if they confess it, why do they resist that wherein they acknowledge their own weakness? If they deny it, how comes it to pass, that they writ so largely, and (as they think) learnedly against it? Again, If they deny it they cannot be scandalised: for none can be offended but weak Brethren.  N. 
No men in a controversy will acknowledge their own weakness: So that, by this reason none can be offended.  I. 
Ministers are presumed to be strong in common construction: especially when they dare by writing oppose themselves to the Church: which is not unlike the heaping of Mountains against Heaven.  N. 
Yea, but the People are offended two ways: First, the Sheep are scattered when the Shepherd is smitten: especially when his necessary office is taken from him for things indifferent, such as you pretend the Cross to be.  I. 
Disobedience in things indifferent, is sinful, and not indifferent: And better it were the People to be utterly untaught, then to be carried about with so many windy fancies as have been exhaled out of your dens.  N. 
Secondly, the People are scandalised at the Cross, in that they fear it will bring back Popery, and Israel into Egypt: forasmuch as it doth tempt and move us to Idolatry.  I. 
It may moon by accident but not of itself: As the beholding of our naked Churches may move an ignorant old man to consider the gorgeous Ornaments in Popery: and peradventure to bewail the want of Images and Pictures then in use. Such vain surmises as these had long ago been removed, if with the show of lenity, we had not tolerated the bellowes of Sedition. For as the austerity of women driveth away Adulterers; So the Severity of Governors silenceth the factious.  N. 
As within; so without the Church many are offended with the Cross, both friends and adversaries. Our friends of the Reformed Churches have abolished the same: and therefore cannot approve in us the toleration thereof.;  I. 
If these Churches differing from us in matters of great moment (as appears in the questions touching the Hierarchy, Tithes, and the like) do yet notwithstanding account us their friend: How much more will they endure our dissenting from them in a matter indifferent as is the Cross? Rome and Milan may have diverse Rites, and yet but one faith.  N. 
Our Adversaries both Barrowists and Papists, by our use of the Cross, receive no small Scandal.  I. 
The Learned in both these factions may not be accounted weak: and so cannot be offended. The number and worth of Brownists unlearned is no way to be equallized in matter of offence, to Our State and Multitude. As for the unlearned Papists, I thus retort their argument. To remove the Cross being a thing indifferent, should have been a thing Scandalous at the entrance of the Gospel, forasmuch as the greatest part of the Land was them Popishly addicted. So, that if nothing had been yielded to their infirmity, they would have degenerated from Popery to Atheism. Neither is the removal thereof now less offensive. For innovation in things indifferent, without important necessity, is perilous both to the State and Church. Thus your arguments, which afar off, seemed to be like a great ship, being nearly and narrowly viewed, are found to be nothing but certain logs floating upon the water.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Of Confirmation.  N. 
THe first Sacrament of Infants (namely Baptism) being handled: The second followeth, namely, Confirmation.  I. 
Forasmuch as we make only Two Sacraments generally necessary to salvation: (Baptism, and the Lord's Supper) why have you here ranked Confirmation?  N. 
Not only because, by your Assertion, it appertaineth to Children as well as Baptism: nor yet because it is made a preparation to the Communion, and so should come before it (for we well approve of the preparative examination of Children before the receiving of the Communion) but principally, for that you both make it a Sacrament: yea, and prefer it before Baptism. The former whereof appeareth in that you do ascribe unto it (in the second Prayer) both a visible sign, and aninuisible grace. The Sign you make the imposition of hands. The grace you intent is the increase and strengthening of those gifts of the Spirit, which were conferred in Baptism.  I. 
Concerning the name of Sacrament, we do not greatly contend. But for the sign, we first produce that famous Catechism of the Author to the Hebrews, whereof Six Principles 
Heb. 6. 1, 2.  are propounded: Two internal (Repentance, and Faith:) Two external (Baptism and Imposition of hands:) Two Eternal (the Resurrection and the judgement.)  N. 
Imposition there mentioned belongs to Orders, not to Confirmation.  I. 
Your Catechism differs from ours: For you, supposing Discipline to be an essential part of the Gospel, teach it your Children even amongst the swaddling bands of their first rudiments. But we thus reason against your exposition of this place. Imposition of hands in Orders belongs not to the Principles of Religion; to be delivered to them that are Neophytes and Catechumeni (that is, Novices in Religion:) But the imposition here meant is such: and therefore cannot agree to Orders, but rather to Confirmation: Of which even Children may be partakers.  N. 
Your Mayor is untrue: For Church Discipline (and consequently Orders) belong partly to the fift Commandment: partly, to the Second Petition: and therefore may not be excluded out of the Catechism.  I. 
The Obedience to Magistrates doth belong also to the Fift Precept. This Obedience cannot be exactly known without understanding the Positive Laws of the Country: Would you have these Laws also inserted into the Catechism.  N. 
A general, and confused knowledge of this obedience, and of the nature of Laws is sufficient for them that are newly Catechised.  I. 
So we think their heads should not be molested with intricate scruples about Discipline: whereof one is the imposition of hands in Orders. As for your fancy touching the second Petition, it is lighter than vanity. Secondly, we produce the practice of Christ in imposing 
See before in in the Litany.  hands upon 
a Math. 19 13, 15.  Infants.  N. 
We do not so much insist upon the sign as upon the inward grace, for which you have no warrant.  I. 
We have a warrant signed from the highest authority: For first, if Christ laid hands upon Children to pray for them: think you that his Prayer did return empty without some spiritual grace? Is the Prayer of 
b james 5. 14. & 16.  a righteous Elder so forcible for the Sick, and was not Christ's Prayer effectual for the Sound? Did not the Apostle confirm men with Spiritual gifts?  N. 
The Apostles had power to give the Holy Ghost: Our Bishops cannot claim the like privilege.  I. 
Do you mean, they cannot give the Holy Ghost in Orders?  N. 
Of that we shall entreat elsewhere. My meaning is: they cannot grant the strengthening of spiritual grace to Children.  I. 
Can the Priests of the Law so put God's Name upon the Children of Israel, that thereupon 
d Numb. 6. 27.  he blessed them? And shall not our Evangelicall Bishops, with Prayer and Imposition of hands obtain the increase of divine grace? Think you they are all unrighteous men, and that their Prayer is abominable?  N. 
What we think of their persons you must pardon if we utter not.  I. 
There is no need of that: the Land crawleth with Libels.  N. 
We are displeased if any of our brethren have been untemperate herein: But to return to Confirmation: If in it there be both a sign, and a spiritual grace; why is it not a Sacrament properly so called?;  I. 
Either because Imposition of hands, which is the sign thereof, is not proper to the same, but common to Orders with it; Or rather because Confirmation, is not generally necessary to Salvation: I mean in that degree of necessity which is found in Baptism, and the Lords Supper.  N. 
It may seem probable, that if Strength and Perseverance be given by it, it should be even generally necessary.  I. 
First, it is not so directly enjoined as our two general Sacraments be: Secondly, many Children dying before they have need of Confirmation, are yet most justly reputed as actual partakers of eternal life.  N. 
That Confirmation may in a large sense be called a Sacramental mystery is very much. But that it should be preferred before Baptism is intolerable: Considering also that you contradict yourselves herein.  I. 
You must first declare how it appeareth that we advance it above Baptism.  N. 
Not only above Baptism, but even above the Lord's Supper: For it is permitted to each Deacon to administer your Baptism: But the Communion in both kinds, may not be celebrated by any under the degree of a Priest: Confirmation is allowed only to Bishops: whereby the Dignity and Order of these Sacraments is manifest.  I. 
Why, did you then place it before the Communion?  N. 
It was convenient to set it immediately after Baptism, because it seemeth to be a kind of Baptism itself: only of a more excellent degree, as being administered by a Degree of a more noble account.  I. 
I pray you declare unto me, Why is the Head more noble than the Body?  N. 
The Body toucheth only, the Head both toucheth and tasteth and hath other Senses.  I. 
The heart only toucheth: The tongue both toucheth and tasteth: Is it therefore more noble than the heart?  N. 
In a man it speaketh also: and so is more noble.  I. 
But what say you to the tongue of a beast?  N. 
It is not more noble than the heart by itself: but as it is a part of the head.  I. 
Will you conclude then that tassing is better than touching?  N. 
Nothing less: For touching is the root, and first borne of sense: yet touching with tasting is more excellent than simple touching.  I. 
In like manner though Baptism be most necessary (because Children baptised have all things necessary to Salvation) yet Baptism, joined with Confirmation, is more excellent than simple Baptism. No marvel then though it be assigned to a more excellent degree, that is, the Episcopal; Especially seeing that Philip 
Acts 8. 16.  though he preached and baptised, yet might not confirm: this being reserved for the Apostles. And now tell me, where is our Contradiction?  N. 
You contradict yourselves both in regard of your Doctrine and Practice. For the first; you teach that Children baptised have all things necessary for salvation: which if it be true, then what need of Confirmation?;  I. 
Had the Israelites in the Wilderness, all things needful to Salvation?  N. 
They had: else their sin should not want excuse.  I. 
They had only the the five Books of Moses: were these sufficient to salvation?  N. 
They were for that time.  I. 
What then? Were josua, and the other Books needless?  N. 
They were also needful in their season.  I. 
In like manner Baptism of Infants is sufficient to them for eternal life, if they die incontinently after Baptism: Nevertheless, if they come to years, both Confirmation, and the Lords Supper may be necessary even as repentance, and the hearing of Sermons may not by you be affirmed to be needless to the purchase of heaven.  N. 
Again you contradict yourselves in practice: For which of your Prelates doth urge or use Confirmation?  I. 
To reason from Practice to Laws, doth argue but a distempered mind. Now the reason why the Fathers of our Church do not so often Confirm Children, is partly drawn from the shortness of time, wherein they hold their Seats: partly from the infinite molestations, with which they are infested: but principally from the obstinacy of the People, who disdain these things: And no marvel, considering your Frogs are permitted to croak in each Chamber.   

CHAP. XV.  
Of the Lord's Supper.  N. 
YOu may mis-tearme us at your pleasure. Nevertheless I proceed from the Sacraments appertaining to Children, (Namely, Baptism and Confirmation) to those which belong to men of years (Namely, the Communion, and Penance) whereof the former belongs to men in health: and the latter to sick men only.  I. 
Do not we also minister the Communion to the Sick?  N. 
So you do indeed: as also you make it an appendix to Matrimony: But of these we shall entreat in their due places. Now we return to your Public Communion: wherein three things we dislike: whereof two come before; the third is in the act of receiving. Of those that come before, this is the former. (Lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Devil enter as he entered into judas) by which words you intimate that judas received the Lord's Supper, which is untrue.  I. 
What then did he receive?  N. 
He was only partaker of the Passeover.  I. 
Be it so (as you affirm) yet is our argument most firm▪ For if Satan entered into judas, because he did unworthily receive the Passeover (which was immediately to be abrogated) what punishment shall abide us, if we do not duly partake of that Sacrament which shall not be altered till the Second Coming of Christ? But now let us hear how you prove that judas did not receive the Lords Supper.  N. 
The Sop was before the Communion (as being a part of the Passeover.) For Luke saith, the Communion was celebrated after the Supper (meaning the 
a Luke 22. 20.  Passeover:) But immediately after the receiving of the Sop 
b John 13. 30.  judas departed, and therefore could not be made partaker of the Communion.  I. 
How doth it appear that the Sop was a part of the Passeover?  N. 
The jewish Rabbins declare, that a Cake was broken at the beginning of the Passeover into two pieces, whereof the one was eaten before, the other after the Paschall Lamb, both dipped in sauce of 
c Exod. 12. 8.  sour herbs.  I. 
Of the herbs I read in Scripture, but neither of the sauce, nor of the cake.  N. 
It seems that Christ received it from some Tradition of the Elders, who by their discretion did apportionate this Cake, and Sauce, to the Herbs mentioned in the Law.  I. 
Can the Elders in the Synagogue appoint external Ceremonies in God's service besides the letter of the Law? And will you make Our Church like the servile wife of a Russian, not attempting to order the most indifferent things without express warrant from her husband? And now to return to judas. How will you satisfy this argument? After Supper was the 
d Luke 22. 20.  Communion celebrated: after which yet followed the words of Christ, The hand of him that 
e Luke 22 21. and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26. 26. is to be translated not comedentibus, but cum comedissent being the second Aorist.  betrayeth me, is with me at the table. It seemeth then that judas was present at the Communion.  N. 
There is an Hysterosis in the Story of Luke. For Matthew (recording the same words) doth repeat them before the administering of the Communion. The like Preposteration is seen in the temptations of Christ.  I. 
It would trouble you to tell, which temptation was the second: which the third: and whither the Hysterosis were in Matthew, or in Luke. The like may be said of this Story. Thus you perceive, for aught that you have alleged, your opinion is but probable in this matter: and yet (as I before declared) our Liturgy doth not contradict you.  N. 
The second thing that we dislike, is that you allow the Confession before the Communion to be uttered by any one of the Communicants, in the name of the rest, whereby a private man or woman is made the mouth of the Congregation.  N. 
The meaning of the Rubric is this? That one (at the least) necessarily shall join with the Priest. If all do it voluntarily, they 
See more Chapter 5.  shall not be prohibited, as appears by our Daily Practice.  N. 
In your receiving of the Communion we disallow your Idolatrous kneeling.  I. 
When we pray, kneeling is a gesture most convenient. But in the receiving we do pray by the commandment of the Church. For both the Minister prayeth, and we also are commanded to receive it with thanksgiving, which is a kind of Prayer: and therefore kneeling cannot be denied to be expedient.  N. 
Your Mayor is not firm: For I suppose that few are accustomed to kneel when they give thankes at meat.  I. 
You reason from a short Prayer to one of a more determinate nature: From a Prayer in private business, to one that is annexed to God's solemn service: And (which is worst) when we argue of expediency, you invert the state of the question, as though we reasoned about necessity. In sum, we say that to kneel in Prayer is, though not always necessary, yet for the most part expedient: as being the most significant symbol of that reverence, which the creature should exhibit to God in supplication.  N. 
But your Minor also faileth: For although we will not simply deny, that the Church may ordain Prayers: yet, that Solitary Prayer may be used in the Church (which is the place assigned for Public Prayer) it seemeth unreasonable.  I. 
Herein you commit a double error: First, in that you imagine a man may not use Solitary Prayer in the Church: which is refuted both by salomon's Prayer and by Christ's 
f 1. Kings 8. 41 & 43. Luke 18. 10. & 13.  Parable.  N. 
What then? Do you commend them, which in the time of Public Prayer, betake themselves to their private devotions.  I. 
Nothing less: And yet, if either before or after: or in the intermission of Solemn Service, men turn themselves to Prayer, we cannot but commend it. Neither may we condemn those men which suddenly entering into a Church (in the midst of Divine Service or of a Sermon, do with a short, and quick Prayer, address and sanctify themselves to the solemn action in hand. Your second error is, that you make some public action to be interrupted by this Prayer: Whereas indeed, like as the Sacrament is particularly administered to every man: so each man is bound to particularise and apply to himself the Sacramental benefit by devout invocation of God's name. And certainly if sing may concur with Receiving: why may not Prayer, whereof Singing is one kind. Furthermore for kneeling I thus reason: An action indifferent, determined by lawful authority, is to be performed: But such is kneeling at the Communion; And therefore may not be refused.  N. 
Your Mayor holdeth not in case of Scandal.  I. 
This was before answered in the Cross, when we treated of Baptism.  N. 
Yea, but your Minor is to be denied for two causes: First, That which Christ did not, we may not do: But Christ did not kneel at his Supper, And therefore it is unlawful to be done by us.  I. 
Your reason stands all of Negatives, an old error in your Logic.  N. 
The Minor may be negative; because the Mayor is a Relative.  I. 
You should do better to convert your Mayor: and then your reason will be formal: But before you change it, mark the falsehood of it: Christ did not baptise? Mightour Ministers 
John 4. 2.  refuse to baptise any, lest they should do that which Christ never did?  N. 
Because you so much insist upon formality, I will turn my Mayor.  I. 
You have so long resisted the formalities of Orders, that you dare not insist upon the formalities of Art: And generally it may be observed that through a froward kind of idleness, you have made Arts Eunuches.  N. 
I return to my Argument, That which Christ did we must do. But Christ did sit at his Supper: We therefore ought to sit: And, by consequent, not to kneel.  I. 
First, your Mayor wants armour of proof: For Christ did some things miraculous as God (As fasting forty days, walking upon the water, and the like:) Some things as Mediator (Namely, as Dying for Mankind:) Some things Ceremonial (as when he was Circumcised, and received the Passeover) because he was subject to the Law.  N. 
Why do you fetch such a compass? We speak of Christ's moral actions, which be our imitation.  I. 
You have set yet to large a compass: For Christ did morally some actions in a double manner: Namely, some as necessary: some as indifferent: Of the first kind are those which the Law commanded to which he subjected himself (as when he went about doing good:) Of the latter sort are those, which are left free to man's arbitrement (as namely when he both sat, and stood at several times of his preaching:) In sum, that which Christ commanded to be done, is necessarily imitable.  N. 
Nay, that which Christ did if it be possible, and convenient to be done, doth require our imitation.  I 
Why then do we not receive the Communion after Supper, at Night, with unleavened bread, our feet first washed.  N. 
These things are not judged convenient, and therefore not urged.  I. 
The like may be affirmed ot sitting, being a thing no more commanded than the rest.  N. 
It is thought expedient: because it signifieth our rest, and spiritual familiarity with God.  I. 
This figure is of your own erection. For was not this rest aswell presented in the Passeover, as in the Lord's Supper: And yet it is gathered by the Story: that the Hebrews did stand at the eating of the 
g Exod. 12. 11.  Lamb.  N. 
The first time of the Passeover (being in Egypt) did require standing as most convenient: forasmuch as then they were not in rest, but hastening their departure: For when they came to their rest in Canaan: it appears by the Story of Christ that they did sit at the 
h Mat. 26. 20.  Passeover.  I. 
It seems then that was indifferent, whether they did stand or sit: And so your allegory is as sick as a Quail: Again, might not some Israelite have thus reasoned in Egypt: This Passeover is a figure of our heavenly rest, and therefore we should sit, and not stand: Might not Caleb or joshua when they were come to the Land of Canaan, have thus argued. This Lamb is a remembrance of our hasty coming out of the land of Egypt: Therefore we should not sit at our ease, but stand, like men in haste: Or thus: This is a remembrance of our Egyptiacall service: Therefore we should stand like slaves; and not sit like freemen. Would these Arguments have been currant at that time.  N. 
Sitting at Supper is most convenient: and therefore at the Lords Supper.  I. 
Is not our Communion answerable to the Passeover? Was not that a Supper appointed by God, aswell as this? And yet (as yourself lately confessed) they stood in Egypt at the eating of the Paschall Lamb.  N. 
Yea, but the Communion is directly called a 
i 1. Cor. 11. 20.  Supper: and therefore sitting, being a gesture used at ordinary Suppers, is here also Convenient.  I. 
Is not the Passeover likewise called a 
k Luke 22. 20.  Supper, and yet they stood at the eating thereof? Besides, though Christ received it after Supper, yet, partly for the abuse of 
l 2. Pet. 2. 13. jude 12 compared with 1. Cor. 11. 21.  Love-feasts: and partly because men were accustomed to receive it fasting: the Communion was translated from Evening to Morning: and Love-feasts were abolished. So that if you term the Eucharist a Supper; you shall do it, neither in regard of the time▪ nor of the circumstance of a meal: but only in remembrance of the first institution. And therefore, although it were granted that Christ did sit, because he was set before at Supper: yet this situation cannot be enforced upon us as necessary, forasmuch as we receive it at the time of Breakfast (when men rather use to stand then sit) not of Supper.  N. 
We like of standing, better than of kneeling.  I. 
Remember your own Argument: What Christ did not, we must not do: But Christ did not stand (for you avouch that he sat:) standing therefore is unlawful? Or (as yourself inverted the reason.) What Christ did, we must do: But Christ did sit (as you aver) we must therefore sit, and not stand These are children of your own: and therefore you must be at the cost of their education.  N. 
Some Reformed Churches use Standing, aswell as Sitting.  I. 
I could use a reason of your own Logic, thus: a situation, which is not sitting, is lawful at the Communion: (for you grant standing to be a thing indifferent, and therefore lawful:) But kneeling is such a situation. And therefore most lawful. And thus fare of your 
Negatio infinitans negationem simplicem non efficit.  Mayor: though this also might be added: That it is weakness to argue from decency in ordinary Suppers, to that comeliness which is meet at the Lords Table. For it is decent to come hungry to a bodily supper, which Saint Paul alloweth not at the Lords Supper. Would 
1. Cor. 11. 21.  you have men cover their heads, use trenchers, knives, and other such appurtenances at the Communion? But now to your Minor, wherein you affrme that Christ did sit at the Communion. First, we desire to know that place where this is avoucht.  N. 
Is it not plain in the Story? 
Math. 26. 20.   I. 
It is plain that he sat at the Passeover: which Saint Luke calleth the Supper: after which the same Evangelist reporteth, he instituted the Sacrament: and so for ought you can bring to the contrary, he did rise from Supper: and so might either stand or kneel: And his kneeling is more probable: because he blessing the Bread, may be thought to have prayed kneeling.  N. 
Christ used at other Suppers to sit: and therefore it is likely that he did so here likewise.  I. 
When he fed many thousands with a few loaves, did he sit, or stand?  N. 
It is not expressed, and therefore is uncertain.  I. 
Was this a Supper: or not?  N. 
It was an evening repast: and so may be termed a Supper.  I. 
By your own words than it is clear: how uncertain it is, whether Christ sat at every supper. So that, if you make your reason perfect, the error will be manifest: For example: That which Christ did at every supper: that he did at this: But he sat at every supper: And therefore at this also. Your Minor (as you see) is ambiguous, and cannot universally be confirmed. Your Mayor also is incoherent, because it is not necessary he should do all things at this extraordinary supper, which he did at the times of his common refection. But the truth is, that he did ordain the Sacrament after Supper: And therefore it is styled a Supper, only by a Figure.  N. 
It is likely that being set at the Passeover, he would not rise till he had appointed the Sacrament.  I. 
I shown you before the unlikelihood thereof: And from likelihood to reason to necessity is a bondage, which the meanest wits will not endure.  N. 
It is generally granted that Christ sat at his own Supper.  I. 
It is granted by the most, that he sat, as he did at the Passeover: would you be content to sit in the like manner? Would you have three beds set about your Communion Table? Would you that your neighbour should lean upon your breast, as john did upon Christ's?  N. 
Tell me (I pray you:) what bread used 
john 13. 23.  Christ at his Supper?  I. 
Unleavened bread: for there was no other to be had at the Passeover.  N. 
Is it not then lawful for us to use leavened bread?  I. 
We ought to use the ordinary bread of the country: whether leavened or unleavened it is not material.  N. 
In like manner Sitting is necessary: But the order of sitting, whether jewish (upon beds) or Turkish (upon carpets spread on the ground) or according to the custom of Europe: is left to us as indifferent and arbitrary.  I. 
When you can prove sitting to be as necessary as the bread in the Sacrament, then will we grant, that you may sit after the Turkish or jewish fashion.  N. 
Christ's sitting differed from that which we contend for, only by accident, not essentially: For leaning is but an accident of sitting.  I. 
In what Category is sitting to be placed?  N. 
In the Ninth; which is called Situs, or Situation.  I. 
Is not leaning a kind of situation also?  N. 
It is a situation-partiall, not total, that is, of a part, not of the whole body.  I. 
How differeth Vbi from Situs?  N. 
Vbi is the applying of place to the whole body: Situs of the parts thereof.  I. 
Of all, or of some?  N. 
I think of all.  I. 
You may not think so: unless you imagine that sitting differeth not from standing? considering that all the parts receive not a divers situation in these two.  N. 
