A PILL TO PURGE OUT POPERY: OR, A Catechism for Romish Catholics; Showing that Popery is contrary to the grounds of the Catholic RELIGION, and that therefore Papists cannot be good CATHOLICS.  
LONDON, ●rinted for Benjamin Fisher: and are to be sold at his shop in Paternoster Row at the Sign of the Talbot. 1623.   

A PILL TO PURGE OUT POPERY: OR, A Catechism for Romish Catholics; Showing that Popery is contrary to the grounds of the Catholic Religion, and that therefore Papists cannot be good CATHOLICS.  
The Speakers. 

A weak Christian  
A Minister.    

DIALOGUE I.  Christian. 
AMong the diversities of opinions that are in the world, how may I know which is the truth whereto I must cleave, and who are the true Church, and true Catholics?  Minister. 

a 1. joh. 4.1.  Believe not every spirit (that is, every doctrine, which men bragging of the Spirit do teach) but try them whether they be of God or no; 
b 1. Thes. 5.21.  Examine all things, hold fast that which is good,  C. 
Whereby shall I try them?  M. 
By the Scriptures, joh. 5.39. Act. 17.11.  C. 
I am unlearned, and the Scriptures are hard to be understood.  M. 
There are indeed many things in them, hard to be understood: 2. Pet. 3.16. but such things as are necessary to be known of all to salvation, are plainly set down, Prou. 8.9. The meaning of which place is this:  
The Word of God, in points necessary to salvation, is easy unto all that have a desire unto it. Turn to the places of Scripture, added to every answer of the Catechism, and you shall find this to be most true.  C. 
Is there no other way and means, whereby to try and know the truth and the true professors thereof?  M. 
Yes, it may be done even by the aforesaid grounds of Religion. Whatsoever doctrine is agreeable thereunto, is true, and to be received: but whatsoever is contrary to the same, is false, and to be rejected. As many as do sincerely and sound embrace, profess, and practise the same, they are the Catholic Church, (that is, parts and members of the Catholic Church) and true Catholics indeed. But such as teach, profess, and practise things contrary thereunto, are not the true Church, nor true Catholics.  C. 
The Papists say that they only are the true Church, and true Catholics, and that we are not.  M. 
So the jews cried: 
a jeremy 7.4.  The Temple of the Lord: 
b joh. 8.33, 41.  We are the seed of Abraham: the children of God.  
But Christ told them they were the children of the devil, Joh. 8.44.  C. 
Are not the Papists then good Catholics?  M. 
No: but rather gross Heretics.  C. 
What is an Heretic?  M. 
One that doth err in any fundamental point of Christian Religion, and doth obstinately teach, maintain, and defend the same.  C. 
Do the Papists err in the fundamental points of Religion?  M. 
They do teach and maintain many false opinion against the very grounds of Religion; as by and by shall be showed in many particulars.  C. 
Are all Papists then Heretics?  M. 
No: for there are (no doubt) many of them that do err of simplicity and ignorance, and which would be brought from their errors, if they had the means, namely, the Scriptures in their own language, preaching, catechising, and the like. We do not therefore account them all Heretics, but only those before mentioned.  C. 
How do you prove that they are not good Catholics?  M. 
I prove it thus: They are good Catholics, which are of sound faith, and good life. (Aug. lib. quaest. in Mat. Chap. 11.) but Papists are neither of sound faith, nor good life: therefore they are no good Catholics.  C. 
How do you prove that they are not of sound faith?  M. 
Even by the Apostles Creed (which may serve in stead of a rule, whereunto the faith of all men ought to agree) contrary whereunto they teach many things.  C. 
Show me wherein.  M. 