What if I grant that leaning is a kind of situation?  I. 
Attend to this Argument: Two Species of the same kind differ essentially, not by accident: But, sitting and leaning are two species of the same kind (namely, of situation:) And therefore your sitting differeth from that of Christ's essentially.  N. 
Situations are but accidents: and therefore can differ but by accident.  I. 
Situation is an accident to the subject 
Scaliger exercitation. 325. Sect. 2.  (namely to the body) and yet essential to sitting & leaning (being the kinds thereof) whereby your sitting doth as essentially differ from Christ's action, as our kneeling.  N. 
Were it granted that Christ did not sit, yet kneeling is unlawful because it was appointed by a Pope for the honour of the Idolatrous Artolatry: 
Honorius, Anno Dom. 1220.  And therefore, being scandalous, doth cease to be indifferent.  I. 
Concerning Scandal, we spoke before in the Cross. Touching your consequence. I entreated in your first general objection: But your antecedent is also deceitful: for our kind of kneeling, was not ordained by the Pope, as may thus appear. Popish kneeling (or kneeling ordained by the Pope, was, and is, for the honour of the Breaden God: But, our bowing of the knee is not such; And therefore cannot be Popish.  N. 
The term Popish may be taken in a double sense: Directly or Indirectly: Directly, when Idolatry is intended by the Whole Visible Congregation: Indirectly, when some one receiver against the common intention of the Church doth idolatrously worship the bread: Or thus: Directly, when the worship of some Idol is plainly put in practice: Indirectly: when for the present, it is not practised in gross manner, but creepeth on (as abuses do) by stealing, and insensible steps: Like as the setting up of Images in the Church (although not then adored) did in process of time, produce Open Idolatry.  I. 
These two shifts make you relapse into the question of Scandal, of which we treated before in the Cross.  N. 
Then I say, that your kneeling, is directly Popish, and Idolatrous, as may thus first appear: To worship God, in, at, or before a Creature, is Idolatry, and Popery: But such is your kneeling, Ergo.  I. 
You join Idolatry and Popery, as if they sounded all one thing: whereas many kinds of Idolatry be not Popish: and many Papistical things have no agreement with Idols. But to your Mayor: May not we worship God in the Earth, at a Church, before Angels and Men: and are not these Creatures? Indeed to ascribe inherent or reflexive holiness to Creatures in God's worship, is a kind of Idolatry: But yet to deny that they have holiness by assistance, is mere waywardnesse.  N. 
Secondly, I thus argue: To worship Christ's manhood as present, when indeed it is absent; is Idolatry: But such is your kneeling: Ergo.  I. 
Were your Mayor true, than none should worship Christ's manhood, but those that had seen him walk upon the earth: or those that triumph with him in heaven: whereas indeed we are bound to worship the Whole Person of Christ, and consequently his Manhood. As for your Minor, it is most weak: For men may kneel without consideration of Christ's Manhood: 
John 9 38. Ephes. 1. 21, 22. Heb. 1. 6.  I mean it was possible before Christ's coming though now it be unlawful: For to worship half Christ is partly Heresy; partly, Idolatry. Besides your argument, may be thus retorted upon you. Where, by the union of the spirit, Christ, and God are present, with a gracious presence, there to kneel praying is lawful. But so it is in the Sacrament (for the Spirit assisting the bread uniteth us to Christ's Manhood, and so to his Godhead, and consequently the Deity of the Father:) Our kneeling therefore cannot but be lawful.  N. 
By this reason, men should kneel at a Sermon: for there also is the Spirit present.  I. 
If men could pray and hear at once, kneeling were not there unlawful.  N. 
Another thing in the receiving we dislike, that you say Christ's Body and Blood, is verily and indeed received of the faithful.  I. 
These words verily and indeed, refute the common error, making Sacraments bare signs: But these, of the faithful, refel the Lutheran and Papist, who make the Reprobate, aswell as the Elect, partakers of Christ.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Of the Visitation of the Sick.  N. 
FRom the Sacrament (belonging to the Sound) I pass to the Visitation of the Sick, which is compounded of two corrupted Sacraments, Private Communion, and Penance. In the former we dislike the necessity, and Privateness thereof. Touching the necessity, we marvel much: that you make it a thing so needful to salvation.  I. 
Besides my former arguments used in Baptism, I add first this distinction: That a thing needful to salvation is either a proper working cause thereof: Or any thing that is helpful, and comfortably expedient to the same. In this latter sense, we speak of Sacraments; as also of good works: Secondly, I propound this reason? That thing whereby ordinarily God's Spirit is conveyed (namely, by the way of assistance only) to strengthen our faith against daily sudden temptations, that thing is needful and helpful to salvation: But such is the Eucharist: Ergo.  N. 
Though we should grant that in this sense the Sacrament is needful: yet the necessity thereof is to much urged when it is given in private.  I. 
Do you call it private in regard of Place, or Person?  N. 
In both respects.  I. 
First, for Place: I have declared in Baptism, that Sacraments may be in private administered: Secondly, in regard of the Person, they can by no pretence be so termed: both because the Person administering is Public? As also, because a private Communion is so called, when the Priest alone doth receive the Sacrament in both kinds, the people in the mean time gazing, as fruitless spectators: Or if they communicate, being bereft of the Cup: whereas with us, not only the Minister, but even the sick man: and as many assistants as can be conveniently assembled, do receive in both kinds.  N. 
From Private Communion then, let us come to your Popish Penance: For although you make no mention of Contrition, or of Auricular Confession, yet Absolution you absolutely retain.  N. 
Tell me I pray you, why some of your combination, desired to have the Absolution 
At the Conference in Hampton Court.  termed a Remission?  N. 
Because Absolution implieth forgiving of sins with authority: Remission only by the way of Declaration: whereof this latter may be permitted to men: but the former is peculiar to God: and therefore you are in this point too much the Apes of Popery.  I. 
Let the Papists eat their own Crabs, which they have caught: Only it were to be wished, that men by telling needless falsehoods; would not discredit themselves in the most needful truths. But to let them pass? as also your distinction of Absolution, and Remission, not worth the refuting: We avouch that pardoning of sins with authority is double. Namely, with authority absolute, or delegate: The former is God's prerogative: The latter is in the Charter of the Church. For I demand, If a Murder be committed, doth the Prince only declaratively pardon or condemn the offender? Doth he not also the same with authority delegate from God? May any private man well skilled in Laws, and most able to declare the merit or demerit of the party delinquent▪ attempt this thing without authority? Is not the difference between authority and declaration manifest?  N. 
I will not be endangered with these matters of State.  I. 
No marvel: For many of your wing have succeeded but ill with them.  N. 
Return I pray you to the matter: How prove you that Ministers may pardon sins with authority?  I. 
They to whom the Keys are delivered, and the power of binding and losing 
m Mat. 16. 19 & 18. 18. job 20. 23.  sins, may absolve sinners; not only declaratively, but even with authority. But these things are given to the Ministers of the Church. They therefore may absolve with authority.  N. 
They may absolve (by the preaching of the Word) sins in general: but they may not apply their Absolution to particular men, because they cannot know their special repentance, whether it be sound or hollow.  I. 
That they may particularise their censures, appears by the words of 
n 2. Sam 12. 13  Nathan, 
o job 33. 23, 24  Elihu, and Saint 
p 1. Cor. 5. 1.  Paul. For what? May they not excommunicate particular 
q Math. 18. 17.  men? Can they bind and not lose? Is losing any other thing than Absolution? As for your Confirmation it is most infirm. For were it sound: we should not ordinarily administer the Sacraments to any; forasmuch as we are ignorant whether men's faith be entire; or only in collusion of appearance. These fancies do smell of Swingfeldius and H. N. and taste, not only of a desire of novelty, but even of anarchy. So that with equal vanity you have condemned both our general Absolution: and our term of Penance in the Collect upon Midsummer Day.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Of Matrimony.  N. 
FRom your Sacraments I proceed to your Rites: which seem to be certain customs, not Sacramental; And belong either to the living (as Marriage: and Churching) or to the Dead (as Burial:) Marriage is a bond most honourable. Concerning the bond you err two ways: First, you straightly charge the parties, that if they know any impediment, they confess it.;  I. 
Forasmuch as many thousands of your tune, have been publicly married, never stumbling at these words: I marvel what new mystery, you have here digged up?  N. 
We understand; that some of your men urge these words, for the Defence of the Oath ex officio, which is to us a Scourge and a Scorpion.  I. 
Nevertheless we may justly urge it: For what is the Oath ex Officio, but the adjuring of men to confess things tending to their own damage in appearance: howsoever indeed they further both Truth and Charity.  N. 
But what Scriptures can you allege for this Antichristian oath.  I. 
If you mean that it was ante Christum; before Christ: You shall hear not only that 
r 1. Sam. 14 24.  Saul, a wicked Prince, charged his people with an oàth: Nor yet only that good joshua did urge 
s joshua 7. 19  Aehan to confess a sin against himself: no nor yet that joseph (at least according to your own interpretation upon the Litany,) did adjure his brethren to bring Benjamin (for though these were holy men, yet they might err) but even the never failing Law of God, commanding the Priest to charge the woman (suspected of adultery) by an 
t Numb. 5. 19  oath to confess her own fault, if any such had been. But if you mean that it is Antichristian, because against Christ, it was used by the 
u Math. 26. 63.  High Priest▪ Remember withal that Christ obeyed it: which he would not have done had it proceeded from Antichrist, as you pretend. Nay, if we be bound to give a 
x 1. Pet. 3 15.  reason of our faith to every man that demandeth it how shall we presume to hide the truth from our lawful Superiors?  N. 
To grant (for the present) that the Bishops are our Superiors lawfully ordained: yet they may not unlawfully proceed against us: Seeing God hath appointed, that by the 
y Deut. 19 15.  mouth of two or three witnesses, every matter should be confirmed.  I. 
Indeed, when a man is accused; an others testimony is needful: But when presumptuous circumstances concur, than either one witness is sufficient, (as we read in the Story of 
z Ester 2. 22.  Ester) or else, though there be no witness, yet judgement may pass (as we find 
a 1. Kings 3. 27  the history of the women which came before Solomon:) But why may not confession be extorted from men, aswell by the reverence of an oath, as by torments, in case of treason? Or by a man's own folly (as in the story 
b 2 Sam. 1. 16.  of the Amalekite:) Neither is this a servile betraying of a man's own Person, but a necessary bewraying of the truth, which we ought to prefer before our own lives.  N. 
Your second error in the bond of marriage is, that you make it indissoluble: for you say that it shall never be lawful to put them asunder, etc.  I. 
What lawful causes of separation can you forge?  N. 
The causes (without forgery) are two, which concern either the efficient cause, or the matter: Of the first kind is the consent of Parents, without which notwithstanding you ratify sundry Marriages.  I. 
First, although the consent of Parents, be requisite to the making of Matrimony, yet, if it be once consummated, the want of it makes not this a nullity: Secondly, in some cases Marriage is not only effectual, but even lawful without this consent; As, in case the Father will not endure his Child, to marry any save an Heretic, or notoriously wicked person; And if the Child, after the 
Et Validum: & Licitum.  years of discretion, can neither with long strife restrain burning, nor by himself or friends ever entreat his Father; or if the Magistrate interpose his authority herein, the Marriage (without Parents consent) in such a case shall be ratified both in earth and heaven.  N. 
The cause drawn from the matter, belongs, either to the whole person, or some part thereof. Of the former kind is that case when there is an error in the Person: As when Leah came to jacob in stead of Rahell.  I. 
If the Law do herein determine (Separation (as you term it) upon just trial of unjust collusion: The reason is, because the parties by God were never conjoined; As for ex-example, jacob because he never promised Marriage to Leah, was not in rigour bound to confirm her single fact.  N. 
The cause drawn from the parts of the Person, doth either appertain to the Body, or the Soul: And further, to the body, either living or dead: In the living body may be a Defect, or a Disease: Of the first kind is that, when a man is an Eunuch, or an Hermaphrodite: Of the latter sort is the Leprosy, falling Sickness, or any such contagious disease.  I. 
The Eunuch and Androgine, are not fit subjects of Marriage: therefore we cannot separate them, but only declare that they were never conjoined: As when we break an oath, made of a thing impossible; or unlawful▪ we do not dispense with the former bond of the oath: but only we show that the matter of this oath is defective and so makes a nullity: Concerning a Disease, if it were before wedlock, and concealed by fraud, we answer as before: But, if it follow Marriage, then absolute separation may not be granted: For God that inflicted the tentation, will give the issue therewith, that is either healing or patience, with the gift of chastity.  N. 
But death may lawfully be inflicted; and so the married couple lawfully separated.  I. 
What is lawfully performed by the Magistrate is done as by God himself, who may not be confined within Laws: Again the Magistrates intent is of himself, only to make a divorce between body and soul and so the separation of the married parties doth only follow by accident. Lastly, the malefactor dying, ceaseth to be a subject capable of Marriage; and therefore of divorce or separation. For (if we will not speak improperly) separation cannot be between things, which, being separated, do not retain there being; As for example, If it be true which some think that the souls of bruit beasts, be accidents, and annihilated by death, than the term of death doth equivocally agree to man and beasts, considering that in the one there is a proper separation, but not in the other.  N. 
The Cause borrowed from the soul, is Infidelity 
Subiective in anima. Organice & Obiective in Corpore.  or Adultery. Touching the first, you disannul not Marriages, made between Papist, and Protestant.  I. 
But some of your friends at Amsterdam, do allow Pollygamie in their Proselytes: which if they did return home, would be found by our Laws to be little less than Felons.  N. 
Certain it is that you break Saint 
b 1. Cor. 7. 15.  Paul's rule.  I. 
It is more certain that your fellows, understand not Saint 
c 1. Cor. 7. 12.  Paul: For first it is plain by that which goeth before, that the Separation must be passive in regard of the believer, not active; that is, the believer may marry after desertion, but may not forsake the unbeliever: Secondly, reconciliation must be vehemently sought, before the second Marriage be attempted: Thirdly, it must be considered, that a Papist is not an Infidel, but a 
Lib. 1. c. 1. p. 5.  Christian as was declared in your first general objection:) Fourthly, this Apostolic Canon, is not in force with us, because our Prince, being a Christian, both can and doth enforce by Law, the person departing to return; Whereas this rule was only then effectual whilst Princes were unbelievers.  N. 
Yea, but adultery is an absolute cause of separation: and yet you enforce the innocent party to remain unmarried.  I. 
We judge the second Marriage of the innocent party (during the life of the party nocent) not to be absolutely unlawful; but yet very unexpedient: First, because it is fit he should something feel the smart of his own bad election (if any such were:) Secondly, if that were not, it is not to be doubted but God, if he be importuned by Prayer, will give the gift of chastity, considering the temptation is occasioned by a cause extrinsical: Thirdly, there be sundry cases; wherein the party nocent may be received again after divorce: As first in case the woman were ravished: Secondly, if she erred in the person of her husband: Thirdly, if she married upon his long absence; and report of his death: Fourthly, if he be a Pander to his own wife: Fiftly, if after the first offence he have pardoned her, and she hath offended no more: Sixtly, if she may plead Compensation, namely, that he offended, aswell as herself: Seventhly if he have denied her due benevolence: In all which cases it is necessary to receive her home. But in case she do show the outward signs of repentance, it is expedient also to admit her again; 
Apprimè si primum tempus.  because we are moved thereunto not only by the example of the good 
d judges 9 3.  Levite (who peradventure did err in that matter) but even of Christ himself, who hath oftentimes been reconciled to the Church his Spouse, after her manifold and manifest idolatrous adulteries: Fourthly, because hereby is hindered the readiness both to accuse, and offend, whereas otherwise the flames of malice and lust, would bring an universal combustion: Fiftly; because hereby is avoided the confusion of Families; the neglect of the education of Children; with many other mischiefs, which were more lamemtable to endure, then easy to recount; or, otherwise then thus, to prevent.  N. 
From the bond of Marriage I proceed to the honour thereof: wherein we dislike both your contradiction; and your errors: First, then though you grant Marriage to be honourable; yet you seruillifie the husband; causing him to say to his wife, with my body I thee worship.;;;  I. 
The plain interpretation of these words may be fetched from Saint Paul's Canon (The 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Cor. 7. 4.  man hath not power of his own body, but the woman, etc.) The Greek word doth signify to have privilege, property, liberty, or authority (as appears by the word, from which this is derived:) which differeth little from worship: for what greater civil 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. john 1. 12. From which worship is derived.  worship or dignity can there be, then for a man to surrender to his wife the property of his body? And tell me (I pray you:) were the words thus delivered in Latin, Corporete meo dignor; seu dignum censeo; what great Idolatry or Seruillitie should be in them?  N. 
To leave your Contradiction; I haste to your errors, which are two: First, in the Author you cite: Secondly, in the degrees of honour which you ascribe to Marriage. Touching the first when you allege a place of the Epistle to the; 
e Heb. 13. 4.  Hebrews, you definitively avouch Saint Paul to be the Author thereof.  I. 
Are you offended that we call the Apostle Saint? Do you now doubt of his Saintship?  N. 
Nothing less: But we marvel that you call not Abraham, job, and Moses Saints, aswell as Paul and Peter.  I. 
We marvel that you call not Paul and Peter Masters, aswell as Luther and Bucer.  N. 
Not because they were less worthy of this title; but because the phrase of these times and countries was different from ours.  I. 
The like may be said of the term Saint; which was not taken up, till the Primitive Church (which began after Christ) did much use it for the dignifying of the Apostles and Martyrs, which were Lights, not of a Church confined within Palestina: but extended as fare as the line of Heaven.  N. 
But we are more displeased that you thus confidently avouch, that of Saint Paul, which scarce amounteth to the credit of an Ecclesiastical Tradition.  I. 
Although the Tradition of Antiquity be most venerable with us, yet besides it, we have other proof that Saint Paul was 
f 1. Pet. 1. 1. 2. Pet. 3. 1.  Author of this Epistle: For Saint Peter, writing his Second Epistle to the Dispersed Hebrews, thus speaketh to them, as our brother 
g 2. Pet. 3. 15.  Paul wrote unto you.  N. 
He wrote that in his Epistle to the 
h Rom. 2. 4.  Romans: For it appears in the same Chapter: that he directeth much of his speech to the jews, which (as it seemeth) were then at Rome.  I 
That place is alleged, out of the Epistle to the 
i Heb 10 23. & 32. ad finem.  Hebrews: where that argument is copiously handled. As for the place by you quoted it is impertinent: For, if you make a just Analysis of the second Chapter to the Romans, you shall find that the Apostles speech (directed to the jews by the way of a Prosopopeia) beginneth not till the seventeenth Verse; whereas the words by you cited are in the fourth: For whereas you imagine that he writ to the jews that were at Rome, you must remember; First, that Saint Paul had not as yet been at 
k Rom. 1 15.  Rome: Secondly, that when he came thither, the chief of the jews told him, that they had heard of 
l Acts 28. 21.  no letter concerning him, which could not be, if this Epistle had been in part directed to them.  N. 
But the Apostle doth not prefix his name before the Epistle to the Hebrews.  I. 
He might forbear that, because his name was scandalised among the jews. Will you deny that Moses was author of Genesis and Exodus? Or Ezra of the Chronicles, and Ester, because their names are not set before those Books?  N. 
But this style differeth from the other Epistles of Paul.  I. 
I might tell you, how some conjecture, that Paul wrote it in Syrian: and that Clemens or Luke, translated it into Greek. To let this pass; If Moses were the Author of job. How doth the style differ from that in Deuteronomy? If this be but probable, how doth the style of the Canticles differ from that of the Proverbs? Will any man reading the two Epistles of Peter, deny a diversity of style?  N. 
But the Author excludeth himself from the number of them which had 
m Heb. 2. 3.  heard Christ.  I. 
He had not heard him, when he was alive upon the earth: Again, he speaketh by a 
n A figure called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Figure numbering himself among the multitude, as also doth Saint 
o 1. Pet. 4. 3.  Peter.  N. 
Your error in the honour which you ascribe to Marriage is double: For you make it both an holy thing, and a Sacrament. The former appeareth, First, by this, that you ask the Banes in the Church: whereas Marriage belongeth to the Magistrate.  I. 
The Covenant of God may be published by the Priest: But such is 
p Prou. 2. 17.  Marriage: and therefore may by the Priest be promulgated.  N. 
How do you explain your Minor?  I. 
The Covenant which makes a wife, is here called God's Covenant: But such is 
q Mal. 2. 14.  Marriage: Marriage therefore is God's Covenant: Besides it is an Oath, or Vow made in God's presence.  N. 
An Oath may be tendered before a Magistrate: And therefore Marriage in this respect may be but a civil action.  I. 
A Prayer may be repeated before a Magistrate; is it therefore civil?  N. 
He hath no jurisdiction in Prayer, as be hath over an Oath.  I. 
Is not prayer, a good thing? May not he command you to do that which is good? Nay is not an oath, a kind of prayer? Again I thus reason: Where public prayer is expedient, that thing may be done in the Church. But such is in Marriage: And therefore in the Church it may be celebrated: And by consequent the Banes asked, for the prevention of all fraud and covin. The Minor thus appeareth: As the action is, so must be the prayer thereto belonging. But the action of Marriage is public: and therefore such must be the Prayer thereto appertaining▪ When I say it must be, I mean, it is most expedient: I mean then, it must be upon conveniency: not upon necessity.  N. 
But God never commanded the Hebrew Priests to marry the people at the Tabernacle, or Temple.  I. 
It had been something laborious, to have brought all the people to be married at the Temple of jerusalem. Nevertheless the jewish 
r Rabbi Mose Ban Maimone in Cu●pa.  Rabbins tell us that Marriage was celebrated in a Tent, set upon four bars, over against the Synagogue: to which Tent, 
s Psal. 19 5.  David, 
t joel 2 16.  joel, and 
u Math. ●5. 1. Luke 12. 36.  Christ himself do allude: and therefore it seemeth that the Priest did something intermeddle with these matters; Whereupon both Pagans, Turks, and Christians, all with one consent (in all Ages, Countries and Sects) have reputed Marriage as a sacred thing: and have solemnised it with sundry Ceremonies.  N. 
The second thing whereby you imitate the holiness of Marriage is, that you cause the parties to kneel before the Communion Table: and withal insinuate as though it were fit to have a Communion annexed to every Marriage.  I. 
I know not, what herein may offend you, but only that this Law is not put in execution, as it were to be wished for these causes; First, That the parties might be put in mind of mingling spiritual with earthly joy: Secondly, that they might be advertised, touching the end of Matrimony, which is the enlarging of the number of the Saints, whose Communion is most lively represented in the Lord's Supper: Thirdly, that they might be effectually warned to remember the union of Christ, and the Church (his Spouse,) which is most plainly exhibited in the Sacrament.  N. 
By this last clause you declare that you make Matrimony a Sacrament.  I. 
If that were true, to what end should we join another Sacrament to it?  N. 
I will prove that you make Wedlock a Sacrament; both by the causes and by the sign: The causes are the final, and formal. The final is set down in these words of one of your Prayers: which hast consecrated it to such a mystery.;  I. 
What will you prove hereby?  N. 
Two things; First, that by these words, you create a new Sacrament: Secondly, that the words be arroneous: Touching the first, I thus reason; That thing which is consecrated to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual Marriage and Unity between Christ and his Church; That thing is a Sacrament. But such is the state of Matrimony in your opinion: among the Sacraments therefore to be reckoned.  I. 
Your Mayor is mistaken, in regard of the Consequence thereof: For a thing may be consecrated to a mystery, eitherto apply it, or to signify it. The former way both Water in Baptism, as also Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are sanctified: For they do apply, and convey unto us, the Spirit of God: and consequently both Christ and his Father; namely, by the Union of Assistance. In the latter sense, Marriage is consecrated only to signify the spiritual unity, or union between Christ and his Church: And this is the true cause why Matrimony is no Sacrament, as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.  N. 
That the words be erroneous I thus prove; That which was before the mystery, could not be consecrated to signify the same: But Marriage was before the mystery of this union: And therefore could not be so consecrated.  I. 
The Mayor is like the verses of Dionysius, which could not be corrected, but by blotting of them all out: Let your Mayor be thus inverted; A thing must be, before it signify: and then it will be true. Were there not Lambs before the Passeover? Water before Baptism? Bread and Wine before the Lord's Supper? Again, your Minor is untrue: For the Second Person in Trinity was the Mediator of the Church before the fall of man; and consequently by order of nature though not of time) was before Matrimony. I mean as it was a cause, not as it was a thing signed: For Relatives are together in nature.  N. 
That which doth only signify parabolically, that cannot be consecrated to signify a mystery (unless we will imagine that every Vine with the Branches; and Head, with the Members, are so consecrated because they are so resembled by; 
x John 15 1.  Christ, and the 
y 1 Cor. 12. 11.  Apostle.) But Marriage doth only parabolically, signify this 
z Ephes. 5. 32.  mystery. Therefore we may not say that it is consecrated.  I. 
It seemeth by Saint Paul, that he maketh more than a Parable thereof: As before him both 
a Psal. 45 t●tum  David and 
b In the Canticks.  Solomon; yea and 
c Ezek 16. totum.  Ezekiel had done. So that it seemeth Matrimony was consecrated by these Divine Pens to the opening of this mystery.  N. 
But do you find no other consecration of Matrimony than this?  I. 
We doubt not to say with Antiquity that Euah being taken out of the side of sleeping Adam, was a figure of the Church proceeding from the virtuous side of the Second Adam, sleeping in Death. God therefore delivering Euah to the Man, did consecrate Marriage to represent this Mystery.  N. 
From the end I pass to the form, which in these words is set down: I pronounce that they be man and wife together, In the name of the Father; of the Son: and of the Holy Ghost, Amen:) which differs little from the form of Baptism.  I. 
What call you the form of Baptism properly?  N. 
These words I Baptise thee in the name of the Father etc.,  I. 
What Scripture have you for this opinion?  N. 
Is it not written, 
d Math. 28. 19  Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, & c?  I. 
But doth Christ command us to use these very words: In the name of the Father, & c?  N. 
So all think but Papists, who say, That this form doth depend upon the virtue of Tradition.  I. 
The plea of Tradition is here impertinent. For tell me is not Baptism a Sacrament? Is not a Sacrament an Action? Can the form of an action be words? Again, is the form in those words; I Baptise? Or in these; In the name of the Father? To avouch the former is vain: For can the form of Baptism be to Baptise? The latter is as untrue: For by the Name of the Father, etc. is meant the Authority of the Trinity. By which is rather intimated an efficient cause, than a form of Baptism.  N. 
Do not we generally say, that the Arrians err in the form of Baptism, because they use thus to baptise Infants: In the name of God the Father: and of the Son a Creature: And of the holy Ghost a Creature, I baptise thee?  I. 
What think you of him that baptised an Infant, In nomine Patria, Filia, & Spirita Sancta? Did he err in the form of Baptism?  N. 
No doubt his error was in the form of the words (his Latin being not congruous) yet the Baptism was no nullity: neither might be iterated, because the substance and form were still retained.  I. 
You see then that this phrase is but merely popular: So that by form is only meant form of words: that is, a form representative, not real: For it is neither inward, nor outward; Not inward, For, that is the union of Christ's blood with us; Not Outward; For that must be Visible, not Audible: a Deed, not a Word: But were all this granted; will you make every thing a Sacrament wherein these words are used, In the name of the Father, & c? If Paul instead of these words, I 
e Acts 16. 18.  command thee in the name of jesus to go out of her, had said, I command thee in the name of the Trinity, had he spoken any thing unfit or untrue?  N. 
Nothing less, except we think: that those which were baptised in the Name of jesus 
f Acts 19 5.  Christ, were not baptised in the Name of the Trinity, which to maintain were little less than Heresy.  I. 
What then? Did Saint Paul make dispossession of Devils, a Sacrament, because he used words equipollent to these In the name of the Father?  N. 
He did only declare by what authority he cast out the evil spirit.  I. 
So when we say in Matrimony, (In the the name of the Father) we only show in what Name, and by what Authority we pronounce them to be man and wife, namely in the Name of that God, which conjoined the first couple, in the Paradise of Pleasure.  N. 
As the causes so the sign (namely, the ●ing) shows Marriage to be a Sacrament: which being a mere humane invention is to be exploded out of the Church.  I. 
What think you of the Earrings, which 
g Gen. 24. 22. & 30.  Abraham's servant gave to Rebecca?  N. 
He thought she should be wife to Isaake, and therefore presented her with these symbols of nuptial amity. But what? Can this warrant the profaning of the Church with a Civil Ring?  I. 
What conceive you of the 
h Rom. 16. 16.  holy kiss, enjoined by the Apostle?  N. 
It was a sign of spiritual amity: and therefore used in the Church.  I. 
But was the sign also spiritual?  N. 
It was indeed drawn from a civil custom of the East, yet amplified and converted, to be an argument of spiritual conjunction.  I. 
But yet it was commanded by the Apostle: why is it not still practised in the Church?  N. 
It was not judged so decent by reason of the contrary custom in some parts of Europe.  I. 
By this you may understand, that the thing was but indifferent and mutable: and yet for a time enjoined by Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical Authority: as were also the 
i Acts 15. 20. 28, 29.  Love Feasts; and likewise abstaining from things strangled, and from blood. From which last instance we thus argue; Abstinency from things strangled, and from blood, were for a time necessary by reason of the Church's injunction: And yet the same things were then but indifferent, and changeable (as all men do confess) Some things indifferent therefore may by the Church be imposed as necessary; I mean in regard of the external order; not of eternal life.  N. 
Yea, but the Ring is not a thing indifferent, being laden with so many mystical significations.  I. 
That is mystical which exceedeth natural capacity: But the significations of the Ring are such as all men by the light of nature, may obuiously understand; as namely, that the gold doth signify the price and purity; the roundness, the perpetuity; the poesy, the perspicuity of love: the putting thereof upon the fourth finger of the left hand, doth represent that it is hearty; because to that finger there comes an artery from the heart. These significations cannot properly be termed mystical, The like is to be said of the joining of hands. Besides do you imagine, that as many mystical senses might not be framed of the holy kiss? and yet that was no cause why it should be banished out of the Church.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of Churching: and Burial.  N. 
A Consequent of Matrimony (as you pretend) is the Churching and Purification of Women: Against the which I thus reason; Purification is a thing jewish: And therefore to be abrogated.  I. 
If your Antecedent be allayed with a limitation, it will agree with the consequent, like clay with iron. Public Prayer as it was jewish, and respected the Temple of Solomon doth now utterly cease: Shall we thereupon conclude, that all Public Prayer is to be prohibited▪ In like manner we say, that jewish Purification is indeed to be abrogated, so fare forth as it is jewish: But that is impertinent to our Churching.  N. 
The end of Purification is abrogated (which was the 
k For now Infants are prasented in Baptism? So they were in Circumcision.  Presentation of the Child to 
l Luke 2. 22.  God:) And therefore the thing itself is also disannulled.  I. 
That was not the only end thereof: For in case the Child died; yet the Mother was to be purified: And therefore that place in Luke doth admit a double reading; either the purification of her 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or of 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  them (that is, of the Mother, and the Child:) There was an other end more peculiar to the Mother.  N. 
That is, sacrificing, as appears, 
o Levit. 12. 6.  by.  I. 
But what duty by that sacrifice was intimated?  N. 
Two principal duties were insinuated: First, the acknowledgement of her sin: For which cause, besides the great Purification (which was performed in her own separation seven days if it were a Male; and in the Circumcision of the Child, upon the eight day: but in case it were a female in separation for fourteen days) she had also the less purification: which endured thirty three days if it were a son, and sixty six if a daughter: whereby was signified, First, that the the sin of Euah was 
p A double Sin: a double purification and repentance.  double to that of Adam: For he sinned alone; she deceived him also: Secondly, that she derived sin from herself to her children: For this cause also she offered a sin offering: Secondly, as for the whole burnt Offering it was Eucharistical, namely, a thanksgiving; for her safe deliverance.  I. 
It is manifest then, though sacrifice be abolished; yet confession of sins, and thanksgivings for benefits do remain.  N. 
That these things remain we deny not: But why should they be public? By the same reason every man that hath escaped shipwreck, war, or fire should present his public thankes in the Church.  I. 
If it were so, were the pot broken, or the waterspilt? Did not the Prophet so in the 
q Ps. 116. 13, 14  Psalm? In public benefits we solemnize public thanksgivings: Now, the benefit of deliverance from the pains of childbirth is, in a manner, public: Forasmuch as these dolours were inflicted upon the whole 
r Gen. 3. 16.  female sex?  N. 
The judaisme of your purification appears: First, in that you bring in the veil, which is a rag of Superstition.  I. 
What think you of Rebeccaes veil, which she put on in the presence of 
s Gen. 14. 65.  Isaac?  N. 
It was a model of her modesty: but what is that to the veil in the Church?  I. 
Not only that modesty, but even that veil is required by Saint Paul in the 
t 1 Cor. 11. 10.  Congregation.  N. 
It is imposed upon all women; not upon them alone which come to be Churched.;  I. 
Can you endure Saint Paul making it a perpetual ordinance; and yet not tolerate it in us, which do not so much command it to be used, as show what is decent? Certainly if it be at all times comely, then especially at that time, when women being guilty of their own infirmities, should show the greatest symbols of shamefastness in Public Assemblies; From which for a time (by necessity of corrupted nature) they have been separated.  N. 
The second argument of your judaisme is the offering imposed upon Women.  I. 
Do you dislike the thing or the name?  N. 
We do not so much insist upon the thing (as being pretended to be a duty, or due to the Minister) but the term Offering, is jewish.  I. 
Tithes were Offerings 
u Numb. 18. 24.  to God: But Tithes were duties due to the 
x Numb. 18. 31.  Priests (as being the recompense for their service:) Therefore the duties of the Priest, are indeed, and may be called Offerings.  N. 
In this reason I observe two things: First, that you make things due to the Minister to be Wages or Stipends; whereas some of your fellows think Stipends as bad as Alms.;  I. 
Stipends from the wavering multitude without Charter or Patent, differ not in nature from Alms: But Honourable Stipends, set down by the Laws of God and the Prince, we disallow not. For as the stipend of a Soldier is given by the Prince, though it be deducted from the tribute imposed upon the People: So the tithes of the Priests are God's Stipends, though first consecrated to God by the people his tributaries.  N. 
If a man hire workmen to make a bridge for the benefit of the Country; shall we not say that he giveth a great Alms?;  I. 
No doubt he doth to the Country, but not to the labourers; unless they take their hire, and work not: And yet (even then) are they not almesmen but thiefs; and are compellable both to make restitution, and to suffer punishment. In like manner, he that erecteth a Church; and giveth maintenance to a Priest doth indeed a singular alms to the people, but none to the Priest unless he be unfaithful and yet (even then) he is not an almsman but a robber; and stands answerable to his Superiors under God.  N. 
If all the people then give tithes, do they give alms to themselves?  I. 
They give their homage to God; and to the Minister they perform an action of justice, not of liberality: If any alms be, it is to themselves: For example; If the maker of the Bridge (of which we spoke) do thereby reap to his own person some main benefit (as the preservation of his life, and the like) may not he be said in a sort to have given himself an alms?  N. 
The second thing, remarkable in your reason is, that you seem to maintain jewish Tithes.  I. 
Tithes we defend, but not as jewish. For whereas among the jews' there were five kinds of Tithes; First, predial (or great Tithes) due to the Priests and 
a Levit. ●7. 30. Numb. 18. 24.  Levits: Secondly, Personal (called the offerings of the 
b Deut. 12 6.  hands) due to the same likewise: Thirdly, the Tithe of Tithes due to the High 
c Numb. 18. 26.  Priest: Fourthly, the Anniversarie 
d Deut. 14. 22.  Tithes, which were spent in the Voyage to and from the Tabernacle; in which the Levite had also a part: Fiftly, the 
e Deut. 14. 28.  Three year's Tithes, whereof part likewise came to the Levite: we hold that predial and personal tithes, are due to Ministers: The tithe of tithes partly to the Prince, partly to the Bishops: The yearly, and three year tithes, partly to the reparations of Churches, Schools, and Colleges: (yea, and if need were, for their erection:) partly for the maintenance of the Ministers themselves (where their ordinary tithes are not found competent) and of the poor.  N. 
To let pass your fancies; prove in general, tithes to be due to the Ministers of the Gospel; and not to the Priests of Aaron's order only.;  I. 
Tithes were due to 
f Gen. 14. 20. Heb. 7. 4.  Melchisedech, who was no Priest according to the order of Aaron: and therefore not due to the Leviticall Priests only.  N. 
Abraham indeed paid tithes; yet not of all his goods; but of all the spoils, as the Author to the Hebrews doth 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  expound it.  I. 
Tithes must be paid of a man's own: But the spoils were not Abraham's (as appears by his oath in 
h Gen. 14. 22, 23.  the Story) Tithes therefore were not paid of the spoils. As for the Erecke word you allege, it may be translated of the best or chief things. Again, if we retain the word spoils; it will be proved thereby that personal tithes of the get of men's hands are due, considering that spoils, obtained in a lawful war, are of that nature. My second argument for tithes is this: That which God giveth to the Priest, being received from the people, seemeth to be natural and eternal; forasmuch as no man may revoke it: But such are 
i Levit. 27. 30. Numb. 18. 24.  tithes: They are therefore irrevocable.  N. 
They are so from the jewish Priests: what is that to our Ministers?  I. 
That will appear, by this my third argument: The Labourers wages are due to the 
k 1. Tim. 5. 18.  Ministers of the Gospel: But such are 
l Numb. 18. 31.  tithes: They are therefore due to our Evangelicall Ministers.  N. 
Tithes were due for the service at the Altar, which now ceaseth.  I. 
Doth not the Apostle say, that the same service in substance 
m 1. Cor. 9 13. Heb. 13. 10.  remaineth? Do not our Ministers aswell teach the People, and pray for them, as the Priests of the Law? My fourth reason is thus framed: The Prophet's use to exhort men to Moral, not to Ceremonial duties: But Malachi doth exhort men to pay 
n Mal. 3. 10.  tithes: They be therefore Moral.  N. 
I would have some argument drawn from the new Testament.  I. 
You have heard in part before: But now I directly proceed further to my fift argument: Tithes are counted matters of the Law (and such as may not be left undone) by 
o Mat. 23. 23.  Christ himself: And therefore they are to be paid.  N. 
They are counted as small matters.  I. 
Yea, but he that breaketh the least Commandment, and teacheth men so to do (as many seditious men, which teach the People to give the Hundreth, for the Tithe) shall be the least in the Kingdom of 
p Math. 5. 19  heaven.  N. 
Yea, but this place proveth only that they should be paid to the Priests of the Law.  I. 
The contrary appeareth by my sixth reason: Things consecrated and given to the Ministers of the Gospel, may not be revoked; (as appeareth by the Story of 
q Acts 5. 3.  Ananias:) But Tithes have been given to the Church by our Ancestors even before the times of Popery. And therefore may not be recalled.  N. 
Your Mayor is not firm: For Ezekias plucked off the Plates (which himself had consecrated) from the Temple 
r 2. Kings 18. 16  doors.  I. 
Ezekias did therein most grievously sin: and thereupon it may be thought that God turned the heart of Zenacherib to break his Covenant with the King, and to bring upon him the dreadful war, which without God's immediate aid, had been irresistible. Now if if judgement begin at God's house, where shall the sinners 
s 1. Pet. 4. 17.  appear?  N. 
But put the case, our Forefathers had never dedicated tithes to the Church; how had they been then due to the same?;  I. 
My seventh Argument will declare it: He that is catechised, Let him make him that catechizeth him, partaker of all his 
t Gal. 6. 6.  goods This cannot be done without Tithes, as may appear by the Stories of Abraham and 
u Gen. 14. 20. & 28. 22.  jacob.  N. 
It may be done by Competency, without Tithes.  I. 
As God set the seventh Day for the Sabbath; So he ordained the tenth for Maintenance, We dare not judge his proportions less wise than those which are forged by the brains of men. My eight and last reason is drawn from analogy and proportion: That which was given to the Servitors of the Law, ought much more to be granted to the Ministers of the 
x Luke 7. 28. 1. Cor. 9 13. 2. Cor. 3 9  Gospel: But the Legal Priests had more than Tithes: (For we know they had the first fruits; the redemption of the first borne; 48. Cities with land about them; sundry parts of the Sacrifices, etc. The Ministers of the Gospel therefore aught to have tithes at the least.  N. 
Tithes were Ceremonial; and therefore to be abolished.  I. 
In regard of the particular assignation to the Tabernacle they were indeed ritual: but as they were stipends of Gods public service; so they both were, and are naturally Moral.  N. 
The Tithes might be 
y Levit. 27. 31.  redeemed; and therefore not necessary.  I. 
They could not be redeemed, unless the fift part were added: whereby their necessity doth much more appear: as also for that they could not be 
z Levit. 27. 33.  changed without a Curse.  N. 
They that were in Cities paid no tithes: And therefore they are not necessary.  I. 
First, this argument might prove Tithes under the Law of Moses, to have been needless, which had been an empty proof: Secondly, 
a Personal tithes were there also due.  predial Tithes were due even in 
b As is plain in the Cities of Ninive, Babylon, jerusalem, and others.  Cities; considering that in Cities also Cattle may be found: Thirdly, instead of those tithes, they had sundry other recompenses: which were before named in my eight Argument: Fourthly, the fruit of the ground may be expounded of the rates of houses: which being tithed will exempt all scruple: Fiftly, some imagine that Country tithes were divided among the Levites dwelling wheresoever: but this is uncertain.  N. 
The Apostles were maintained by 
c 1. Phillip 4. 15.  alms, & not by tithes: And therefore tithes are not needful.  I. 
That these contributions of the People were alms you cannot prove: forasmuch as they were due, as Saint 
d 1. Cor. 9 6, 7. etc. Gal. 6. 6. & 10.  Paul declareth at large. By which places also we have showed tithes even then also to have been due. Again, tell me: If a man had reasoned thus in the time of Malachi: Tithes were not paid when the Israelites wandered in the Wilderness: Now therefore they are not due to the Priests in Canaan: what would you have answered?  N. 
We would have said to reason from the fact to the right, is not reasonable: Again it was not seasonable to argue from the seed time to the harvest: from the night of want, to the Day of Plenty: from the Barren Desert to the fruitful Palestina.  I. 
So we answer: that whilst the winter of persecution was upon the Church, Tithes could not be exacted: but now it is preposterous to urge the same order in the summer of our abundance. Tithes therefore (as you perceive) are needful: and yet the same are offerings to God: So that the term, Offering, need not displease you in our Churching of women.  N. 
From the Rites belonging to the living, we come to the Burial of the Dead: wherein we dislike the Person, Manner, and Place. Touching the first, we marvel that you make Burial a Ministerial Duty, seeing the Law prohibiteth the Priests to defile themselves by the 
e Levit. 21. 1.  Dead.  I. 
You were lately displeased, because we used Purification, being jewish: And now you would have us use the jewish manner of Burial: We like not this: that with the same breath you blow both hot and 
f Reclusis illud; hoc clausis Lahijs.  cold: Again, tell (I pray you) what mean you by that defiled with the Dead.  N. 
It seemeth that 
g Levit. 21. 3, 4.  lamentation is thereby meant.  I. 
Where is then your Argument? The Priest may not lament for the Dead: He may not therefore be present at Burials, to comfort them that lament, with his devout exhortations and prayers.  N. 
We read not that the Priests did bury any man: and therefore to make this their office, is against Scripture.  I. 
It is not against, but besides Scripture were it as you pretend. But the truth is: we do not appoint the Priest to bury (that act being in a manner merely civil) but only to assist the Funeral, for the comfort and instruction of the living.  N. 
The manner of your Burials doth also displease us: Forasmuch as you use sundry Prayers therein, which seem to favour the Popish Purgatory.  I. 
The Dumb Shows of Other Churches, though we condemn not: yet we cannot suppose that they contain so much reverence and devotion as our custom doth. As for the Purgatory you mention, it is a forgery of your own jealousy, considering we pray for nothing in the behalf of the Dead, save only that we seem to be in good hope of their joyful resurrection, of which matter we treated in Baptism.  N. 
Yea, but Prayers, being rehearsed at the Grave, have some smell of Superstition.  I. 
Were you as quicke-sented as the Vultures of Romulus, yet could no such savour be here felt, forasmuch as our Prayers being in the mother tongue, are discerned by the meanest auditor to contain nothing but matter of consolation and hope to the living.  N. 
Funeral Sermons are of the same bran: and therefore justly abrogated in the Reformed Churches.  N. 
If those Sermons contain flattery, or error, we may not defend them: But if they be replenished with hopeful and consolatory doctrines, we doubt not to think them to be of that nature of which was the famous lamentation of David made for his King 
h 2. Sam. 1. 17.  and his Friend; Or of which were those worthy Orations 
i The Funeral Orations of Basill and Gregory.  Funeral, which deserve to be written in Plates of gold, celebrated in all antiquity. And certainly if a Word in Place 
k Prou. 25 11.  and 
l Prou 15. 23.  Time be so precious; If we be commanded to preach in 
m 2. Tim 4. 2.  Season: Can any Sermon be more seasonable, then when God's judgements concur with his word; when the sense of mortality doth kindle devotion; and grief quickeneth Charity. Think you that when the men of jabesh fasted 
n 1. Sam. 31. 13  seven days at the burial of Saul and his sons: and when Mary wept at the Tomb of her 
o john 11. 31.  brother, a Sermon would have been unseasonable? Suppose you that in all those seven days (before mentioned) prayers were not mingled with their fasting? As for the Reformed Churches, we censure them not; neither may they condemn us; Forasmuch as the Strangers amongst us, being men of their own Country and Discipline, do still retain Funeral Sermons.  N. 
We are most offended with your Place of Burial, which is the Church or Church-yard: wherein you seem to place great holiness.  I. 
We do in some Cities allow men to be buried in a field set apart for that purpose.  N. 
But even that field is reputed holy ground.  I. 
And that most justly: For did not Abraham refuse to be buried among the 
p Gen. 23. 6. & 9  Hittites? Did he not there buy a field for burial, whereupon the Place was called Hebron? Did not jacob desire to be buried with 
q Gen. 49. 30.  Abraham? Ruth with 
r Ruth 1. 17.  Naomi? The old man with the 
s 1. King. 13. 31  man of juda? Did not the Pharises purchase a field for 
t Math. 27. 7.  strangers, called Acheldama, a field of 
u Acts 1. 19  Blood? Is it not probable, that the brethren of joseph desired to be buried with him in 
x Acts 7. 16.  Shichem? Did not the men in the Primitive Church, desire to be buried near the Martyrs? by whose Tombs afterwards in the Halcionian days of Peace, Oratories and Churches were built for the honour of Martyrdom, not for the worship of Martyrs? Are not the bodies of Saints departed still members of Christ? being united to their souls, not only by the relative hope of the resurrection; but even by the union of Christ's Spirit? And, by what more lively sign can we testify, or signify this our belief, then by interring them in or near some Church, where they may be reserved better than in the 
y Where the Kings of Egypt were buried.  Pyramids of Egypt, till the second coming of CHRIST.   
Finis Libri Primi.   

THE SECOND BOOK.  
Of the New Liturgy.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Book of TOBIT.  