The Creed is a confession of faith, containing the sum of the Gospel, and of such things as are necessary to be believed of all that will be saved. They have devised many other new Articles of faith, beside, and contrary to the Articles of the Apostles Creed: which they hold necessarily to be believed of all that will be saved: As namely, Indulgences and a treasury of Saints merits, the real presence, the Pope's Supremacy, Purgatory, and such like. In the Council of Trent, the curse Anathema is pronounced upon all such as deny these or any of them, Master Perkins first Vol. page 621. The Creed teacheth what every one in particular is to know and believe: and a true faith cannot stand without certain knowledge. The Papists maintain an implitite, or an ignorant faith; namely, that it is enough to believe as the Church believeth: though they know not what the Church is, nor what the Church believeth. And ●hey commend this faith by the example of an old devout ●ther, a Collier, who being tempted of the Devil, and asked how he believed; answered, That he believed as the Church believed: being asked again how the Church believed, he answered, As I believe: whereupon, the Devil (as they say) was fain to departed.  C. 
It should seem it was but a simple Devil: for if he had been wise, he would have asked him this question; What if the Church believe that thou art a fool; what would the Collier think you, have answered then?  M. 
I think he would have said nothing: for if he should have said, I believe so too, the devil might then have begged him for a fool indeed. And yet such fools are the simple and ignorant Papists, which content themselves with this kind of faith: for thus one may reason with them; You are to believe as the Church believeth: but the Church believes that you are fools: therefore you are to believe so too. This their implicit faith every one of himself may have. The devils in some sense may be said to have a better faith than this: for they know what is contained in the Scriptures, and believe it to be true, Mat. 4.6. Jam. 2.19. This fond and ridiculous kind of faith, is a notable means to muzzle people in blindness, superstition and perpetual ignorance. Again, faith is a certain and true persuasion of the heart, whereby we are persuaded, and in some measure assured of the forgiveness of our sins, and eternal salvation. The Papists say, It is presumption to be assured of salvation, and will have men to doubt thereof: the which is contrary to the nature of true faith. They call the certainty of remission of sins, a faithless persuasion: and the faith of devils, not of Apostles, Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 9.12, 13. Rhemists' Annot. 1. Cor. 9 Sect. 9   

DIALOGUE 2.  C. 
Show me, I pray you, what things in particular they teach c●●rary to any Article of the Creed.  M. 
I could show you many, but I fear that then I should be tedious to you: I will therefore set down only the chiefest. In the second & third Article is described and set forth unto us both the person and office of our Mediator, namely, that he is both God and man, a Prophet, Priest, and King.  
Concerning his person, although in words they confess him to be God and man, yet in deed they deny it: for they ascribe to him a body invisible and infinite: they teach that he is corporally present in infinite places at once, which is proper only to God, and contrary to the nature of a true body. And so in effect they do even deny his Manhood. The Son of God is called jesus, because he is a Saviour, yea the only and perfect Saviour which saveth us from our sins: that is, hath delivered us not only from the blame, or guiltiness, but fully also from the punishment due to our sins, Mat. 1.21. Acts 4.12. Heb. 7.25.  
The Papists teach, that there must also some satisfaction of our own come to make up our perfect Redemption, Council Trid. Sess. 14.6.8. Can. 11.15. They will not be saved only by JESUS CHRIST, but by the merits also of Saints, their own merits, Pope's pardons, etc. yea, they ascribe that to others, which is proper to Christ alone, and so consequently make them their Saviour's: As for example.  
They ascribe to St. Francis the same titles, properties, power, and the very same office due to jesus Christ, and in all respects they make him like to Christ: whatsoever Christ did, that (as they say) did S. Francis. And what is this in effect, but to make him their Saviour? That they do ascribe the former things to S. Francis, is to be seen, in a Book written on purpose, to show the conformity between him & Christ, called [The Conformity of Francis] the which hath been confirmed by the authority of the Church of Rome. Pope Gregory the Ninth, enjoined the faithful to hold, and firmly to believe the things taught in the said book concerning S. Francis, and that he should be punished as an Heretic, that would think the contrary. Confor. F. 2. lib. 1. Fol. 3.  C. 
To whom else do they ascribe that which is proper to JESUS CHRIST?  M. 