FRom the Old we pass to your New Liturgy: wherein you have both added the Apocryphal Books to the the Canon: And have in sundry sorts depraved the Canonical Text itself.  I. 
The Apocryphal 
The Book of the Articles of Religion. Article 6.  Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: But yet doth it not apply them to establish any Doctrine.  N. 
Against the reading of these Books I thus argue. Whatsoever is read in the Church ought to be Canonical Scripture: But these Books are Apocryphal, not of the Canon: We may not therefore be urged to read them in the Church.  I. 
First, your conclusion strayeth from your reason like a bird from her nest. It should have been thus framed: They may not therefore be read in the Church. You pretend as if you were urged and enforced to read them: the ●ut● is if you did not delight in contention, as the Viper that was pleased with the blood of her own tongue, which she grated against the file) you might easily perceive that the Book leaveth it to your discretion, whether you will read a Canonical, or an Apocryphal Chapter.  N. 
If we may not read them; then much less be urged to the reading of them. So that my Conclusion was a Secondary, or Corollary, naturally following out of the proper conclusion of mine argument.  I. 
In the mean time you see, that your oft complaints (of urging and hard usage, being both causeless and respectless) do deserve to exasperate the State against you: For many things, ●o doubt, had been either altered or mitigated, had you not against the rule of Pythagoras) digged in the fire with a sword: But now to revisit your argument: First, I might deny your Mayor, and render four reasons for it: First, the Epistle written from 
a Coll. 4 16.  Laodicea, was read in the Church; and yet it was out of the Canon (unless you think it was some Epistle of Saint Paul, which is lost) some thing therefore not Canonical may be read in the Church.  N. 
I think no Canonical Epistle could be lost: For it were to derogate too much from God's providence, and the faithfulness of the Church, which should be the Keepresse of the Volumes of the Covenant; I rather suppose that it was some Epistle written from the Laodiceans to Paul; to the demands whereof this Epistle to the Colossians did answer: And therefore that it might more plainly be understood, it was meet that the other of the Laodiceans should be read in the Church also: For such a like thing is probably collected to have been done by the;; 
b 1. Cor. 7 1.  Corinthians.  I. 
To sift the ground of your assertion were now unseasonable: But you have given in a fair evidence against your own Mayor, as shall hereafter appear. My second reason is this. Nine Chapters of the Book of job: (whereof four were uttered by 
c job 4. & 5. & 15. & 22.  Eliphaz: three by 
d Chap. 8. & 18. & 25.  Bildad: two by 
c Chap. 11. & 20.  Zophar) are read in the Church: But these Chapters are not of the Canon (seeing no doctrine can be established by them forasmuch as Go himself disallowed the 
f job 42▪ 7.  saying of jobs three friends:) we may therefore in the Church read some thing which is not of the Canon.  N. 
The general positions of jobs friends are true: howsoever they erred in the application of them to job himself, as if he had been an hypocrite.  I. 
That is but a shift: for the main maxim of all the Dispute, is taken from Iob's wives 
g job 2. 9  speech: The sum whereof may thus be demonstrated: He that falls into great miseries is an hypocrite: But job is so fall'n: He is therefore an hypocrite. So then let him not continue in defending his uprightness but bless 
h Ios. 7. 19  God in the acknowledgement of his hypocrisy and so let him die with repentance and patience. By this it is plain: that the Mayor Proposition was false, and not the Assumption only as you pretend.  N. 
I hope you will not exclude these nine Chapters out of the Canon, considering they contain an historical, though not a positive truth: For it is true, that these men so spoke, though they erred in their speech.  I. 
You have made a fair distinction, whereby you will cut off your own arguments made against the Apocryphal Books, as shall be showed in due place. My third argument is this: Sundry Books of Traditions were read in the Church of the jews; and yet were never of the Canon; Or else, how could the names of 
i 2. Tim. 3. 8.  I●●nes & jambres the 
k Heb. 12. 21.  four of Moses: the time of the famine in the days of 
l James 5. 17.  Elias the combat of Michael with the 
m jude 9  Devil & the prophecy of 
n jude 14, 15.  Enoch have been rehearsed, as things vulgarly known: My fourth & last reason is this: Set Prayer may be read in the Church (and yet is no part of the Canon) as was proved in the first 
o Lib. 1. Chap. 2.  conference. Besides this, your Mayor admits of a distinction, which is this: Whatsoever is read in the Church, must either be the Canon of faith, or manners. To this latter kind we may refer the Apocryphal Books.  N. 
This is a rotten device: They cannot be the Canon of manners: seeing that in the Doctrine of manners they may err.  I. 
This answer shall be sifted in your Minor. But now we tell you further, that things may be read in the Church for the explanation of the Canonical Scriptures. For (as you remember you said the Epistle of the Lacdiceans was read for the explanation of Saint Paul's Epistle to the Colossians.  N. 
But the Books Apocryphal do rather obscure, then explain the Canon.  I. 
The Book of Wisdom doth open the Story of Exodus concerning the ten 
p See Wisdom 16. & 17.  plagues of Egypt: Ecclesiasticus is a Commentary to the Proverbs: The sixth of Baruch is a most famous epitome of sundry things in Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, against Idolatry: The first Book of Maccabees is a key to the mysteries 
q Especially to the 8. & 11. Chapters thereof.  of Daniel.  N. 
Because you cavil so much at my Mayor, I will change both it, and my whole reason: Whatsoever is read in the Church, ought either to be Canonical Scripture; or agreeable thereunto: But the Books between Malachi and Matthew are neither: And therefore may not be read.  I. 
As the change of your Mayor is to the better: so is that of your Minor to the worse; whereof we desire the first part to be explained; the latter to be confirmed.  N. 
That these Books are not Canonical, it is plain, because they are Apocryphal.  I. 
Some Serpent lurketh under this grass: why call you them Apocryphal?  N. 
First, because they contain sundry errors.  I. 
How many errors think you there be in the Book of the Petition to the Parliament, defended by T. C?  N. 
We suppose no error can be found therein.  I. 
A Book Apocryphal hath errors: But this Book hath none, and therefore is not Apocryphal: and is by consequent, Canonical.  N. 
It may be Ecclesiastical; and so neither Canonical, nor Apocryphal.;  I. 
You see then that your reason is infirm. These Books are not Canonical because Apocryphal: and therefore Apocryphal 
r Non causa pro causa.  because they contain errors.  N. 
Secondly, then, they are termed Apocryphal, because they are capable of errors, as being the writings of men.  I. 
This is to make them Apocryphal in possibility, not in act. Now every possibility is reducible to some act. Tell then, what is the actual cause, why they are Apocryphal.  N. 
Can a privation have an actual cause?  I. 
The cause may be actual; though rather deficient then efficient.  N. 
Thirdly, then; They are deemed Apocryphal, because their Author is not known.  I. 
No more is the Author of joshua, judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, no nor of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in your opinion.)  N. 
Their Author is known to be God's Spirit, though we doubt of the Penman.  I. 
But how is that known?  N. 
The Prophetical Church received the Books as from God: and hath delivered them to us by Succession: Fourthly, then, these Books are Apocryphal, because the jewish Church never received them: For neither were they written in any tongue which the jews understood; neither do the jews at this day admit of them, but as of Interludes.  I. 
You have at the last stumbled upon the true cause; but withal have overwhelmed it with sundry errors: The first is this: You pretend them to be refused by the jews: because they were written in a language not understood by them: What? Did not Hierome out of Chaldie translate Tobit? Did not the jews in their Dispersion understand the Greek tongue, (namely in the Greekish Septuagint?) Why was the Epistle to the Hebrews written in Greek, if they were ignorant of the language? The like is to be said of the Epistles of Saint james and Saint Peter. Now tell me; Do not you acknowledge our Apocryphal Books to have been written in Greek? and yet was not Sirach's Son a jew? Did not Philo, and josephus (being jews') writ in Greek? The second is rather a scoff then an error: Not unlike that of some men, partly Arrians, and partly Barrowists, which call the Athanasian Creed, the Creed of Sathanasius. This is like that which is more than yea and nay; for it comes of evil. Your third error is, that you acknowledge the traditionary testimony of the Church for the Books of Scripture: and yet explode all tradition, not only as needless, but even as damnable. Your fourth error is that you ascribe more to the jewish Synagogue, then to the Christian Church; For you heard before out of Hierome that the Christians received these Books.  N. 
They received them but as Apocryphal.  I. 
And yet they read them in the Church.  N. 
They were men and might err: For we are assured that these Books are not agreeable to the Canon, as containing and maintaining manifold errors: and therefore may be the Canon, neither of Faith, nor of Manners.  I. 
We deny that you can find any error in these Books concerning Manners: Now touching Faith, fundamental errors we acknowledge none in them. If any petty fault or slip be found our subscription is safe. But now bring forth the errors in their numbers and armies.  N. 
The Apocryphal Books, are either such as are reputed so by the Papists themselves: (namely, the third and fourth of Esdras: and the prayer of Manasses: besides some other Books, not expressed in our Common Bibles;) or such as are so accounted of by the Protestants only, whereof some be not read, some be: Of the first kind are certain portions of Hester: also Susanna, Bell, and the Dragon: and the two Books of the Maccabees. And here I marvel much, that the first Book of Maccabees is not read in your Church: considering you say, it is a key to the Mysteries of Daniel.  I. 
Even for the same cause, that we read not other Books of the Chronicles and Other Volumes of holy Scripture.  N. 
This cause shall hereafter be tried. Now the Books that you read are Historical, or Dogmatic: The Historical be either whole Books, or a fragment: Of the first sort are Tobit and judith: The Book of Tobit containeth errors of things to be believed, or to be done: The first sort concerneth either Angels, or the Means of our preservation: Angels, be good or evil: In the good we may consider the name, and nature: concerning the first: The Book setteth down the name of an Angel, calling him 
s Tobit. 3. 17.  Raphael: whereas Angels names ought not to be enquired 
t Gen. 32 29.  after, as being 
u judg. 3. 18.  secret.  I. 
The Books of 
x Dan. 19▪ 21. & ●0. 21.  Daniel, of 
y Luke 1. 19  Luke, of 
z jud. 9  jude, and of Saint 
a Apoc. 12. 7.  john, do set down the names of Angels, after which we should not inquire, because they be secret; are they therefore Apocryphal?  N. 
These names are not secret to God's Spirit, which hath revealed them to us in these Books.  I. 
And why may not God's Spirit reveal the name of Raphael in this Book?  N. 
This name Raphael is not extant in any other Book of Scripture: and therefore it seems to be a term Apocryphal.  I. 
If a jew should thus reason: I find the names Gabriel and Michael, specified no where but in Daniel: it seems therefore the Book should be Apocryphal▪ what answer would you returue, if you were a jew, and believed neither S. Luke, S. jude nor Saint john?  N. 
I would answer, It is sufficient that these names are recorded in one Book of Scripture  1 
So it is sufficient, though Raphael be named no where but in Tobit; unless you beg the question: Besides the names of Angels are of two sorts: Some expressing their nature, some their office: Of this latter kind is the name of 
b Isa 6. 2.  Seraphim, which signifies burning; because one of them touched the Prophet's lips with a burning coal. To this head we may refer Raphael, which signifieth one that healeth from God, because he healed Sara, and Tobit: Lastly, the place in judges, by you alleged, is impertinent: The Angel which appeared might be Christ, who said his name was Secret, or Wonderful. The like Isaiah saith of 
c Isa. 9 6.  Christ: (he shall call his name the Wonderful, and so forth.) So that the Angel may seem rather to have revealed his name to Manoah, then to have 
d God shown the burning of Sodom to Abraham, and yet not to Lot: The time of death to Ezekiah: not to us.  concealed it from him.  N. 
From the name of Angels, we come to their nature: wherein we will try their number, and their office: Touching the first; this Book determineth that their be seven; 
e Tobit 12. 15.  Angels, etc. which is partly Magical, partly Popish: For first the Magicians (especially the jews) numbered seven Angels according to the seven days of the week: For Sunday Raphael, than Gabriel, Sammael, Michael, Izidkiel, Hanael, 
f See junius upon this place.  Rephariel.  I. 
The Book of Tobit doth not design these Angels by days; much less reckoneth their names: though two of them (namely Gabriel, and Michael) are found elsewhere in Scripture: By what tradition the jews understood the rest, we know not: But, first we are sure the Angel tells Daniel that he was one of the chief 
g Dan 10. 13.  Angels: Secondly, this number of seven may probably be thus collected. The seven eyes in 
h Zach. 3. 9  Zacharie, are by Saint. john expounded to be the seven spirits which are sent into all the 
i Apoc. 5 6.  world: And what should be meant by these Spirits but Angels? Again, Saint john twice mentioneth seven 
k Apoc. 8. 6. & 16. 1.  Angels, it is not sufficient for you to exclaim that this is Magical: We rather credit the Scriptures affirming, than your negative supposals.  N. 
The seven spirits are expounded the Holy Ghost.  I. 
The exposition is but your own.  N. 
What? Do you suppose that john prays for grace, and peace from Angels?  I. 
Not as from causes, but as from instruments: Again, though they be interpreted of the Holy Ghost in the first Chapter: yet in the Vision of the fift Chapter, that exposition will be violent: For there it is said that the Lamb had seven horns, and seven eyes; which are the seven Spirits, sent out into all the World. Now it will be hard to make the Holy Ghost to be the horns, and eyes of Christ the Lamb: Again, how will you make the Holy Ghost to be sent out into all the World? What? are the wicked also partakers of him? But if you apply these phrases unto Angels, they would most expedite.  N. 
It may be john by seven Angels understandeth an uncertain number for a certain: as the seven spirits in the first Chapter are taken for the Holy Ghost, pouring out seven (that is infinite) spiritual gifts upon the Church.  I. 
When the seven plagues are denounced by the seven trumpets, and poured out by the seven Vials of the seven Angels, will you make these plagues, trumpets, and vials to be of this uncertain and indefinite number? will you not hereby inwrap all the Apocalyps in uncertainty? And were all this granted, might not we say that the Angel in Tobit also, doth by seven understand an uncertain number?  N. 
But the number of seven is Magical: as appears by the Story of 
l Numb. 23. 1.  Balaam.  I. 
You may aswell say that the seven horns of the Lamb were Magical by this reason: Indeed to put confidence in the number of seven (as Balaam did) is Magical: But to use that number for the signification of perfection, is not only Prophetical, but even 
m Psal. 119. 164 Prou 9 1. & 24. 16. & 26. 1●  usual.  N. 
Howsoever it be not Magical, yet is this number Popish: For do not we blame the Papists for framing nine Orders of Angels, out of Dionysius?  I. 
Indeed it was too much curiosity to forge nine orders of nine such words, as either concur in signification (namely, Thrones, Principalities, Dominations, Powers, Virtues) Or be taken from a particular message (as the name of Seraphim) or from some special representation (as the term Cherubin) because they were portrayed like Children.) Or be not found in Scriptures (as the word Archangels) or agree to them all (as the title of Angels: For even they that stand before God are sent out as 
n Math. 18. 10. Luke 1. 19 Heb. 1. 14.  messengers.) But what is this to the number of seven Angels, which is found in Scripture?  N. 
From the number of Angels, I proceed to their office, or action: which is ordinary, or extraordinary. Of the first kind is the bringing of the Prayers of the Saints to memory; or the presentation of them to God; which the;; 
o Tobit. 12. 12. & 15.  Angel in Tobit doth arrogate unto himself; being the peculiar office of Christ, as appeareth in the 
p Apoc. 8. 3.  vision of john.  I. 
How did Elias call the widow's sins to remembrance before 
q 1. Kings 17. 18  God.  N. 
The widow thought he did it by his prayers.  I. 
And how doth the Devil accuse the Brethren, day, and 
r Apoc. 12. 10.  night?  N. 
He doth urge God with the memory of our sins.  I. 
Why is Satan said to stand at the right hand of the wicked when they 
s Psal. 109. 6.  pray; yea and sometimes of the 
t Zach. 3. 1.  godly?  N. 
He doth it to accuse the one: and to resist the other in his prayers.  I. 
Why did the Angel stand at the right hand of Zachary, when he told him that his prayer was 
u Luke 1. 11, 12  remembered? The like phrase to which is found in the Angel's speech to 
x 1. Acts 10. 4.  Cornelius?  N. 
I know not, except it were to declare that he helped the one, or the other in his prayer.  I. 
Why make you scruple of that? Think you the Angel was not as ready to help Zacharie, as Satan was to hinder joshua?  N. 
It may be the Angel did help: But the manner of the help is unknown.  I. 
If the Angel received his prayer; why might he not present it to God?  N. 
It is Popish to say the Angel received his supplication.  I. 
Did not the Angel receive Lot's 
y Gen. 19 21.  Prayer?  N. 
That Angel was Christ. For it is said in the Story, that jehovah from jehovah reigned down; 
z Gen. 19 24.  fire, etc.  I. 
jehovah did it, but by his Angels, whom he sent to destroy the 
a Gen 19 13.  place.  N. 
But will you have God put in mind by Angels, as Princes are by their Remembrancers?  I. 
God hath no such need as Princes have; and yet he accepteth of the prayers of Men and Angels, who do in a sort call things to his memory, as you head before of Eliah.  N. 
Do you think then (with Papists) that Angels pray for Men?  I. 
That the Saints in Heaven do in general pray for us, is denied of none: But why the Angels (who know our wants in many particulars; and abound with Charity, as much as the Saints) should not in special prey for us, either render you a reason, or call it not Popish.  N. 
This yet will help the Popish opinion touching the invocation of Angels.  I. 
A Christian that is in Tartary prays for his friend at Moscow: May the Muscovite therefore desire his absent friend to pray for him?  N. 
He may by a messenger, or letter; but not else.;  I. 
So the Angels pray for us; yet may not we request them so to do, unless they appear to us (which is rare) or we could dispatch some messenger to them, which is impossible.  I. 
But Christ only presenteth the prayers of Saints; as you heard by John's Vision.;  I. 
Such a mystical place will hardly be argumentative: But were it granted that this Angel was Christ; we may thus answer: that Christ alone doth present the prayers of all the Saints in his own real intercession: Doth this hinder: that an Angel may not present some men's particular Prayers; and in his own Prayer recommend them to God, through Christ's merits? It is true, Angels pray for us, and assist us: But because we are ignorant when they do it, it were too much familiarity to entreat their prayer; of whose presence we are uncertain.  N. 
Then you make Angels, Mediators of intercession; which is only Christ's royalty.;  I. 
No more than we make Abraham because he prayed for 
a Gen. 19 29.  Lot. Yea Beza will tell you, that the Mediator mentioned by Saint 
b Gal 3. 19  Paul was Moses.  N. 
Though Master Caluin be of an other opinion: (namely that it was Christ: yet with reverence I rather assent to Master Beza) namely, that Moses was in a sort a Mediator of intercession; yet subordinate under Christ.;  I. 
The same we affirm of Angels: yet with this caution; that they must be present to us, as Moses was to the Israelites, before we may entreat their Prayers.  N. 
From the ordinary action of Angels, we descend to the extraordinary; namely, eating and speaking; the first, exceeding the order of Nature: the second of Morality. Touching the former; the Angel in;;; 
c Tobit 12. 19  Tobit, saith, I did neither eat nor drink, but you saw it in a Vision; whereas the Angels which were guests to Abraham and Lot, did eat 
d Gen. 18. 8. & 19 3.  really.  I. 
That word really, is by you added to the text: But tell me did not you term him an Angel that appeared to Manoah? Did not he refuse to eat? Is not this reason thereof rendered there, because he was an Angel? as if it had been said, Manoah knew not that he was an Angel; for than he would not have invited him to meat: So that, if we take things in the most vulgar meaning, Angels may sometimes eat; sometimes refuse to eat▪ sometimes eat in a vision: But to speak properly, Angels cannot eat?  N. 
Why? Do they not assume true bodies of men? Is it not thought the Devil's property to assume airy bodies?  I. 
Although they that so say, cannot prove what they say yet to grant your saying, what will you gain? That body that eateth, must be united, and not only assumed; But the bodies of Angels are assumed, not united (for they have no vegative nor sensitive soul:) They therefore cannot eat.  N. 
Do the Good Angels than deceive men?  I. 
They cause men to believe, that they are men, when indeed they are 
e Heb. 13. 2.  not: this is not deceit, but concealing of the truth for a season.  N. 
From Angels eating, I come to their speaking: concerning which we are much displeased that the Angel in 
f Tobit 5. 12.  Tobit calls himself Azaria, the son of Hanania 
g So junius trrnslateth it.  the Great: and makes himself to be of the Tribe of 
h Tobit 7 3.  Nepthali.  I. 
Concerning the first: some men well expert in Hebrew, do thus answer: that Azariah signifieth a helper from God; and Hananiah, the merciful of God: The former name may agree to an Angel; the latter to Christ: For Angels are called the 
i job 1. 6.  sons of God: and we the brethren 
k Heb. 2. 17.  of Christ: But we do rather embrace an other less subtle, but more safe answer, namely, that the Angel spoke according to his appearance only.  N. 
This is equivocal forgery.  I. 
What if the Author of the Story, had called the Angel Azariah?  N. 
He had belied the Angel; for himself avouched his name to be Raphael.;  I. 
The Author of the first Book of Samuel, saith: that Samuel spoke to 
l 1. Sam. 28. 15.  Saul, seeking his counsel by the Witch of Endor; Think you that he was indeed Samuel, or rather Satan?  N. 
He is termed Samuel, because he appeared in his habit; as also because the Witch (or at least King Saul) did repute him so to be.  I. 
So this Angel was taken for Azariah: and therefore for a time bore his name. Concerning the latter place; First, we say that the Angel did not affirm himself to be of that Tribe, but only Tobias: who spoke according to that which he saw: Secondly, the Angel himself doth secretly insinuate that men ought not to inquire after his tribe and kindred: wherefore these speeches were not lying (as you suppose) but either true (according to the present appearance) or Mystical.  N. 
Next to Good Angels, we are to entreat of the Evil: And first of their name then of their nature. Touching the former: the 
m Tobit 3. 8.  Book of Tobit saith: that the name of the evil spirit was Asmodeus: which seemeth a name very uncouth.  I. 
What think you of the name of Beelzebub so often 
* 2. Kings 1. 2. Math 10. 26. Mark 3. 22. Luke 11. 15.  used?  N. 
That the Deull may have a name we grant: But where also do you read of this name Asmodeus?  I. 
It is an Hebrew name: signifying a Destroyer; as also doth Abaddon; or 
a Apoc. 9 11.  Apollyon.  N. 
That is the King of the Turks, or Papists (as some think) not the Devil.  I. 
The Pope (in your opinion) is Antichrist; and the Turk (as some judge:) Now; who can be the King and God of Antichrist but Satan?  N. 
After the name we proceed to the nature: wherein we may consider either his affection, or his limitation. For the first: this 
b Tob 6. 14.  Author saith, that the evil spirit loved Sara: which seemeth to favour their error, which mistook the place in 
c Gen. 6. 2.  Genesis; saying that Angels (which be the sons of God) fell in love with the daughters of men (that is, women) according to the fable of Incubus and Succubus; and that this was the proper cause of the deluge.  I. 
Herod said to his servants concerning Christ, that he was john the Baptist, raised from the 
d Math. 14. 2.  Dead: Did Saint Matthew favour the error of the Herodians or Pythagorians, which feigned souls to pass from body to body?  N. 
He brought in Herod speaking according to his own erroneous opinion: and yet, being an Historian, not a Censor, did neither approve nor reprove him.  I 
So might this Author introduce Tobias speaking according to the popular sentence: and yet himself be tainted in no sort with this error, Again, when Tobias saith, an evil spirit loveth her: the word love, may signify to haunt; to keep company with; to be accustomed unto: for so the nature of the Greek word doth bear: Or else, the spirit might love her, not in regard of affection, but in respect of his charge: that is, he might love, and desire to preserve and keep her, till Tobias came, that should be her true husband: because he was nearest of her kindred: Or he might love, that is, less hate 
e Compare Gen. 29. 31.  Sara then the seven men: whose lives he took away; as we say the Lions love only their Keepers, because they seem to spare them alone. Lastly, if Tobias at that time were in an error, he afterwards did retract it, telling his Father that the Angel had healed his 
f Tobit. 12. 3.  wife, that is, had freed her from the ungrateful society of Satan.  N. 
Hitherto of the Devil's affection: now follows his limitation: wherein you err, both in regard of the means, and manner. Touching the former; you make the perfume of a fishes liver to drive away Satan, if you believe the fabulous and Magical; 
g Tob. 6. 7. & 16.  Tobit: The like is to be said of the healing of Tobit's eyes with the gall of a 
h Tobit. 6. 8.  fish.  I. 
If the fight of the brazen Serpent might cure the 
i Numb. 21. 9  Israelttes: If the shout of the Hebrews and the noise of the trumpets cast down Iericho's 
k joshua 6. 20.  walls: If Elisha could heal the bitter waters with 
l 2. Kings 2. 21.  salt, and the deadly pot with 
m 2. King 4. 41  meal: If Isaiah could remove the boil of Ezekiah with a lump of dry 
n Isa. 38. 21.  figs: If our Saviour Christ could heal the woman that had the bloody issue with a touch of his 
o Luke 8. 44.  garment and the blind man with spittle, 
p john 9 6, 7.  and water: If Peter's shadow could cure the 
q Acts 5 15.  sick: If Paul's napkin could drive out 
r Acts 19 12. Compare 2. Kings 5. 10.  Devils: why might not this perfume at God's appointment expel Asmodeus? Again, the Angel in 
s Tobit 6. 18.  Tobit saith, that Prayer was to be adjoined thereunto: not unlike the speech of Christ: this kind goes not out but by fasting and 
t Math. 17. 21.  Prayer: Both which were used by Tobias. Thirdly, 
u Upon Tobit 6. 17.  junius himself saith, that the Perfume of Sacrifice was adjoined to the perfume of the fishes liver. The like answer will serve for the fishes gall, whereby the blindness of Tobit was healed.  N. 
The second limitation of the Devil was his confining into the uttermost parts of 
x Tobit 8. 3.  Egypt, which seemeth to be merely fabulous.  I. 
The Devils desired that they might not be commanded to go out into the deep, that is, into the 
y Luke 8. 31.  Sea.  N. 
By the Deep is meant Hell: as in the 
z Apoc. 20. 2, 3.  vision of john.  I. 
Think you the Devil was in Hell, a thousand years together; and never came into the earth? Will you produce a Story, that the Devil was quiet for a thousand years from all invasion, and operative temptation? Again, although the word deep be so taken in the Apocalypse; yet can it admit no other signification in the Gospel? When it is said in 
z Genes. 1. 2.  Genesis that darkness was upon the deep, will you by deep, understand Hell? or rather the Sea, or waters in general?  N. 
Yea, but in the New Testament, this word doth only betoken Hell: and indeed whereas, properly it signifies a bottomless place, it cannot be attributed to the Sea, but by a figure; forasmuch as the Sea hath every where a bottom.;  I. 
When 
a Rom. 10. 7  Saint Paul saith, who shall descend into the deep, etc. will you interpret this of Christ's going into Hell? If so you do, the men of your own 
b H. ●.  Classis will condemn you Again, whereas you affirm Hell and not the Sea to be bottomless in proper speech; do not you suppose Hell to be a Place? Make you Place to be Superficies or Space?  N. 
I am of the refined opinion, that it is a Space.  I. 
Is not every space finite? If hell be properly bottomless; shall it not be properly infinite; and consequently no place?  N. 
I grant that the Deep may be taken elsewhere for the Sea: but here it cannot be so meant: for the Devils voluntarily did carry the heard of Swine, and (by consequent themselves) into 
c Mark. 5. 13.  the Sea.  I. 
The Devils might strike the Swine with dizziness or madness, and so force them to rush into the Sea, and yet themselves not enter into the same. Secondly, although this place be called a Sea by Saint Mark; yet Saint 
d Luke 8. 33.  Luke termeth it a Lake. Now the Devils requested that they might not be sent into the Deep, that is, into the main Sea: For they were loath to departed out of the Country, as appears by Saint 
e Mark. 5. 10.  Mark. Thirdly, they were not so much afraid to enter into the Sea, as to be confined thither, because their ordinary occasions of temptation were found in the Land. Tell me (I pray you) have not some 
f Scaliger exercitation. 359. Section. 13.  Peripatetians confined Angels to the Orbs of Heaven: and some of another 
g Patri●ius in nova Philosophia.  faction to all the Elements? May not we as justly suppose, that evil spirits are for a season confined into some Places?  N. 
That passeth my skill.  I. 
But it passed not your will to contradict.  N. 
I pass from Angels to the means of our preservation: which either concern the body or the Soul: Of the first kind was the curing of Tobits' eyes with the gall of the fish.  I. 
This was answered before, when we spoke of the expelling of Asmodeus.  N. 
To the second sort appertain those immoderato praises which your Author giveth to Alms: saying, that it delivereth from death, and purgeth from 
h Tob. 4. 10. & 12. 9 and 14. 11.  all sin: whereby the doctrine of popish merit is established.  I. 
Is not alms by Tobit called righteousness? Doth not Solomon say, that 
i Pro. 10. 2.  righteousness delivereth from death?  N. 
That is not to be understood of the merit of alms delivering from eternal death (this being the peculiar operation of Christ's passion) but it is a way, wherein if we walk by faith in Christ, we shall be safe from death of Soul and Body.  I. 
The same interpretation might you make of Tobits' words, if malice did not hinder your voice, as the silver squinancy did Demosthenes.  N. 
But how can alms purge sin?  I. 
How can alms redeem 
k Dan. 4. 14.  sin?  N. 
Indeed the Chaldie Paraphrast hath it redeem: But the Hebrew verity saith break of, not redeem.  I. 
But Caluin telleth you, though we translate it redeem (according to the Chaldie) yet Popish merit hereby cannot be confirmed.  N. 
It may be in some proper sense said, that alms redeem, that is, recompense our iniquities against our neighbour: But our redemption from the divine wrath, is only by the death of Christ.  I. 
In like manner may we say, that alms purgeth away sin. Furthermore concerning this controversy of merit: I take you to be an incompetent adversary, forsomuch as you understand not the state of the question, as shall be demonstrated in another disputation.  N. 
Because you seem to put off this Combat: I will pass from the errors of this Book, touching things to be believed, to those which concern things to be done.  I. 
You might have spared all this labour: For we read neither this, nor any like book for the establishing of the Doctrine of faith, but only for moral instruction.  N. 
But this book is contrary to the Doctrine of faith, as hath been showed by proof.  I. 
Your shows have been golden, your proofs leaden, as hath been showed by their reproof.  N. 
The errors concerning duties, are two: For either they pertain to Marriage, or to Burial. Concerning Marriage, this 
l Tob. 7. 1●.  Author seemeth to make a Contract, the same in essence therewith: Whereupon it may seem you have mis-translated the place in 
m Math. 1. 18.  Mathewes Gospel after this manner: when his mother Mary was married to joseph before they came to dwell together: whereas it should be thus rendered, when she was espoused, etc. Before they came together. Thus your interpretation seemeth to make Marriage and Contract all one in substance; as also to infer that our Saviour was conceived in or after Marriage.  I. 
Concerning the first point, it may thus appear out of the 
n Deut. 22. 24.  Law, where the espoused woman is called a Wife; and if she be convicted of wilful unchastity, is reputed as an Adulteress worthy of death: By which it is manifest that a 
o De praesenti non de futuro.  Contract for the present time, differeth not in substance from Marriage (although we deem not but that the public and solemn ceremonies of Matrimony, are decent, expedient, ye and requisite in regard of our positive Laws.) The same is confirmed by the words of the Angel in Saint ᶜ Matthew: For there Mary being espoused to joseph is called his Wife.  N. 
The words are thus; Fear not to take Mary to thy wife.  I. 
They are neither so in the Greek, nor so translated; But are thus read; Fear not to take Mary thy 
p Math 1. 10.  Wife; whereby it was declared, that she was then actually his Wife. 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   N. 
Now prove you the second point, namely, that Christ was conceived in Marriage.  I. 
It appears partly by that which hath been said, partly by two other reasons. First it was most safe for Christ then to by conceived, that all show of scandal might then be avoided: For the jews being scrupulous Calculators of time (if this occasion of slander had been presented) would readily have accused him as base borne: whereas we never find that they so did.  N. 
They could not so accuse him considering he was borne in wedlock.  I. 
Howsoever the conveniency of our Positives' Laws herein may be justified; yet the jews both did and do hold that Children begotten out of Marriage are base: Neither do you advisedly avoid the scandal: For if she were with child after the espousal, before Marriage (as you pretend) the jews would have alleged against her the capital Law in Deuteronomy before named. My second reason is taken from the agreement of time: For S. 
r Luke 1. 26. 36  Luke reporteth Christ to have been conceived when as john the Baptist, had been six months in his mother's womb: After which time the Virgin remained with Elizabeth 
s Luke 1. 5, 6.  three months. And six months after (according to the computation of our Church) was delivered of Our Saviour.  N. 
It may seem by the Story of the 
t Math. 1. 18.  Gospel, that Mary was found by the swelling of her body to be big with child.  I. 
Can that swelling show that she was with child by the holy Ghost? And yet is it not there avouched that she was found so to have been?  N. 
How then was she so found?  I. 
By her own narration to joseph, according to the relation made to her by the 
u Luke 1. 33.  Angel.  N. 
Why then did joseph purpose to send her away, lest he should make her a public example? Did not he fear that she had committed fornication before contract, or adultery since that time?  I. 
Nothing less: But he feared to retain her with him, because he knew not what vocation he had to be Father to such a Child as was conceived and borne out of the limits of nature.  N. 
But how could he be unwilling to make her a public example, seeing she had conceived in marriage?  I. 
The Greek 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word signifieth to make a common talk of: So might he have done if he had put her away publicly: For than would every man have accused her of fornication or adultery.  N. 
But had she been his wife, he could not so have put her away: especially being a just man, as it is there said: For he must have accused her according to the Law of 
y Devit. 22. 13. etc.  Moses?  I. 
He could not so accuse her, being a just man; because he believed her naration concerning her conception, by the Holy Ghost.  N. 
But had she been his wife, why did he not keep company with her?  I. 
The Greek word signifieth to dwell together, aswell as to keep company. Besides, if this latter should be meant, it may be conceived that the Marriage Feast lasted seven days as did that of 
z Judg. 14 12.  Samson: So that he might not go into her till the seventh day of the Feast.  N. 
The latter duty concerneth Burial: Of which your Author speaketh on this 
a Tobit 4 17.  manner: Pour thy bread upon the burial of the just; But give nothing to the wicked▪ which words are contrary to those of 
b Gal. 6. 10.  Paul, where he willeth us to do good to all, especially to the household of faith.  I. 
Although we acknowledge the doctrine to be true, That upon certain cautions, we ought to be liberal aswell to the evil as to the good: yet we avouch, that you are deceived both in the place of Saint Paul, as also of Tobit. Touching the former the coherence doth show: that by the household of faith we are to understand the Ministers of the Church. For the 
c Gal. 6. 6.  Apostle saith, Let him that is taught in the Word, make him that teacheth him partaker of all his goods: Whereof making this reason (Because we shall reap as we 
d Gal. 6. 7. ad 10.  sow) he thus concludeth, whilst we have therefore time, let us do good unto all men; especially unto them which are of the household of faith.  N. 
But what then is the meaning of Tobit in his charge to his son?  I. 
In sum it is this: give Feasts for the comfort of the children of the just in their mourning 
e jer. 16. 7.  for their parents deceased, who thereby are also honoured: But give no such honour to wicked men. Thus you see your twelve cavils against the Book of Tobit to vanish into smoke.   

CHAP. II.  
Of judeth: and the Song of the three children.  N. 
FRom the Legend of Tobit, I pass to the Fable of judeth: wherein we dislike both word & matter. Touching the first; we think that the term; 
a jud. 16. 7.  Titans doth not savour of the simplicity of God's Spirit but of some Pagan Poet.  I. 
You are like Domitian: you will kill flies for want of men, and pursue words for lack of matter. But what? did not Saint Paul and Saint james borrow words from Poets? Is Poetry now become so base in your eyes, that you cast it down from the mountain of dignity into the valley of scorn?  N. 
Divine Poesy I acknowledge to be a part of Theologie: as being used by Moses, Miriam: the Author of job, Deborah; Hanna, David Isaiah; Habacuck; and others: but the profane words of heathenish and fabulous Poets we cannot endure.  I. 
What think you of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell used 
b 1. Mat. 11. 23. & 16. 18. Luke 10. 15. & 16. 23. Act. 2. 27. & 31. 1. Cor 15. 55. Apoc. 1. 18. & 6. 8. & 20. 13. 14.  eleven times in the New Testament? was it drawn from the Heathen Pluto? Do not you endeavour to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify Heaven aswell as Hell; to the intent that your interpretation of that clause in the Creed, he descended into hell, that is, his soul ascended into Heaven might seem to have the better coherence? Whence do you fish these your proofs but out of the ponds of Poets?  N. 
The Poets do sufficiently show that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth betoken a place of joy, aswell as of Pain.  I. 
Indeed they place Elysium in Hell: but, that they mingled Heaven (whither they sent their Heroes,) with Hell cannot be confirmed out of their Poems. But now (I pray you) tell me: had you been at the framing of that Book of judeth, what word would you have used instead of Titans, which should have been equipollent to the name of Giants, unless you condemn that name also?  N. 
I will not busy myself about amending that which is all faulty: and yet I must ingenuously confess that I cannot dislike the name giant, forasmuch as it is found in 
c Gen. 6. 4.  Genesis and 
d Io●. 15. 8.  joshua.  I. 
Do you remember whence the name giant is derived?  N. 
It may be from Gyges or Gog the King of the Lydians: But the received opinion is, that it is deduced from being borne of the 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  earth.  I. 
Indeed we read that the earth (in the Poets) did bring forth giants: but will you believe that men came of the ground like mushrooms? By this you may perceive, that the word giant is as poetical as that of Titan; as also that the Story of judeth is not (as you pretend) like the verses of Dionysius, amended only by blotting out. But now (I pray you) cease to be like Antoninus) a cutter of 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Cummin; and so come on to the matter.  N. 
In the matter then, we disallow both the circumstances and actions: Of the first rank are time and place: Concerning the time of this Story it cannot be declared with any certainty: and therefore it must needs be a Fable, or, at least a Parable.  I. 
The Stories of job and Ruth; and (it may be) of Hester, will hardly admit any determination of time: will you bury these also in the grave of Fables? I believe it would molest you to make a true Chronologie of the Book of judges: or of daniel's seventy weeks. Yea, if you were strictly examined in what year or age, the eleven Tribes fought with Benjamin: Or in what year of Herod, Our Saviour was borne: or how many years he preached upon the earth: or how long time is calculated in the Story of the Acts; you would be as dumb as a man at the first fight of a Wolf. Shall all these things be fabulous therefore, because we (living in the prison of ignorance) cannot clearly discern the light of truth? Again it is more than probable that the Story of judeth fell out under the reign of King Manasses.  N. 
The untruth of this assertion may be showed three ways: First thus; In the time of Manasses the Temple was not destroyed, as appeareth by his 
g 2. King. 21. 4.  Story: But it was leveled with the ground in the days of 
h judeth. 5. 18  judeth: she was not therefore in the time of Manasses.  I. 
To your Minor: First, I oppose other places in 
i judeth. 4. 2. & 8. 24.  judeth: yea, indeed the whole tenor of the Book every where affirming the Temple then to have stood.  N. 
This is but to show what contradictions are in the Story.  I. 
Nothing less: For tell me whose words did you allege?  N. 
They were the words of Achior before Holophernes.  I. 
Do you believe the speech of Rabshakeh when he said that Hezekiah had taken away the Altar of the 
k 2. King. 18. 22.  Lord?  N. 
It was an ignorant speech of a Pagan: For the Altars demolished by Hezekiah were not the Lords, but heathenish and devilish.  I. 
So it may be Achior, being an ignorant Amonite, might untruly report the destruction of the Temple.  N. 
It is not likely he should err in a matter of fact, especially being so famous.  I. 
His words may be otherwise; interpreted after this manner: the Temple was made as the ground that is, was reputed profane, and common ground, namely, during the captivity of 
l See junius upon this Place.  Manasses.  N. 
My second argument is this: It is said that judeth was a fair 
m judeth 8. 7.  woman: also that she lived an hundred and five 
n judeth 16. 23.  years: Lastly, that there was no trouble in Israel for many years after her 
o judeth. 16. 25.  death. Now we know that from the death of Mansses to the destruction of the Temple, were but fifty five years; and to the captivity of jeconias out forty four. So that if she were sixty years old at the death of Manasses she must live a whole year, after the deportation of jeconias.  I. 
Your computation holds together like ropes of sand. And first (I pray you) how old was Sarah, when she was said to be fair by 
p Genes. 12. 11.  Abraham?  N. 
She was about the sixty fift year of her age.  I. 
The jews also doubt not to say that she was beautiful at the hundreth year.  N. 
What is that to judeth?  I. 
It may be she was sixty years old when she came before Holophernes. It may be this was done twenty years before the death of Manasses: and so she might die twenty years before the Captivity of jeconias. Can you produce any thing against this but your own confident conjectures? Should you upon so light grounds disgrace the Stories of Thucydides, Diodorus, or Suetonius, would not men think of you, as of the Ostrich in 
q job. 39 20.  job, that you were deprived of understanding?  N. 
I can swallow your bitter, or rather poisoned pills: But I come to my third reason on this manner. This act was done by judeth, either before or in the time of the Captivity of Manasses; or after his return from Babel.  I. 
The first is affirmed by none, as fare as I remember.  N. 
The second is refuted by the words of Achior: who saith, that they were then returned from 
q judeth 5. 19  captivity.  I. 
They that defend this opinion, may answer, that as some returned from Babylon in the days of Cyrus: and some not till the time of Darius Nothus, about an hundred years after: So some of these captives might have returned, and yet the King remain in Bondage.  N. 
This is but the opinion of Bellarmine, one of the Knights of the Post for Romish Religion.  I. 
We rather think it was done after the return of Manasses.  N. 
First then; Why is 
r judeth 4. 6.  joacim the Priest only named in this action of war: no mention at all being made of the King, who was most interessed therein?  I. 
Why is not the Devil named in the temptation of Euah; and in the Vision presented to King Saul: forasmuch as he was principal Agent in both erterprises?  N. 
These Stories are declared not according to things done, but after their appearance.  I. 
It may be King Manasses did not appear in this matter: For it is probable that he was lately delivered from the King of Assiria. He was not willing openly to be seen in an action which seemed to savour of rebellion. Furthermore think you that Daniel did worship the Image of Nabuchadnezzar because it is not written, that he refused so to do?  N. 
His constancy even to and in the Lion's den doth sufficiently disclaim this imputation: so that we had rather take shelter of any conjecture, then accuse so holy a Prophet, and constant a confessor: It may be Daniel was then employed in some foreign Province: It may be, though he were present, yet the Chaldeans would not for reverence, or durst not for fear, accuse him: or if they did, yet were not heard in their suit. If all these probabilities fail, we must err on the safer side: and not accuse upon groundless and negative presumptions.  I. 
Neither may you accuse King Manasses upon the like uncertainties: For it may be no memorable thing was done by him in this business: It may be as the greatness of his sin caused his repentance not to be written in the Book of the Kings; so the same cause of the like silence is to be ascribed to this Author.  N. 
Secondly, I thus prove; that this could not be done after the return of Manasses: For, had it been so, why did Holophernes so curiously demand of all his Captains (and by name of Achior the Ammonite) what was the particular estate of that Country? If it had been so lately subdued, and the King carried away in bonds, this inquiry might seem to have been superfluous.  I. 
It is written in the 
s 2. Chro. 33. 11  Chronicles, that the Lord sent the Captains of the King of Ashur, who took Manasseh, etc. It is more than proble that Holophernes was not of this number of Captains. It may be he was then too young to be a Captain: It may be, he was then busied in some other expedition: and what though he had been in that Country before? might he not be ignorant of the chorography thereof: and especially of their Genealogy? You cannot be ignorant how wildly 
t Historiae lib. 5.  Tacitus writes concerning the jews, affirming that they came from Ida, a mountain of Crete; and yet he had conferred both with Vespasian and Titus which overthrew Jerusalem.  N. 
From the Time, we pass to the Place or Scene of this Comedy: which is said to be 
u judeth 4. 6.  Bethulia, whereas no such City can be found in the Land of Canaan.  I. 
Do you believe that there was such a City in judea as Jerusalem?  N. 
Not only Scriptures, but even all Authors give report of such a City.  I. 
And yet none can tell now, where this City was situated, howsoever we hear fables of Bethara.  N. 
Howsoever this great desolation be, at this present, yet we may not so disgrace the undoubted stories, as to make any scruple of the being of such a City.  I. 
In like manner neither may you doubt of the being of Bethulia, howsoever you find now no such place in the Map. I believe it would trouble you to show me all the Cities of Greece (named by Thucydides) in any map. Again the names of sundry Cities, have been altered in process of time: (as 
x john 4. 5.  Sychar for 
y Gen. 33. 18.  Shechem) some also have been built since the the time of josua, when the survey of Canaan was made; (as by name 
z 1. King. 16. 24  Samaria.)  N. 
What is this to Bethulia?  I. 
It might, as well as Samaria, have been built since the time of josua. But the truth is, Bethulia is a name changed from 
a joshua 18. 19 & 21. See junius upon judeth 4. 6  Beth-hoglah.  N. 
Thus fare of the circumstances: now follow the actions of judeth, concerning her behaviour either with God or Men. Of the first kind we have Fasting and Prayer. Her fasting was Superstitious. Forasmuch as she fasted every day but the Eve of the Sabboth-day, and of the solemn 
b Judeth ●. 6.  Feast.  I. 
Were it Superstition (as you intimate) what is that to the Historian, who no where doth applaud it? Again this action of hers, may not only be defended, but even exceedingly praised. First, by this means she did most exactly and sincerely observe the Sabbath; preparing her body by praecedent rest: For they that approach to the Sabbath with tired bodies like the Romans to their first battle with Hannibal, shall never bear away the victory. Most laudable therefore, and religious is the ancient custom of our Country, whereby Saturday was made Halfe-holiday.  N. 
But this is reckoned amongst the jewish Superstitions.  I. 
If the jews make it part of God's worship, as they did the washing of their hands before 
c Mark 7. 4.  meat, How can it be prejudicial to us who make no such will-worship of it; neither live near the jews to scandalise them herein? Secondly, she did herein observe the nature of fasting and feasting. For as nature passeth not suddenly from one extreme to an other, but layeth hold of the mean or middle term: So is it preposterous abruptly so go from fasting to feasting, from mourning to rejoicing. For this cause she fasted not upon Friday, being the day before the jewish Sabbath. I will make it plain by this Diagramme: On Thursday she did fast: that is, she did neither eat nor rejoice till evening: On Friday she did eat but not rejoice: On Saturday (which was the Sabbath then) she did feast, that is, eat with rejoicing.  N. 
Why do you then fast upon saturdays, and the Eaveses of Holidays?  I. 
Upon the first we fast only from certain kinds, namely from flesh: upon the second we do fast at evenings' alone: Neither of which can properly be termed religious fasts: because the former doth not afflict the 
d Levit 16. 19  body, the latter doth afflict it in very gentle manner.  N. 