To the Virgin Mary. They describe her nature by her name (Maria,) consisting of five letters, and these (as they say) do import the five offices to be exercised by her toward us. The first is Maternitatis, of Mother-hood: signified by the letter M: for she (as they say) is the Mother of mercy, through whom we obtain mercy. Her second office is Conseruationis, of conserving the treasure of God: signified by the letter A: which representeth Arcam thesauri, the chest of treasure: for in her (as they say) we shall find an infinite treasure of the wisdom and grace of God. Her third office is, Directionis & gubernationis, of direction and governing by example of her life. This is imported by the letter R. and therefore she is named Regina, the Queen. Her fourth office is, jaculationis, & repulsionis inimicorum, of flinging and repelling back of enemies: signified by the letter I: and therefore they pray thus to her: Tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe. Protect thou us from the enemy, and receive us at the hour of death.  
Her last office is Aduocationis, of Advocation, imported by the letter A. From whence they pray thus: O our Advocate, turn thy merciful eyes unto us. And what do they herein, but even place her in the room of jesus, and make her their Saviour? These be the very words of Friar john Viguerius, (a Doctor, yea and a public professor of Divinity among them) in his Institutions to his Catholic Theology, Cap. 20. Sect. 9 Fol. 214. And herein he is like to such as can make Bells to sound, even what pleaseth their fantastical brain, and as best may feed their superstitious humours.  
Further they say, That she is the original of our salvation, the recoverer of grace and forgiveness, our hope, our salvation, resurrection, etc. yea that to her it is given to bruise the Serpent's head, that she hath done it, and procured that peace between God and man, which no man could procure, Viguerius ibid. 214. 215. Confor. Fran. in conclus. Lib. 1. Is not this to make her a Saviour?  C. 
Surely yes: and I think it most horrible blasphemy.  M. 
Account you this blasphemy? what say you then to that which Carolus Scribanius, a jesuite, hath written of her? As namely, First, that the milk of Mary may come into comparison with the blood of Christ. Secondly, that the Christian man's faith may lawfully take hold of both as well as one. Thirdly, that the best compound for a sick soul, is to mix together her milk and Christ's blood. Fourthly, that the sins and spiritual diseases of the soul, are cured aswell by her milk as by his blood. Fifthly, that her milk and the merit and virtue of it, is more precious and excellent than Christ's blood. These most horrible blasphemies, with many such like, are to be found in the aforesaid jesuites book: which M. C. hath put into English, and sufficiently answered, calling it, [The jesuits' Gospel] besides all these things, in a book called the Lady's Psalter, they have put out the word Lord, and put in the word Lady. As for example, Psalm 110.1.  
The Lord said unto our Lady, Sat thou mother at my right hand, etc. The like they do in the rest of the Psalms. And is not this good stuff, think you?  C. 
These books were written long agone, and it may be that they are now rejected by the Papists.  M. 
The later of them was indeed written long agone, but is not rejected, but stands uncontrolled, or rather defended by the jesuites, and those of the principal. The formeh was written but lately. And whereas both the Author and his book (as M.C. saith) deserved the fire and halter, it was so fare from being misliked in the Roman Synagogue, or any way censured, that the book hath been reprinted, & the Author and his book stand enroled, approved, and commended (in their great volumes set out for that purpose) for good and Catholic. As they place St. Francis and the Virgin Mary in Christ's room, so do they the Pope also: a●ribing that to him, which is proper unto jesus Christ, and ●ay not (without blasphemy) be ascribed to any creature. They say that the Pope is the Sun: The Church the Moon. The Pope is the Bridegroom: the Church the Bride. The Pope is the head: the Church the body. And what is this, but to place the Pope in the room of jesus Christ; and even to say that the Pope is Christ? Confor. F. 2. li. 2. fol. 10. That they do thus place S. Francis, the Virgin Mary, and the Pope in Christ's room, and so make them Saviour's, is more at large, and sufficiently proved (out of their own Writers) in a little Treatise (set forth by M. Thomas Rogers in the year 1589.) entitled, An historical Dialogue of Antichrist and Popery.   