To her fasting a cousin German was her prayer: the impurity whereof appeareth by two things. First, she commendeth the fact of her father 
e judeth 9 2.  Simeon which jacob notwithstanding did 
f Gen. 49. 7. Compared with Chap. 34. 25.  accurse.  I. 
But doth the Author of the Book commend her for so doing?  N. 
It is the office of a good Historian to declare his judgement concerning those things whereof he makes 
g Cicero 〈◊〉. 2. De Oratore.  relation.  I. 
He that told you that, never read Genesis: For if he had, he would have marvelled why Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, jacobs' simony are neither condemned nor defended. And were this Canon of yours stristly observed, we should banish Historians out of the World, as the Turk doth Rhetoricians.  N. 
Yea, but your Author commended judeth as a virtuous woman.  I. 
So were they virtuous men, whom I now named. Nay, were not Sara and Rahel, virtuous women, whose vices though they be related, ye are not particularly reproved by Moses.  N. 
But yet her prayer is most , blessing that which God hath cursed.  I. 
What think you of Balaam's going to King Balak?  N. 
It was an accursed act of avarice: therefore the Lords wrath was kindled 
h Numb. 22. 22  against him.  I 
Notwithstanding the same Lord commanded him to 
i Numb. 22. 20.  go.  N. 
He was not angry for his going; but for that he went with an evil mind, namely, to accurse the people of God (if it were possible) and especially to lad himself with the thick clay of Egypt.;  I. 
And what opinion have you of jehu, for destroying Ahab's house?  
Did not God commend and reward him for that Heroical 
k 2. Kings 10. 3.  action?  I. 
And yet the 
l Hosea 1. 4.  Prophet condemns it for a bloody fact.  N. 
It may be his mind was bloody, howsoever he obeyed God in the external act.  I. 
In like manner, though the outward act of Simeon were evil; yet might his intent be good: namely, the punishment 
m Gen 34. 31.  of lust.  N. 
A good intent alone, makes not the action good.  I. 
But a good intent may not be termed evil and therefore judeth for this intent might praise Simeon. For (if you observe it) jacob doth not simply accurse the fact, but the rage, wherewith it was performed. Yea, he ascribeth the deed to himself in part, as appears by his speech to 
n Gen. 48. 12.  joseph▪ the reason whereof may be this, because the people of Shechem were accursed in their 
o Gen 9 25.  Grandfather Canaan. Besides did not Herod and Pilate, that 
p Acts 4 28.  which God had determined?  N. 
God's determination could neither excuse them, nor Simeon.  I. 
Yea but that which God determineth cannot be unjust, howsoever he use unjust instruments. judeth then praiseth God for revenging lust, even by the Sword of cruel Simeon.  N. 
This is like Sixtus Quintus his panegyrical Oration upon the death of the French King, Henry the third, slain by that unmerciful Clement: wherein the providence of God was magnified.  I. 
This is an odious, and yet not four footed comparison: For Shechem deserved death, though Simeon was but an hasty and uncalled agent therein. But no such thing can be avouched of that Prince, who was as unjustly murdered by that Monk: as Henry the Fourth was of late by Francis Ravalliac of Angolesme.  N. 
The second fault of that Prayer is, that she prays for God's assistance in her q craft. 
p judeth 9 13.   I. 
Did you never hear of Dolus malus, evil craft?  N. 
What is that to judeth?  I. 
If there be evil, why may there not be good craft also, as is to be seen in the stratagems of war mentioned in the Bible? 
r joshua 8 19 Judg. 7. 20. & 20. 4 ●. ●am. 5. 2●.   N. 
But the craft of judeth was wicked as appeareth by her behaviour towards men.  I. 
Although she might fail in the circumstances of ●h●● craft, wherein she desired to prosper, yet might her intent and prayer be godly.  N. 
In her behaviour I note two couples of lies: The former she told to the Soldiers, the latter to Holophernes: The two first are set down in her speech to the 
s Judeth 10. 12, 13.  watch: For first, she said, that the Bethulians (from whom she fled) should be delivered into the hands of the Assyrians, which was more than her knowledge, and contrary to ●●r hope.  I. 
What think you of the speeches of 
t Gen. 27 ●●. ● 33. 1●  jacob, 
u ●●sh●● 〈…〉.  Rahab, of 
x 1. 〈…〉  David, and of the woman at 
y 1. 〈…〉.  Enrogel?  N. 
They were lewd and loud lies.  I. 
Your Censers are perfumed with Wormwood, not with Frankincense: But why do you not condemn the Books of Genesis, joshua, and Samuel for these lies?  N. 
They do indeed relate them; yet do they not commend them.  I. 
Neither yet do they condemn them: And may you not with the same pencil whiten the walls of this our Author likewise? Besides judeth spoke true according to their opinion as David did to King Achish, when he told him that he had roned against the South of▪ 
* 1. Sam. 27. 10.  juda; for the King thought he had spoiled the Tribe of juda; whereas David understood the Amalekites, dwelling in the same Southern Coasts.  N. 
This is like the Anabaptists: who being demanded whether they believe the resurrection of the body? Will answer that they do: meaning they believe such to be your belief: Or like the Papists who being asked whether King james be a lawful King? affirm that he is; meaning in the received opinion of the multitude of this Realm: Howbeit if strength were not wanting the Bull of Pius the fift, and the Breves of Clement the Eighth,; and Paul the fift, should be in force against him.  I. 
You show of what spirit you be, in accusing David of anabaptistical and Popish equivocation. Either relinquish this censorious ignorance, or else men will rather judge you to be led by the Moon, then by reason.  N. 
What? Do you defend equivocation, which was not invented by George Southwell, but by him that used those four Equivocations to our Grandmother Euah: First, you shall not die, that is presently: Secondly, your eyes shall be opened, that is; the eyes of your consciences: Thirdly, you shall be like Gods or Angels, that is, evil Angels: Fourthly, you shall know good and ᵃ evil, 
z 1. Sam. 27. 10.  that is, not by theory, but by lamentable and late experience.  I. 
To equivocate before a Magistrate, an oath being tendered (as Anabaptists and Papists do) we hold it a thing dissonant to Religion and policy Nevertheless to speak doubtfully to a professed enemy. no kind of oath being administered; and to conceal from him that part of truth which we may not utter, howsoever we be tormented, we maintain it not only to be lawful, but also safe and necessary: All which was performed by judeth to the soldiers in this first lie (as you term it.)  N. 
But the second lie yet lies heavy upon her, when she said she would tell Holophernes nothing but truth: whereas indeed she patched two famous lies before him. First, she told him that no punishment could come upon the Israelites except they sinned against God.  I. 
It is probably collected out of S. 
b 1 Apoc. 2. 14.  john; that this was taken from the Counsel of Balaam, who thought that Israel could not be troubled, unless it were ensnared with Idolatry or Adultery. And surely the ground of this advice was most profound: forasmuch as no divine judgement can overtake a nation until it be guilty of the impunity of some known transgression; which maxim if you deny, you will hardly avoid an axiom of Atheism.  N. 
The next lie before Holophernes is yet more apparent: For she tells him that the men of Bethulia were ready to eat up things consecrate to God, which (as she pretended) should have been a great sin: whereas she knew that these things might be used by them in case of extreme necessiity.  I. 
To grant that she knew this; How was she bound to reveal this to the Tyrant, and enemy of the Church? Did not jael the like to Sisera, when she said 
c judg. 4. 18.  fear not?  N. 
One mule may claw another: For it seemeth this fable of judeth was taken from the Story of jael.  I. 
I wonder you called not that fable also, considering that Deborah (being a Prophetess) did term jael blessed among women 
d judg. 5. 24.  for the very like fact. Neither indeed is the phrase of Vzziah unlike to this in the commendation of 
e judeth 13. 18  judeth.  N. 
But jael first of all did break the peace made between jabin, the King of Canaan, and the house of her husband 
f judge 4. 17.  Heber.  I. 
I pray you, were you present at the contract of that peace? was it made with a League or without it? If the latter, than no promise was violated: If with a League; was it a League of amity (so that each was bound to help other in all warfare?) Or was that a League of equality? (so that both were indifferently restrained from molesting and invading the friends of the Confederate party:) The former you can never evince: If it were the latter, the King of Canaan had first broken the league by invading the Israelites, and so jael was free. Besides, howsoever there were a league: yet if God by immediate instinct did ordain the contrary, jael was absolved from all humane bonds: the like instinct may be supposed to have been in judeth.  N. 
But jael said fear not: when there was indeed true cause of fear.  I. 
Although she interdicted him to fear, yet she promised no security.  N. 
It was an implicit promise.  I. 
But this is of small force, with a sworn enemy to God's Church, such as was Sisera.  N. 
This will make good that which was confirmed in the Council of Constance: Namely, that faith is not to be kept with Heretics.  I. 
I will not now scan the meaning of that Decree: only I answer: That she made no faith with Sisera, when she said, fear not: For it may be she meant, fear not in regard of Barak and the Israelites that pursue thee.  N. 
This is but an equivocal shift, which you can never confirm.  I. 
As yourself said of Daniel: so we say of jael: we will either fly to any conjecture, then acruse a woman commended by so great a Prophetess as was Deborah: Now the fact of judeth was not unlike that of jael.  N. 
It is not likely that the Bethuliam were about to eat the things that were consecrated: no such matter being elsewhere specified in the Story.  I. 
We will rather believe her affirmation, which had better means to know it, than you, that be ignorant thereof. And thus your ten imputations and aspersions cast upon this Book, are now become like painted dreams of the shadow of smoke, being dreamt by a doting, sickly, waking man.  N. 
I weigh your words as wind: and come from Whole Stories to a Fragment, called the Song of the three Children, out of which your Benedicite is taken: rehearsed by you after the first Lesson instead of Te Deum.  I. 
If this offend you, it lies in the discretion of the Minister whether he will repeat it or not: For in the place thereof, he may say Te Deum: unless it also be tedious to your quicksilver minted ears. But what is that in the Benedicite which moves your choler.  N. 
First, it is said, That the fire went out forty nine 
g The Song of the three Children, Verse 47.  Cubits.  I. 
Where gins the Benedicite?  N. 
At these words. O all ye works, etc.  I. 
That is ten Verses after the place by you 
h The Song of the three Chrildrens, Verse 57  alleged: So that it may be that they, which disliked the Story, could not disallow this Song read in our Church.  N. 
This Song is a Part of the Story: and therefore is to be rejected, if the Story be found reprobate silver.  I. 
The Song may be rehearsed for moral instruction; howsoever the History which is not rehearsed, should err from some part of truth. But now what is the hole in this relation?  N. 
It is utterly impossible the Chaldeans should cast in Naphtha, pitch, tow, and faggots into the furnace, if the flame did issue there from so many Cubits.  I. 
Some Mechanical Artisan could teach you a device, how to cast fuel into a furnace without peril, being distant above forty nine Cubits, though tripled: Again, it will be hard for you to prove, that the fire went forward, and did not ascend upwards: Lastly, though this were granted: yet no impossibility would follow: For this may be the meaning of the place, That the flame broke out of the furnace, and went forty nine Cubits, and so burned the Chaldeans. This is confirmed by the words of 
i Dan. 3. 22.  Daniel, where it is said because the King's commandment was strait, the fire slew the Chaldeans; that is, because they fearing the rigorous commandment of the King did over-heate the furnace, the fire suddenly came out and slew them: whereof the reasons may be rendered: First, their preposterous haste: Secondly, their casting in of Naphtha, pitch and tow, which might wonderfully inflame the other fuel: Thirdly, because the Angel did shake the fire out of the furnace, with a hissing 
k Song of the three Children, verse 49  wind.  N. 
You heal one error with an other: For 
l Dan 3. 25.  Nabuchadnezzar saith, that the men walked in the midst of the fire.  I. 
This is the King's meaning, that they walked in the midst of the furnace, being the place of the fire: neither is it improbable that some wind or dew was brought by the Angel to abate the violence of the fire.  N. 
It were more miraculous to say: that the fire was restrained from burning.  I. 
Miracles and Monsters are not to be multiplied without necessity. It had been more miraculous that the Hebrews had been fed with Manna in Canaan, and yet the Manna there 
m joshua 5. 12.  ceased. In like manner, it had been more strange if the grave garments had fall'n from Lazarus of their own accord; yet Christ commanded him to be 
n john 11. 44.  loosed by men. For where the natural strength of Angels or Men will serve: why should we exact a miracle, as it were to tempt, and 
o Psal. 78. 41.  limit the Almighty.  N. 
Two fragments there be separated from the beginning of Daniel, commonly termed the thirteenth and fourteenth Chapters of that book (namely the Story of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon:) In the History of Susanna we dislike 
The Story of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon.  the matter, and the phrase. As for the matter, it is neither sound for substance, nor circumstance. For the first, it is manifest that Daniel was not advanced upon that occasion that this Story 
p Susanna v. 65  pretends, namely, for delivering Susanna from death by his Prophetical sentence: but rather for the interpretation of Nabuchadnezzar's Dream, as is to be seen in the true 
q Dan. 2. 48.  Daniel.  I. 
We may easily conceive a double advancement of Daniel: First, whereby he came into credit with the People by the occasion of the matter of Susanna: Secondly, whereby he came into reputation before the King, for expounding of his dream. Again, although the King took notice of Daniel's judgement concerning Susanna: Yet was it possible that he should not advance him: either because he was very young or because he thought this judgement proceeded from dexterity of wit: not from divine inspiration: Or lastly, because he might be as forgetfully ingrateful towards Daniel, as afterwards was Balthasar, till he was advertised thereof by the Queen 
r Dan. 5. 10.  Mother.  N. 
The circumstance of time doth more convince this Book: and that for two reasons: First, it appears by this narration, that the jews had yearly judges in Babylon; and power to execute the; 
s Susanna, v. 5. & 41. & 62.  Laws of Moses; which is no way probable.  I. 
First, Nabuchadnezzar and Darius advanced some of the jews in 
t Dan. 2. 48. 49.  Babylon: Secondly, Hamman tells Ahashuerosh that the jews observed their own 
u Hest. 3. 8.  Laws: Thirdly, the Romans which kept down the jews as much as the Babylonians, yet gave them leave in some cases to keep the capital Laws of Moses, as appears by Saint 
x john 18. 31.  john, and by Saint 
y Acts 7. 58.  Luke. Wherefore this is not so unprobable as you would have it.  N. 
Secondly, against the time I thus reason: Daniel is said to be a 
z Susanna v. 45  young child: and yet this Story is reported to be done in the time of Cyrus: 
a Susanna v. 65  but this is impossible: For Daniel was carried away in the beginning of the 
b Dan. 1. 1.  Captivity, which lasted seventy 
c jerem. 29. 10.  years, even to the first year of the reign of 
d Ezra 1. 1.  Cyrus: So that Daniel could not be less than eighty years old in the first year of Cyrus.  I. 
First, Some doubt not to avouch this to be another Daniel.  N. 
To what end then is this Story annexed to his Book?  I. 
That might be done, because they were men of the same name, nation, spirit and happiness. But I relinquish this opinion as uncertain and improbable. The plain answer is this, that those words concerning Astyages and Cyrus in the end of Susanna, are taken out of the beginning of Bel and the Dragon, as is plain by the Greek Text: Your calculation therefore is needless.  N. 
From the matter I come to the phrase: For it seems by the Greek, that there should be an allusion in daniel's speech to the words 
e Susanna v. 54▪ & 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the Elders, which allusion is not found in the Hebrew, or Chaldie tongues.  I. 
First, no marvel, if it cannot be found: For the names of Eastern trees are little known to the Grecians, & the rest in Europe, as all Herbals do witness: Secondly, though the Greek Interpreter did allude, it follows not hereupon that there was an allusion in the Hebrew or Chaldie: Thirdly, if all be granted, as also that the Story is Apocryphal; will you hereupon conclude that it is false and not to be read in the Church for moral use. namely to show how God defendeth innocence, and convinceth lust, and malice?  N. 
I pass from Susanna to Bel and the Dragon: wherein we disclaim two things: First, it is said, that Daniel was six days in the Lions ᵐ den; 
f Bel and the Dragon, v. 31.  whereas it is said in the true 
g Dan. 6. 19  Daniel, that he remained there but one night.  I. 
The Stories speak of two several facts and times: The first under Darius; The second under Cyrus.  N. 
Darius was Cyaxares the Uncle of Cyrus: and reigned with him in Babylon.  I. 
This Story is uncertain: For Scaliger proves that Darius reigned ten years before Cyrus came: which if it be true, your argument is at an end: Again, 
h Master William Perkins in Digesto.  others think that Xenophon, who tells your Story, is merely fabulous, and that Herodotus tells the truth, saying that Astvages had never a child but Mandana the Mother of Cyrus.  N. 
Secondly, we wonder that Habacuk should 
i Bel and the Dragon, v. 33.  here be mentioned: who was before the Captivity, as appears by his 
k Heb. 1. 5.  prophecy.  I. 
If he were the same man▪ yet might he live as long as Daniel. Also you know how long Isaiah, and Hosea prophesied; namely, at the least sixty three years.   

CHAP. III.  
Of Wisdom: Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.  N. 
FRom the Historical Books I pass to those Apocryphal Volumes, which are termed Sapientall; whereof the Book of Wisdom (commonly ascribed to Philo the jew;) and Ecclesiasticus (compiled by jesus the Son of Syrach) may be called Dogmatic; and the last namely, the Book of Baruch) Prophetical.;;  I. 
Whither Philo penned the Book of Wisdom we dispute not: But at this we marvel, that Doctor junius (being a man of rare diligence) could espy no error in the Books of Wisdom or Baruch; and yet your Eagle eyes have found some of this kind.  N. 
First, we blame the title, than the matter of the Book of Wisdom. The title seemeth to make Solomon, the Author thereof, which is false, without all controversy.  I. 
It is not intended by this title, that this Book should be ascribed to Solomon; but it is only propounded, as a Meditation or soliloquy made in imitation of that divine Wisdom of Solomon, published in his Books of the Proverbes, the Preacher, and the Canticles: Of which kind were the Meditations of Saint Augustine, Bernard, Anselme, and 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  others.  N. 
In the matter of the Book we dislike two places: First, those 
b Wisdom 8. 20▪  words: But rather being good, I came into an undefiled body: wherein two errors are contained: First, that the soul is created before the body: Secondly, that according to the merit, or demerit thereof, it obtaineth a good or bad body: which be the errors of Plato, the Chiliasts, and Origen: Other plain meaning of this place cannot be framed.  I. 
If you reject the Book, because some place therein is not plain; what shall be done to the Epistles of Saint Paul; wherein some things are 
c 2. Pet. 3. 16.  hard to be understood? Nay, what shall become of the Books of job, Canticles, Ezekiel; Daniel, and the Apocalips? (not to speak of Tertullian, Possidonius, Thucydides, Sueronius, Aristotle; Archimidedes, Lycophron, and Persius; which Books all will acknowledge to be as hard as profitable.) Furthermore two gentler interpretations may be brought of this place: The first is 
d Lyranus upon this place.  vulgar; namely thus: But I, becoming better, (that is, making progress in 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  virtue) I came into a body undefiled, that is, obtained a body, neither polluted with fornication, when I was young, nor with adultery when I was married: howsoever according to the custom of the time I used Polygamy:) The second exposition is this, But rather being good (that is, in regard of my soul, which though it were not free from Original sin, yet was endued with as much strength of nature as may be: namely, in respect of understanding, memory, or fancy) came into a body undefiled (either with a too fiery, or to foggy a complexion whereby the operations of my soul might have been made over dull or precipitate.) If either of these two meanings be admitted your two imputations will vanish: Lastly, your latter error, which you pretend, hath no ground; For he saith not because I was good; but, being good, I came into a body undefiled; showing, not the cause, but the concurrent condition of the soul, when it obtained a good body. Neither indeed is your former aspersion very probable: For though he say I came into the Body, it followeth not hereupon that the Soul was made before This rather may be the meaning: My soul, being created and infused, came in an instant into the body.  N. 
In the second place we mislike these words: 
f Wisdom 14. 14. & 15.  When a father mourneth grievously for his son, etc. By which place is intimated, that the first beginning of Idols was the custom of the mourning for the dead: whereas we read of Idols long before, namely, in the days of Rahel; yea of Abraham and 
g Gen. 31. 19 & 53. jos 24 2. See Caluin Instit. Lib. 1. Chap. 11. Sect. 8.  Terah.  I. 
First, the Author maketh this only the occasion of the public adoration of Idols; by the commandment of Tyrants: What is this to Rahel or Abraham; which (for aught you can produce) had only their private will-worships? But tell me (I pray you) what was Tammuz for whom the women mourned in the 
h Ezek. 8. 14.  Prophet?  N. 
Some think he was Adonis: Others say better, that he was Osiris, King of Egypt, and husband to Isis; who being slain of his Brother Typhon was by her lamented, and deified.;  I. 
At what time reigned Osiris in Egypt?  N. 
Surely he was a most ancient King. For he, with his wife instructed the Egyptians in the use of Wheat and Barley: So that it may seem he was before the time of Abraham, who went into Egypt, when there was a famine in Canaan, which he had not done if the use of grain had not been there known.  I. 
You see then by all probability, that the Idol Tammuz, was before Abraham: and (it may be also) before Terah. For was not Prometheus the son of japetus or japheth (the elder brother of Shem) which first framed Idols, much more ancient than Terah?  N. 
We insist not so much upon the Antiquity of Idols: Only we say that man's mind, desirous of a visible God, was rather the original cause of them; then the fashion of the lamenting for the dead.  I. 
The Author speaks not of the inward cause, but of the outward and public occasion. Now you cannot prove that the Idolatry of Rahel or Terah was not thus occasioned.  N. 
From the Book of Wisdom, I come to the Book of Ecclesiasticus: wherein we first mislike the Argument, and Prologue: then the Treatise itself.  I. 
The Argument is extant only in some Greek Copies: Neither seemeth it to be compiled by the Author of the Book. Have you not observed that the subscriptions of Saint Raul's Epistles, have been blamed by Ancient Divines, as things added by some unskilful Clerks? And what if the same should fall out, even in this Argument? But now declare the fault thereof.  N. 
These words seem to be very 
i The argument of Ecclesiasticus, verse 8. according to junius.  arrogant. This jesus did imitate Solomon: and was no less famous in wisdom and doctrine, etc.  I. 
Why do not you translate them as junius did, namely, thus: He was a follower of Solomon, no less endeavouring to prove wisdom and Learning? what is the scruple?  N. 
He seemeth to equalise jesus to Solomon.  I. 
When we say, Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive: Also when 
k Math. 5. 48.  Christ saith, You shall be perfect as your father which is in heaven is perfect; is it intended that we should do Gods will equally to the Angels? Or that we should pardon sin or be perfect in equality God?  N. 
These phrases do not import a just equality, but a likeness of proportion according to the degree, and measure of our weakness.  I. 
The same may be here affirmed: For as Solomon by his infused gifts did search out wisdom; so jesus (no doubt) by his purchased habits, might tread the same steps, though in an unlike degree; and be as famous in his time and kind, as Solomon was in his.  N. 
In the Prologue, these words declare the spirit of the Author to be nothing 
l In the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, verses 6 & 7. according to junius.  prophetical: And to this, take it in good worth, though we seem to some in some things not able to attain to the interpretation of such words as are hard to be expressed: For the things that are spoken in the Hebrew tongue, have an other force in themselves, then when they are translated into an other tongue, etc. Furthermore, the first words, take in good worth, are in the 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek: to have, or give pardon: A phrase nothing befitting the majesty of God's Spirit.  I. 
First, the Greek word may signify some thing else then pardon or remission: Saint Paul useth it for 
n 1. Cor. 7. 6.  Permission: Besides, it is a strange phrase in Greek, to have pardon for to give pardon The simple meaning of the place is, to permit willingly, or benevolently: or take in good worth, as we translate it: Secondly, he saith, not if we be unable: but if we seem to be unable: Thirdly, he maketh a translation to be inferior to the original; and the Greek to the Hebrew. The former is plain by daily experience: The latter may be thus explained: First, the Greek tongue came by the confusion at Babel: whereas the Hebrew was more ancient and divine: Secondly, the Hebrew roots are verbs, and those few, and are easily found by certain Letters; whereas the Greek Themes are variable, infinite, intricate: Thirdly, whatsoever the Greek doth add to, or take from the Hebrew, proceedeth from imperfection: as namely, the adding of the neuter gender, and of cases; as also of indefinite tenses, is a thing most needless. So the taking away of genders out of verbs, and the future tense out of the Imperative Mood (which only should have been therein:) as also of the five last forms of Coniugations (wherein the Arabians were imitated) doth argue great confusion: Fourthly, if this Prologue were penned by the Author, and your argument were in full force, the Book were only excluded the Canon, but not out of the Church, wherein we defend that Apocryphal Books may be read for moral use: Fiftly, to what end is this allegation, seeing we read neither the argument nor the Prologue in the Church?  N. 
In the Treatise we disallow four things; whereof the first concerns Christ: the other three, his servants the Prophets. Christ (the wisdom of the Father) is said to be; 
o Eccles. 1. 4. & 9 & 24. 12.  created; which is little less than Arrianisme.  I. 
First, some doubt not to affirm these places to be meant of God's wisdom showed in his creatures, and not of Christ: Secondly, this 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word may signify not only to be created, but to be possessed: for so the Septuagint do render it in the 
q Prou. 8. 22.  Proverbs.  N. 
The place was corrupted by the Arrians, who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for so it should have been read according to the Hebrew.  I. 
There is no such Greek word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for it is a Verb mean, and not active. Again, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to inhabit, or possess, whereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify not only the builder of a City: but also the inhabitant therein, and Possessor thereof: Thirdly, to create, may signify to ordain, as when we say a King is created, that is ordained. Now what hindereth us to say that Christ from the beginning was possessed; and in a sort 
r Rom. 1. 3.  ordained by his Father?  N. 
From Christ I descend to the Prophets: whereof the first, namely, Enoch, was before the Flood: the other two, that is Samuel and Elias did succeed it. 
s Eccles. 44. 16.  Enoch is said to be taken away for an example of repentance to the generations: whereupon the Papists have feigned Enoch to be one of the two witnesses in the Apocalyps, which should 
t Apoc 11. 3.  fight against Antichrist.  I. 
The Papists can evince no such thing out of this place: For it is only said, that he was removed from the power of wicked men; that they knowing what he had 
u jude 14, 15.  prophesied concerning the Flood to be brought upon the World for sin, and considering his triumphant passage into heaven, might repent. So Christ 
x john 16. 8. & 11.  saith: That the Spirit should convince the World of sin, because they believed not in him: and of the righteousness of his cause for that he whom they had crucified, was taken up to his Father in Heaven. As for the witnesses of Saint john, (if any place be for conjecture) it is more probable by the consideration of the miracles there mentioned, that the first of them was Moses, and not Enoch.  N. 
Next to Enoch is Samuel, who is said to have 
y Eccles 46. 20.  foreshowed the King's death: whereas indeed that foreteller, was not Samuel but Satan.  I. 
But the Scripture calleth him 
z 1. Sam. 28. 15, 16. 20.  Samuel.  N. 
Not because he was so indeed, but in appearance.  I. 
Why then may not the Son of Sirach use the same Phrase?  N. 
Yea, but he reckoneth this amongst samuel's praises, which was one of the prizes of the Devil.  I. 
It was a praise to Samuel that Saul who would not believe Samuel during his life, was forsaken by God, and so delivered up to a reprobate sense; that he sought help from Satan appearing in his likeness, whose prophecies he had abused and contemned.  N. 
From Samuel the judge we pass to Elias, under the Kings; who (as the 
a Eccles. 41. 10.  Author saith) is appointed in due season to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children: Wherein I note first a contradiction: then a false interpretation. The former thus appears? These words (as you know) are alleged out of 
b Mal. 4. 5, 6.  Malachi who was the last of all the Prophets. Now it is said in the 
c The argument of Ecclesiasticus, verse 2 according to junius.  argument, that jesus was after all the Prophets almost.  I. 
jesus the father of Sirach might be before Malachi, and yet jesus the Son of Sirach might succeed him in time. This latter jesus finished the Volume: Again Malachi, was the last Prophet whose writings are extant: and yet some Prophet might come after him: For Elias and Elisha wrote nothing: and yet were Prophets of the best rank: So that Malachi might be alleged by the Son of Sirach and yet he lived to see some other Prophet, later than Malachi: Lastly, he is said to have lived after all the the Prophets almost: whereby it may be thought: that he might see Malachi, and yet not survive him.  N. 
The false interpretation is this: That the Author doth suppose the bodily return of the Old Elias into the world, before the Day of judgement: whereas both 
c Math. 11. 14.  Christ, and the 
d Luke ●. 17.  Angel, expound it of john the Baptist: So that it may seem the jewish and Popish, fabulous Elias had hence their beginning.  I. 
The jews reject this Book as much as you do. The Papists for their dream do aswell allege Malachi as this Author: Yea, they doubt not to pervert the words of Christ, thus reading them: This is Elias that is to come; whereas they should be read thus that was to come: as is plain by the thirteenth verse: and by the words of the Angel in S. Luke: As for the meaning of this Author it may be thus: Elias the This bite was a man of that excellent spirit, that john the forerunner of Christ; and greater than all the Prophets, should be called by his name, and be said to come in his spirit and power: As the two witnesses in Saint 
e Apoc 11. 11. Compare Ecclesiasticus 48. 11. with the King's Majesty's divine speech and answer in the conference at Hampton Court.  john are said to be revived in their Successors; and inspired with their spirit: It may be also thus meant, that Elias in his own time, and person performed these things.  N. 
It resteth now: That we come to Baruch, which hath two parts: First, a Prophecy in five Chapters: Secondly, the Epistle of jeremy in the sixth. In the Prophecy we mislike two places: First▪ these 
f Baruch 1. 2.  words: In the fift year, the seventh day of the month: whereby is intimated that jerusalem was taken and burnt in the fift year of Zedechias; whereas it is plain by the Story; 
g 2. Kings 25. 2.  of the Kings, and by, 
h jer. 52 6.  jeremy, that this fell not out till the eleventh year of the same King.  I. 
We read not Baruch for Chronologie, but for Morality: If you were bound to reconcile all the calculations of times in Scriptures, you should have need of the help of the tenth 
i This name was given to joseph Scaliger for his skill in this, and other arts & tongues.  Muse. Yea (I believe) if ten Scaligers should concur, they could not cut all the Gordian knots made by Chronologers. For this particular time, junius guesseth that the City might be set on fire, in the fift year, and yet the flame being extinguished, the last burning of jerusalem might be deferred till the eleventh. Another conjecture may be this: that the fift year is put for the fift month, that is, of the eleventh year. For in the fourth month of the eleventh year was the City 
k Jer. 52. 6.  taken: and in the fift month of the same year came Nabuzaradan who burned the 
l 2 Kings 25. 8.  City: For it may seem strange that Baruch should set down the year and day, but not the month.  N. 
As strange as you make it, it is used in the Story of the 
m 2. Kings 15 3  Kings: where it is said, and the ninth day of the month the famine was sore, no number of the month being expressed.  I. 
But jeremy resolves, that this was the fourth month; which if he had not done, we should never have understood that place in the Kings: And some would have conjectured by month, to be meant the first month; which, as you see, is refuted by jeremy.  N. 
To leave your intricate Chronologie: the second place we disallow is in these 
n Baruch 3. 4.  words: Hear the dead Israelites: where it seemeth the Prayers of the Saints in Heaven are allowed after the Popish manner.  I. 
Where do you read that by dead Israelites are meant the Saints in Heaven.  N. 
Were not Abraham, Isaac and jacob, now dead?  I. 
But Christ tells us, that they are 
o Math. 22. 32.  living: For he is their God: But he is not the God of the dead but of the living.  N. 
Saint Paul saith, that he is the God of the 
p Rom. 4. 9  dead also.  I. 
Christ speaketh of God in mercy, in regard of redemption: the Apostle treateth of God in power, in respect of creation, and moderation of things. But (tell me) is it not an unreverend and unproper phrase to say that God hears the prayers of the dead Saints? (for it is confessed that the Saints in general pray for us.) The first is plain; for it can be little then profane to call them dead which live with God: The latter is evident: For seeing they pray as they are alive, not as they are dead, it is but a rough-hewne speech to term them the prayers of dead men: Besides, two other interpretations, may be brought: First, by dead Men may be meant, men dead in 
q Math. 8. 22. Ephes. 2. 1.  sins: This is confirmed by the words following in the same verse, which have sinned: Secondly, they may be said to be dead, in regard of their infinite troubles: and so they are said to be defiled 
r Baruch 3. 11.  with the dead. To the same purpose is the vision of the bones showed to the 
s Ezek. 37. 1.  Prophet.  N. 
But how doth it appear, that here are not meant dead men, whose souls are out of their bodies.  I. 
Baruch directly 
t Baruch 2. 17.  denies, that such men pray: for so junius expoundeth it.  N. 
In the Epistle of jeremy, we allow neither the title nor the treatise. The title seemeth to make jeremy the Author of this Epistle: which we find not in his prophecy.  I. 
Your negative argument is an old Pigmy's bulrush against the Craines (as it is in the Fable.) But we pray you conjecture with junius that jeremy sent this Epistle by 
u jer. 51. 59  Serara●  N. 
In the Treatise first we dislike these words 
x Baruch 6. 2.  seven generations, where a generation is taken for ten years against the use of Scripture phrase.  I. 
It will be hard for you to bind Baruch to the calculations of jubilies. If you do; the answer will be, that the Greek Interpreter used the Greekish account: For example; He that translated Xiphilin into Latin, for the Greek Drachma doth use the Latin Denarius and aureus for twenty five 
y Drachma or Denarius is 7. d. ●oo. aureus 15 s. ●d ob.  Drachmas. So the Greek Expositor finding seventy years in in the Hebrew expressed it by seven generations which the Greeks' call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Romans 
z Pergamon quum caderent bello superata bilustri.  tempora bilust●●a, that is, times of ten years. We in England would have termed them ten lives: that is, seven years to a life.  N. 
Secondly we cannot in dure your immoderate praises of this Chapter. For you have publicly taught, That it is more able to convince the Papists of Idolatry, than the Canonical text.  I. 
This was said, not because it was equal with the Canon; but, first, because they have added it to the Canon, and yet it crosseth their Idolatry: For whatsoever arguments are here brought against the Idols of Pagans, the same may be alleged against Popish Images: Secondly, because this Chapter is a compendious collection of those things which are largely propounded in Scriptures. And thus your arguments against the reading of the Apocryphal Books in the Church are become like a white cloud without rain: or like an Eunuch embracing 
* Ecclesiasticus 20. 3. & 30. ●0.  a Virgin.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the Translation of the Psalms.  N. 
FRom the Books Apocryphal I ascend to the undoubted Canon: consisting of Psalms, and Chapters. First, of the Psalms, as being wholly set down in your Liturgy. We say that you have deformed them both in quantity and quality: Concerning quantity, you have detracted, and added: You have detracted sentences and words: Of the first kind are the titles of the Psalms, which you have omitted.  I 
Declare I pray you the number and kinds of those titles.  N. 
Twenty and five Psalms have no title at all: Now of those, which have titles annexed, about forty two have distinct titles, showing their cause outward or inward: The outward, is the end, or efficient. Titles declaring the end are such as these: A Prayer of David; A Psalm of praise; for remembrance; or of Instruction. Whereby it appeareth that some Psalms are Petitions, some Thankesgivings (which are two kinds of Prayer:) Others be Instructions: The titles showing the Efficient, are these: A Psalm of David; To jeduthun; To Asaph, etc. whereby the Penman or Singer is described: The inward cause is the matter or form. The matter is expressed in the titles, setting down the occasion of the Psalm (as in Psalms 3. 7. 18. etc.) The outward form is seen in those titles, which describe the Musical keys to be used in song (as in Psalm, fourth, ninth, and others.)  I. 
To speak in order of these tittles: I say three things. First, I probably think that they were not compiled by the Authors of the Psalms: Secondly, that they be not needful: Thirdly, that they are imperfect. The first I thus explain: First, it is not likely that David would have set down the foureteenth, and fifty third Psalms; forasmuch as they differ scarcely in three words, excepting the titles which are so different, that they seem not to come from the same Author The like is to be thought of the forty third Psalm, which hath no title, and yet is an epitome of the forty second Psalm, whose title is most large: Secondly, we find the hundred and eight Psalm compiled of two other Psalms, (namely, the fifty seventh Verse seventh to the end. And the sixtieth, Verse six, to the end) which argues, that David never compiled these Psalms in one Book: And therefore the Hebrews make four Books of Psalms: Thirdly, it is written in the end of the seventy second Psalm, Here end the Prayers of David the son of Ishai: which will hardly admit a good construction, if we think that David ordered the Psalms, as now we find them. For there are many Psalms after that ascribed to David (as most of the Songs of Degrees, and the like:) Secondly, that these titles are not needful, may thus appear: First, if David were the Author of the first seventy two Psalms, what need is there in every Psalm to iterate these words a Psalm of David? Secondly, why should not the title of the fifty third Psalm be needful for the fourteenth, containing the same matter? Thirdly, these titles can be no more needful than the Hebrew Letters set upon the hundred and nineteenth Psalm. Now these are useful to none but them which understand the Hebrew Tongue; whose memories may be aided by them: Fourthly, the Musical titles cannot be needful, and that for a double respect: First, because they are not understood as the jews themselves confess.  N. 
Learned men have expounded them.  I. 
They have made some flying conjectures concerning them: So that it is not meet with them to oppress the capacities of the multitude; which receive such subtleties as these as the bottomless barrel of the Belides did water. Secondly, these harmonious titles (at the least in your opinion) are needless for us: For you account Church-musique ceremonial; and almost, as unprofitable as Pictures or Images.  N. 
The titles which declare the occasions of the Psalms cannot but be very profitable.  I. 
Some of them are very obscure, and of little use to the people without an Interpreter (as Psal. 7.) the rest are exceeding short; so that they may seem to be certain brief notes collected for the direction of the Priests only: Thirdly, that these titles are imperfect, may be gathered thus; First, to what end is the title of the ninety eight Psalm, which is thus nakedly set down A Psalm?  N. 
It may be to distinguish it from a Song.  I. 
It will be Plato's year, before you find out this distinction: Secondly, there be many Psalms of Prayer; Praise; Instruction; and Remembrance: whereof some have no titles: others no such thing expressed in their titles: and therefore your title to titles, is but a title of contention.  N. 
From Sentences I descend to words, by you detracted. Now these are words of attention, or intention: You have taken away sundry words of attention: Namely first in the midst Selah 
a The first place is in Psal. 3. 2.  very often; Higgaion 
b Psal 9 16.  once: Secondly, in the end Haleluiah, seventeen times.  I. 
Tell me (I pray you) what mean you by Selah?  N. 
Some think, it meaneth no more than very much: Others suppose it to be a Musical note, whereby the Choir▪ was admonished to lift up their voice.  I. 
Your former interpretation is hungry, cold, naked; the latter (at least according to your fancy) is Ceremonial, and so a stranger from our Church: The truth is, this term Selah is most obscure: The like may be said of Higgaion (howsoever some expound it, a thing to be meditated of with industry:) As for Haleluiah I answered when I spoke of Gloria Patri.  N. 
Besides words of attention; you have also taken away effectual words of intention: So that you have corrupted the sense, as the dead Frogs did the Land of Egypt. Of the first kind is that place in the; 
c Psal 68 27.  Psalm; There is little Benjamin their ruler: whereas it should be read with their ruler.  I. 
In the Hebrew text this word with is not to be found: In the seventy Interpreters it is not extant: For they read it thus. There is young Benjamin in excellency; the Princes of juda, etc.  N. 
The Greek word is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which 
Mentis excessu.  is to be translated frenzy.  I. 
You will sooner fall into a frenzy, then make this a good construction of that place.  N. 
If these words be not corrupted: by frenzy may be meant a Prophetical ecstasy whereby Benjamin was moved to praise God in hymns.  I. 
The Greek word may come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be eminent, or stand above others: And so we may accord it with the Hebrew verity: and so not stand in need of your wresting. Besides junius translates it as we do: Lastly, the sense agrees with us little Benjamin their ruler, in regard of Saul of that Tribe, the first King: Or in respect of the Temple, standing in that part of jerusalem which pertained to the Tribe of 
d Deut. 33. 12.  Benjamin.  N. 
The second place is in these words: they were not 
e Psal. 105. 28.  obedient: whereas it should be read they were not disobedient.  I. 
What if it were the slip of the Printer to omit the syllable dis, or to insert the syllable not; could you not have lent him a Spider's web; or an Egyptian Canopy to catch Syllables instead of flies?  N. 
You know that Sibboleth being pronounced for 
f Judges 12. 6.  Shibboleth, was an instrument of a great slaughter: And that Arrius differed from the Church but in a letter; saying, that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, like to God in substance: whereas the Church said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, coessential, or consubstantial with God. Again, we are not bound to subscribe to the errors of the Printers.  I. 
Belike than you will not subscribe to any Hebrew Bible in the world forasmuch as none will be found, wherein there is no addition, detraction or alteration of a Syllable. Now whereas you pretend that the change of a letter or syllable may do much hurt: that imputation cannot agree to this place, whether we consider the reading or sense. For the first you know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which here both you and we translate not; may be rendered him: as if it were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the like change we find in the 
g 2. King. 8. 10.  Kings; according to the general exposition. Again, these words may be read with an interrogation, thus; were they not disobedient? And so it will be alone with this they were not obedient: The like is in 
h job 13. 15.  job: Lastly, the Seventie read it thus; because they sharpened his words (or decres) namely by their disobedience. Now we know that the Apostles did many times follow rather the Seventie then the Hebrew.  N. 
That was done, because the Greek Translation was better understood, than the Hebrew: Besides the True Translation of the Seventie is lost.  I. 
Not lost; but in part altered: For we find the Apostles citing sundry places, according to the Translation now extant.  N. 
You strive about the reading, like a bear in a net: but you cannot make the sense accord: The plain meaning is, that Moses and Aaron, the wonder-workers; or rather the wondrous plagues themselves, were not disobedient to his words and decrees.;  I. 
If our reading may be admitted, the meaning may be thus as plain: that the Egyptians obeyed not God's Word, for all the plagues: And this will agree well with the 
i Exod 9 3. See it in the Hebrew.  Story.  N. 
As you have detracted, so you have added sentences and words: For the former: First, you have added three whole verses to one 
k Psal. 14. after verse 4.  Psalm.  I. 
We did it, according to the citation of this place, used by Saint Paul to the 
l Rom. 3. 13 to the 19  Romans.  N. 
You thought that he had cited all these words out of this Psalm; whereas indeed they are taken out of sundry places of the Psalms, Proverbes, and Isaiah: Or else how durst you to have added them to the Psalms in your Liturgy?;  I. 
Saint Paul had joined them together in citation: and therefore we thought it no heinous error to conjoin them in reading the Psalms: Considering hereby, that both the fourteenth Psalm, and the third to the Romans, do receive a mutual light of explanation: Neither can any error hereby arise: If the references be well set in the Book: For it is well observed, that the English references, are better for use, than most of your Genevian notes whereof some have been taxed of 
m As that upon Exod. 1. 19 and upon the 2. Chron. 15. 16. See the Conference at Hampton Court.  partiality.  N. 
In the second place you have added a verse, to the 136. Psalm: which is not in the Hebrew nor in the Greek: but seemeth rather to be taken out of the Vulgar Latin.  I. 
Have you not heard men in the end of a Psalm sing the last verse of the twenty eight Psalm?  N. 
I have heard Some of your own brethren do it: neither may I disallow it: Considering it may be used as a good Epiphonematicall conclusion to a Psalm.  I. 
The like may be said of this verse: Praise ye the Lord of Lords, etc. which is repeated out of the third verse of the same Psalm: and therefore cannot be erroneous; but may be a good Epiphonema or conclusion to the Psalm. Now if you fear it will spoil the rabbinical conceit of the number of six and twenty; containing the two and twenty Hebrew Letters: and the four letters of rest, which are said to be found in the name jehovah; we pass not for such bubbles in the water.  N. 
From Sentences I pass to a Word by you added in these words of the Psalm: For so you read it, that seek thy 
n Psal. 24. 6.  face, O jacob.  I. 
How are the words read in the Hebrew?  N. 
Thus (as I take it:) that seek thy face jacob.  I. 
How do the Seventie read it?  N. 
Thus: that seek the face of the God of jacob.  I. 
And how would you read or translate them?  N. 
This is the generation of them that seek thy face (this is) jacob: that is; jacob is the generation which seek God's face: whereas you make the Just to seek the face of jacob; a sense either idle, or idolatrous.  I. 
To seek the face of jacob (that is, the Visible Church) is no idolatry: For God's face, or Presence, is best seen in his Church. Thus our Translation agreeth in sense with the Greek; in sense and words with the Hebrew: whereas yours jarreth in both, with both.  N. 
As you deformed the quantity: so have you altered the quality of the Psalms by obscurity, and falsehood: The obscurity appears both in the connexion of whole sentences: and in perverting of some words: Of the first kind is that in the 
o Psal. 58 8. or 9 according to some.  Psalm: where thus you read: Or ever your pots be made hot with thernes, so let indignation vex him, even as a thing that is raw. Here I would ask upon what ground or colour you have translated Pots?  I. 
Do not you know that the Hebrew word signifieth both Pots, and Thorns? Now tell me, how you would have this place translated.  N. 
Our brethren of Geneva, have thus rendered them; As raw flesh before the pots feel the fire of thorns; so let him carry him away as with a whirlwind, in his wrath.;  I. 
This is as obscure as the former: Besides you see that your brethren translate pots aswell as we. And here I might ask you how they came to render it thus, as it were in his wrath.  N. 
The Seventie so translate it; and the Hebrew word is so taken in another 
p Psal. 78. 49.  Psalm.  I. 
True, if you read it without points: And it may be that you suppose that points were invented by the Masorites, which were much later than the Seventie.  N. 
I will not enter into that question: But I reverence the points of the Masorites, above the Seventie now extant.  I. 
That this plea may be brought to an issue; Produce I pray you some plain interpretation of this place.  N. 
The place may be rendered to this effect: Before they understand (that is before men perceive by miserable experience and feeling) your prickles (which are as the prickles) of rhamnus (that is a poisoned bramble) he (that is God) shall with a whirlwind destroy it: (namely, the bramble, or every one of the prickles) as well as the living (that is the green and flourishing prickle) as the dried (for the bramble hath some prickles green, some dry, and withered at the same time) This is the plainest exposition that I can invent.  I. 
Then were you mistaken in accusing our Liturgy of obscurity: For your interpretation will hardly ever be understood of the vulgar. And indeed it were an unreasonable task, to force them to conceive the connexion of every intricate place in job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the Prophets: Considering that the best learned, do many tines here stand amazed like the ten Spies, when they saw the walls, and stature of the Anakims'.  N. 
From the connexion of sentences, I turn myself to your perverting of words: wherein your ignorance discovers itself: sometimes putting in a word that is opposite: sometimes that is diverse. An example of the first kind is this: 
q Psal. 17. 4.  Because of men's works that are done against the words of my lips, I have kept, etc. Whereas the words should thus be turned, concerning the works of men, by the words of thy lips, I kept me, etc. Here first you see that the words are by you mispointed: For this clause: (By the words of thy lips) should be joined to this (I have kept me.) Secondly, you have translated against for by; and my for thy, which are terms plainly opposite.  I. 
The original is pointed like our Book, as is to be seen: As for the word which we translate against; and you by, it hath both significations.  N. 
But in this place, it should be translated by; and not against: For the Prophet meaneth, that by the words of God's lips; he had preserved himself from the ways of the cruel.;;  I. 
The Hebrew pointing, refutes your meaning. The words may be thus expounded, Because men have done things against the words of my lips; I have therefore avoided their paths.  N. 
But the Hebrew hath thy, not my lips.  I. 
The sense is all one: For things done against God's word▪ were also wrought against the words of David, his true Prophet. So 
r Mich. 5. 2.  Micha saith, Thou Bethlehem art little; meaning in regard of place; and yet Saint Matthew, citing the same 
s Math. 2. 6.  sentence, thus translates it; Thou Bethlehem art not little: Namely, because Christ should come out of that City. Thus the words differ; but the sense agrees.  N. 
From words opposite I come to those which be diverse: and breed obscurity. The first example of this kind is in the 
t Psal. 68 30.  Psalm; where you read humbly bringing pieces of silver: for treading down pieces of silver.  I. 
Your translation is more obscure than ours: and less agreeable to the Hebrew.  N. 
You know, that this word is so taken elsewhere: 
u Prou, 25. 26. Ezek. 32. 2. Dan. 7. 7.  howsoever in the two former places the word may seem to  in writing; and the last be written in Chaldie, not in Hebrew.;  I. 
These places are impertinent: for though they come of the same root: yet are they in a different form & 
x They are in Cal, and Niphal This in Hit●pael.  Conjugation. For the word here betokeneth the action of a man treading down himself; or craftily suffering himself to be trodden down; that is, humbling himself: And so our interpretation is more consonant to the text, then yours. The Greek is also for us: for so it is there found: that they which are tried may be bowed down with silver, that is, may humble themselves, bringing pieces of silver: For (as I take it) the words are amiss altered in the 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Greek.  N. 
The second instance of your mistaking is, when you read in the 
z Psal. 141. 5.  Psalm: It shall not break my head; as if it were meant of the flatteries of wicked men: Whereas it should be thus rendered: Let it not be wanting to my head: being to be expounded, of the reproof of the godly.  I. 
Your Genevians translate it as we do: and surely this translation came from the Greek: which is thus, Let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head: And (if you observe it well) the sense will accord with the Hebrew. For when David prayeth, that the oil (namely of the godly) may not be wanting to his head; Doth he not by consequence request that the oil of the wicked may not anoint it?  N. 
But how doth breaking the head, agree with anointing?  I. 
Either this may be the meaning; Let not the oil of the wicked (under pretence of anointing) break my head: Or else, it may be taken from the custom of breaking the box of ointment over the head of the party 
* Mark 14. 3.  anointed.  N. 
From your obscurity, I proceed to your falsehood: wherein you violate either the analogy of faith; or of the place; and present text.;;  I. 
When we urge you to subscribe to the translation, our meaning is: that that there is no error therein against the analogy of faith: and you impertinently allege certain errors against the analogy of the Place: But now to your proofs.  N. 
The first instance of the former kind is: when you read in the 
z Psal. 18. 26.  Psalm: Thou shalt learn frowardness: Whereas it should be read; Thou shalt show thyself froward: else the speech were blasphemous.;  I. 
The Hebrew word signifieth a reflexive imitation, or learning of an action (as the Conjugation showeth;) For in an other form it signifieth to wrestle, or 
a Namely in Niphal. Gen 30. 8.  strive: And it is a vulgar 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  figure, whereby we ascribe to God, the passions of men: (As when he is said to repent, to be grieved, or angry:) For indeed what can we conceive, or utter of God, without a figure? Again, the 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek readeth as we do: So that your censure of blasphemy, is somewhat too viperous.  N. 
A second instance of the same fashion, is, when you read in the 
d Psal. 125. 3.  Psalm; Shall not fall; whereas it should be translated shall not rest: Else we should pray with some ignorant people to be delivered from all evil.  I. 
The Seventie render it as we 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Non dimittet.  do: And this is but a critical cavil, about the emphasis of a word: For whatsoever doth rest upon a thing, must first fall thereupon. So that by falling, we mean an heavy, and a continued fall.  N. 
Against the analogy of the place, you have corrupted sentences and words: An example of the first is, when you read in the 
f Psal. 107. 40.  Psalm; Though he suffer them to be evil entreated through tyrants; whereas according to the Hebrew and Greek, it is! He poured out contempt; Or contempt is poured out upon Princes.;  I. 
The meaning is all one: For God by sending foreign Tyrants to vilify their Princes, doth suffer even the People also to be roughly handled by them. So Nabuchadnezar by God's permission plucked out the eyes of Zedechias, and withal did lead the People into captivity.  N. 
You have also corrupted and falsied words; two Nouns, and two Verbs.;  I. 
O unhappy Mother Church: which hast brought forth such children, as for a pair of Nouns and Verbs, make such long furrows upon thy back.  N. 
To leave your Rhetoric: The first place is in the 
g Psal. 68 6.  Psalm: where you read men of one mind, for solitary men,  I. 
We read it according to the 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek. The Hebrew word cometh of a root, signifying to Unite. And surely it is a great blessing of God to have an agreement in a Family.  N. 
The next 
i Psal. 75. 3. or 2. according to others.  place is where you translate a Congregation, for a fit time.  I. 
The Hebrew word signifieth a Congregation 
k Numb. 16. 2.  elsewhere. David also meaneth that great Congregation mentioned in 
l 2. Sam. 3. 19 & 5. 1.  Samuel: Lastly this was a fit time (namely in this assembly) to do this action: and therefore the Greeks' translate it a 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  season.  N. 
The first falsified 
n Psal. 106. 30.  Verb is, where you render it Phinees prayed, for executed judgement.,  I. 
The Hebrew in other places: doth signify to 
o 1. Sam. 2. 1. & 25. jonah 2. 1.  pray. The Greek▪ also translate it as we 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●  do, intimating a prayer conjoined to his valiant act: by both which, he wrought the atonement.  N. 
But where do you read in the Story of Phinees that he prayed?  I. 
Where find you in Exodus that Moses said, I fear and quake?  N. 
Though it be not extant in Moses: yet we find it in the Epistle to the 
q Heb. 12. 21.  Hebrews, which is to us most authentical.  I. 
In like manner, Though Phinees prayer be not found in Moses: yet dare we not deny credit to David, reporting the same.  N. 
Your last 
r Psal. 119. 122  corruption is, where you interpret thus: make me delight in good; whereas it should be, answer for me in that is good: Or be my surety in the thing which is good.  I. 
This Cobweb is not worth the sweeping down: For who conceiveth not that God causeth us to delight in goodness, when he becometh our sure surety for our good? And thus your twenty objections against the Psalms, are become like the apples of Sodom, turned into smoke, ashes, and brimstone.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels.  N. 
FRom the Psalms, I proceed to the Chapters; wherein we blame your reading and Translation: In your reading, we disallow your omission of so many Chapters (Namely about two hundred and ten) So that of; 1039. Chapters, you read but 829.  I. 
The cause of our action is double: First, sundry Chapters be exceeding hard, and therefore not fit to be read without 
a 1. Cor. 14. 28.  interpretation.  N. 
This place hath been fitly applied by some of our brethren, against reading in the Church, where there is no preaching.  I. 
Digress not now: You know the place is meant of the interpretation of tongues, and not of preaching. But to let your opinion go currant now if no Chapters may be read without an Interpreter; How much more should those be unread which be intricate? and such only: are by us omitted. These are of four kinds: First, some contain Genealogies, as Gen. 10. 11, 36 Exod. 6. Likewise the first of Matthew, and the third of Luke, in 
b Math. 1. 1. to the 18. Luke 3. 23. to the end.  part.  N. 
By this reason, you should omit the fist of Genesis, which is nothing but a Genealogy.  I. 
That is untrue: For besides the Doctrine of Original sin; and the taking away of 
c Gen 5. 3.  Enoch: the long lives and deaths of the eight patriarchs are declared: also the time of the Flood, and the Preservation of the Church is made known: Secondly, some be Ceremonial, (as Exod. 25. to the 32. and 35. to the end of the Book: Levit. 1. to the 18. Likewise 21. to the 26 also the last Chapter of the same Book: The like is to be said of sundry Chapters in Numbers: and those two in Deuteronomie: the 14. and 23.) Thirdly, some contain the description of places: (as joshua 15. to the 23.) Fourthly, some are Prophetically mystical: (as all the Song of Solomon; and many Chapters in Ezekiel, especially the nine last: And Apocal. 2. to the 22.) The second cause of our action is; For that some Chapters do only repeat things elsewhere delivered. Of this kind, are the Books of the Chronicles, and the seventh of Nehemiah.  N. 
But why do you omit the eighteenth of job?  I. 
I have showed you elsewhere: That those Chapters uttered by the three friends of job contain an 
d Chap. 1. of the first book.  error: and therefore if none of them were read without an Interpreter, it were more safe for the people. Of this number is this Chapter uttered by Bildad: What other particular reason, may be rendered thereof, I am ignorant.  N. 
But why do you not read the thirtieth of the Proverbs?  I. 
The Chapter is very lofty, and obscure: and therefore an easier Lesson were fit for the people.  N. 
This term of Lesson is Childish.  I. 
It is but the English of Lection, and Lecture: a word used by 
e Acts 13. 15. & 15. 21.  Saint Luke.  N. 
To leave your reading: I proceed to your translation: wherein twenty other faults are observed, aswell as in your Psalms: These also are in quantity, and quality: In the quantity (as before) Substraction and Addition.  I. 
The adversaries of Paul, gave him one stripe less than forty: You give your Mother the Church, full forty stripes Besides you are bad Arithmeticians, setting Substraction before Addition: But if, instead of Substraction, you had put Detraction, the thing, & the name had kept time together. Now declare what material thing have we taken away?  N. 
You have cut of words twice in Saint Luke, and once in the Epistle to the Colossians: The first place in Luke is, where you read, this 
f Luke 1. 36. In the Gospel of the Anunciation.  is the sixth month, which is called barren: whereas it should be, this is her sixth month; or the sixth month to her.  I. 
Few hearers are of so leaden understanding, which hearing this Story read, will not conceive, that Elizabeth, and not the month is here termed barren. Wherefore you do but trifle about words: especially considering that your first correction; this is her sixth month (which is also extant in our Church Bibles,) makes the sentence never the less subject to caption, if a man list to strain at a gnat: And your latter emendation (This is the sixth month to her) though smelling of the Greek phrase, yet will never agree to our English Idiom.  N. 
Secondly, in Luke, you omit these words. 
g Luke 10. 1. In the Gospel on Saint Luke's day.  After these things, whereby the coherence of the text, and Chronologie is declared.  I. 
When we read the Chapter we omit not these words. But when we read the Gospel; the coherence you pretend is not so needful, but that it may be omitted: As for any particular Chronologie out of these words, it is hard to be gathered.  N. 
You have not a little erred in cutting the Bible into these Epistles & Gospels which are more like to shreds and fragments then to true Chapters.  I. 
Forasmuch as the whole Books could not be read at once, it was thought fit, (besides the Division into Chapters) to extract certain smaller Models, (yet containing whole matters) that the people might be instructed more plentifully by the reading of the text. And herein you nod your head at the Primitive Antiquity.  N. 
In the Epistle to the 
h Col. 3. 12. In the fift Sunday after the Epiphanie.  Colossians you geld these words, Holy and beloved.,  I. 
You are not unlike Cham, who (according to the fable of the Hebrews) made his Father unapt for generation. So would you make your Mother the Church unfit for the regeneration of men: for that watching much, she winked once, and let slip a brace of words: the Emphasis whereof she retains notwithstanding in the Sentence. For they which put on the bowels of pity, as the elect of God▪ are they not Holy and Beloved?  N. 
You have added also sentences and words: The first sentence is in 
i Math 9 25. In the Gospel on the 24. Sunday after Trinity.  Matthew: where you add these words, And said, Damsel arise.  I. 
Beza tells you that some copies did insert these words out of Saint 
k Luke 8. 54.  Luke: it may be also out of 
l Mark 5. 41.  Saint Mark.  N. 
Two other sentences are added by you in Luke. The first in the Story of the 
m Luke 16. 21. In the Gospel on the first Sunday after Trinity.  richman: (And no man gave unto him.)  I. 
It may be those words, were taken out of the Parable of the Prodigal 
n Luke 15. 16.  child: Or else in some Copies they were put in by Consequence of the Story: For it is more than probable: that no man gave any thing to that poor Eleazar (or Lazarus) whom God, and not 
o So answers Junius in his Parallels upon Heb. 1●. 21.  man helped.  N. 
The next sentence added in 
p Luke 19 42. In the Gospel on the tenth Sunday after Trinity.  Luke is this: Thou wouldst take heed.  I. 
Beza doth out of Budaeus tell you: That this pathetical exclamation, hath in it a defective brevity, which may fitly be supplied or explained by this, or the like sentence: which liberty of supplying, who so grants not to all translators shall show himself more stiff in opinion, then studious for edification.  N. 
The words by you inserted, are partly in the Old, partly in the New Testament. And here we cannot but marvel: that you call 
q As Isaiah 40 & 55. & 63. jer. 23. joel 2. Apoc. 14. and the like.  Prophecies Epistles.  I. 
This we do for two causes. First, in regard of the matter of these Chapters: which is Evangelicall, and hortatory, not unlike that which is found in the Epistles: Secondly, in regard of the form: For these being among the Epistles, receive their common name. So we say: the Psalms of David, though David made not all of them: so we reckon the words of 
r Prou. 30. 1.  Agur, and of 
s Prou. 31. 1.  Bathsheba; among the Proverbs of Solomon: So Saint Luke styleth his second Book, The Acts of the Apostles; though other men's actions besides the Apostles, be there historified.  N. 
The first word added by you in the Old Testament, is found in 
t Isaiah 63. 11. In the Epistle, on the Monday before Easter.  Isaiah: where you have patched the text with this word Israel; whereas the place is meant of God, as is plain by the context.  I. 
Not so plain (as you pretend.) The words are intricate in the 
u As may appear by junius his confused translation of this place.  Hebrew, neither will there be any incongruity in the sense, if we say that Israel remembered the days of old: and so God in mercy remembered his penitent people Israel: Surely though I were of Domitian's mind. I should be weary of killing these little flies.  N. 
Secondly, you add in 
x jer. 23. 5. in the Epistle on the 25. Sunday after Trinity.  jeremy these words, (with wisdom.)  I. 
The Hebrew word signifieth elsewhere to prosper with 
y 1. Sam. 18. 14. & 30.  wisdom.  N. 
The place in the New Testament is in the Epistle of Paul to the 
z Gal. 4. 5. In the Epistle on Sunday after Christmas day.  Galatians: where you add his word natural.  I. 
Why are not we the natural sons of God, by faith?  N. 
Christ only is God's Son by nature, we by adoption.  I. 
Saint Paul calleth Timothy, his natural son in the 
a 1. Tim. 1. 2.  faith.  N. 
He meaneth that he loved him in manner as a natural son.  I. 
So God (though in an other degree) loveth us, as he doth his Son Christ: Can you tell what Corn is shaken by this wind?  N. 
In the quality, there is obscurity and falsehood: Obscurity comes by transposing, or misinterpretation of words. Of the former, the first instance is in 
b Math. 27. 9 In the Gospel on Sunday before Easter.  Matthew, where you read whom they bought of the Children of Israel: whereas it should be rendered: whom they of the Children of Israel bought or (rather) valued.  I. 
If they valued, they bought by consequence. As for the obscurity it is in the Greek aswell as in our English. The like Phrase is found in the 
c Acts 21. 16.  Acts: for there is a 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the like.  word in both places understood.  N. 
A second instance is in the Gospel of 
e john 1. 1. In the Gospel on Christmas day as you call it.  john: where you read: & God was the word whereas the words should thus be placed. And the word was God: as both the Greek 
f (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉)  Article showeth, which declareth the subject (as you term it) not the 
g Ramus doth term these antecedens & consequens.  predicate: As also the sense and scope of the place doth convince: For it is as improper and indirect a speech to say, God is the word or Christ, as if one should say a living creature is a man; or a Tree is an Oak.  I. 
Ramus did indeed exclude indirect predication out of his new invented Logic, as he did also many other most wholesome things: (Namely, the doctrine of Obiectum, Modalis propositio, Limitatio, Distinctio: Reductio Syllogismi, Figurarum modi.) Besides he most negligently handled Relation, Definition, Demonstration, 
h See more in Kekermans Book, called Praecognita.  Method. Every Logician can tell you, that indirect predication is usual: For here it is used by Saint john in the 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  original. What do you make words of Scripture like Complemental Pharisees striving for places? Besides if a man should examine you, Cuius est haec praedicatio (This word was God.) Can you answer? It is not Generis de Specie? Speciei de Individuo? Nor Differentiae de Specie? Much less Proprij or Accidentis de Specie, seu Subiecto.  N. 
We have hissed the Predicables out of Logic.  I. 
You may departed out of the Schools with them for company: For without the Predicables, Division, Definition, and Demonstration cannot be understood.  N. 
Obscurity by misinterpretation of words is found in that place of the Epistle to the 
k Gal. 4. 25. In the Epistle on the fourth Sunday in Lent.  Galatians: where you translate bordereth for answereth.  I. 
Do you mean that it answereth in nearness of situation?  N. 
Nothing less: For there is a great distance between Mount Sinai, and jerusalem. We mean it answereth in allegorical proportion.  I. 
The same do we mean by bordering, Namely, not Local, but Relative, or contrary.  N. 
Other obscure places are in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The 
l Ephes' 3. 5. In the Epistle on the 16. Sunday after Trinity.  first is, where you read, which is father of all that is called father; whereas the words should thus be turned, Of whom is named every family.  I. 
You are not unlike one who would have had Stripling put in for Youth in the 
m Psal. 119. 9  Psalm. For tell me: Is there not in every family a father? Is not he our father of whom we receive our name? Besides the 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek word there used, signifieth a company of men, who have their pedigree from one Father (as the Israelites from Israel; the Rechabites from Rechab, and the like.) Is not this all one with a family?  N. 
The second place in the 
o Ephes. 5, 13. In the Epistle on the third Sunday in Lent.  Ephesians is: where you read, every thing that is manifest, the same is light. Whereas it should be; every thing that makes manifest is light.;  I. 
Beza declares out of the Greek Scholiast, that the Greek word may be rendered as we do it: for it is passively taken in the words going 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  before: So that by light we understand full of light. In which sense the word is used in the same 
q Ephes' 5. 8.  Chapter.  N. 
After the obscurity there remains falsehood: violating the analogy either of faith, or of the place: Of the first kind some transgress the Law, some the Gospel. For the Law first you mistake the ceremonial; when in the Epistle to the; 
r Heb. 9 25. In the Epistle on Wednesday before Easter.  Hebrews you read with strange blood, for with other blood, namely with the blood of beasts, not his own.  I. 
When you say in the first Commandment, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. Do you not mean Strange Gods? When Solomon bids you beware of a strange woman, doth he not understand another woman besides your own wife?  N. 
Secondly, you corrupt the Moral Law, when you read in the Epistle to the 
s Rom 12. 11. In the the Epistle on the second Sunday after the Epiphanie.  Romans: Apply yourselves to the time, for serving the lord For if it should be translated time; it should be thus rendered, serving the time, as if Paul should say be time servers, which is a thing against the Moral Law.  I. 
Some Greek Copies read as we 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  do. The meaning of the Apostle may be: that we should apply ourselves to the season, namely, to take all occasions of doing good. So the Prophet speaketh of himself, according to your 
u Psal. 75. 2.  translation. So the Apostle enjoineth 
x Gal. 6. 10.  us: your objection of serving the time, is light: for we may serve the time, as we may serve men: that is, in 
y Gal. 5. 13.  love, not upon 
z 1. Cor. 7. 23.  constraint.  N. 
From the Law to the Gospel; which you first break, reading in; 
a Luke 1. 48. In the Magnificat.  Luke, Lowliness for Low Degree.  I. 
Some would contest with you in this point, saying, that Lowliness signifies meanness, and baseness, aswell as humility. But put the case we had translated it humility.  N. 
You had confirmed the Popish error of Merit.  I. 
Why had not God respect to the sacrifice and faith of 
b Gen. 4. 4 & Heb. 11. 4.  Abel? Will not God reward us according to the things we have 
c 2. Cor. 5. 10.  done? and that with a reward of 
d 2. Tim. 4. 8.  justice? to the recompense of which reward Moses had 
e Heb. 11. 16.  respect.  N. 
Secondly, you do injury to the Gospel, when you make Paul doubt of his own salvation, translating 
f 1. Cor 9 27. In the Epistle on Septuagesima Sunday.  a Castaway, for reprovable.  I. 
First, it was possible that Saint Paul, being made of flesh aswell as of spirit; might doubt of his own salvation: Secondly, it is lawful for us to fear damnation, in regard of the cause thereof, namely, sin: For it is no servile fear, to fear to sin, lest we be damned upon God's pleasures against us for sin. As for your in erpretation of reprovable, it is not worth the reproving, it is so weak.  N. 
There remain two places against the analogy of the text or present place: The first is in the Epistle to the 
g Philip. 2. 7. In the Epistle on the Sunday next before Easter.  Philipians, where you translate apparel for habit.  I. 
Is not habit an apparel in the tenth category?  N. 
We have banished all Categories out of Logic, and Metaphysics.  I. 
You are not unlike the snake, which being brought up by an husbandman, killed one of his children. For you being nourished in the University, would wound or slay two of her best children, Logic and Metaphysique. But to defer this to a time more convenient: what mean you by habit?  N. 
What, but the flesh of Christ?  I. 
Doth not Antiquity resemble Christ's flesh to Elias 
h 2. Kings 2. 13  cloak? Besides, may not this be the meaning, that Christ put on the apparel of man, which was not given to Adam till after his fall?  N. 
The second place is in Peter, 
i 1. Pet. 3. 20. In the Epistle on Easter Even  where you read was once looked for, instead of did wait.  I. 
The Greek word is of the mean voice; and so may signify either.  N. 
But in this place, it must be rendered did wait: for the wicked did rather abuse then wait for God's mercy. Noah did expect the flood.  I. 
Withal he did expect the deliverance of his family; and so did prepare the Ark. Thus your words have been weighed, as the words of Euripides, in the scales of the 
k Aristophanes in the Frogs.  Poet; or rather in the Scales of Balthasar, and have been found too light.   
FINIS.   

Let these faults be thus corrected, and the rest (as mispointing, etc.) favourably pardoned.  
Errata.  
IN Epist. p. 2. l. 22. r. readers for reader, in Epist. p. 4. l. 23. for Rits, r. Rites. In the second Epitaph, l. 18. some Copies have been printed Patrum for Patrem p. 2. l. 20 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, ibid. l. 23. r. Caere. And, ibid. in Marg. r. joh Epist. 2. v. 10. pag. 7. l. 26. r. Cathedral, pag. 10. In the second Marg. quotat. for john 18. 12. r. Matthew 13. 2. pag. 12. l. 31. r. Novelist, pag. 15. l 25. all for ill, pag. 17. l. 16. r. These for thus, pag. 33. l. the last before though add and, p. 36. l. 21. and 31. r. superstition, p. 41. l. 14. r. refuteth, p. 99 l. 23. for of r. on, p. 157. after, enter, add, into you, p. 228. l. 13. r. vegetative, p 237. l. 12. r. yea & ihid l. 27. for by, r. be p. 251. l. 30. r. yet p. 257. l. 11. before fable, add a p. 266. l. 28. r. Archimedes, p. 270. l. 8. add, with p. 286. l. 11. for alone, r. allone, and ibid. l. 14. for decres, r. decrees.