DIALOGUE 3.  Ch. 
Hitherto you have showed, how the Son of God is called jesus, because he is a Saviour, and how the Papists do place others in his room: Now show me also why he is called Christ, & what that title signifieth.  M. 
Christ signifieth, Anointed: which title setteth forth his office: namely, that he is our only true Prophet, Priest & King.  C. 
Do they teach any thing contrary hereunto?  M. 
They do even deny this Office of his, and so consequently, deny the fruits of his coming in the flesh, 1. job. 4.3  C. 
Show me wherein they deny his Office.  M. 
Christ is a Prophet to teach his Church, and to reveal the will of God unto us, to whom all are to hearken, Mat. 17.5. joh. 10.27. Act. 3.22, 23. And this he hath perfectly done in the Scriptures.  
They prefer their own blind traditions before the Scriptures: they lay aside the Scriptures, accounting and calling them dumb judges, A nose of Wax, The black Gospel, Inken divinity, etc. Piggius Contr. 3. de Eccl. Hierarch. lib. 3. cap. 3. A certain popish Doctor reasoning with M. Tindal, was not ashamed to say, that we were better to be without God's Law then the Popes. They likewise set up Images to be laymen's books, and so in all this they deny by consequence his Prophetical office. Christ is also a Priest, and that for ever, after the order of Melchsedech, Heb. 7.24▪ And in this his office he hath none to succeed him. The● acknowledge not this, but maintain still an outward an● corporal Priesthood, to offer up an outward sacrifice, eue● Christ himself, Rhem. on Heb. chap. 7.7. Sect. 7.8.  C. 
If this were true, why then, the Priest were become a Mediator between God and Christ: the which is most absurd, to think that any creature should be such a one.  M. 
It is indeed most absurd: and yet in the very Canon of the Mass they intimate thus much, when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings (namely, Christ himself offered) as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noah. And which is more absurd than this, (yea blasphemy for any to affirm) they (by their former doctrine) do make the Priest to be more worthy, in some respect, than Christ: for the person that doth offer a sacrifice, is of more worth & honour then the thing which he offereth; but the Priest (as they say) offereth up Christ to God his Father: therefore the Priest that offereth him, is of more worth and honour then Christ, whom he offereth.  
As Christ is a Priest, so he alone, (and that but once for all) offered himself: and by his one offering once offered, hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our sins, so that now there remaineth no more offering for sins, Heb. 9.12, 14, 26, 10, 14, 18. They teach that in the Mass, there is daily a sacrifice offered for the sins both of the quick and the dead: and so they make Christ's sacrifice not to be the perfect and only sacrifice of the New Testament, but set up another in stead thereof.  C. 
They say that their sacrifice is not a new sacrifice, or another from Christ's, but that it is the same.  M. 
The Author to the Hebrews teacheth, that Christ's sacrifice neither may, nor aught to be reiterated & repeated: for as it is but one, so it was but once offered. And this word (Once) he useth five several times, Heb. 7.27, 9, 12, 26, 28, 30.  C. 
They say that Christ indeed was offered but once after a bloody manner: but he is often offered after an unbloody manner.  M. 
This distinction of theirs hath no warrant out of God's Word: nay rather it is directly against the Word: for, Heb. 9 ●2. it is said, Almost all things are by the Law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission. From whence we may thus reason, Without shedding of blood is no remission: but in the Mass is no shedding of blood: therefore no remission. And therefore it is no sacrifice for sin.  C. 
Though this their distinction be not to be found in the Scriptures, yet it is in the writings of the Fathers.  M. 
The Fathers indeed make mention of unbloody Sacrifices: but they hereby understand not outward and bodily Sacrifices for sin, but the Spiritual Sacrifices of Christians; and they so call them, in comparing them with the bloody sacrifices of the Law, & with Christ's bloody sacrifice.  C. 
The Papists do not say that the sacrifice of the Mass is an expiatory, but an applicatory sacrifice: that is, it serves not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to apply unto us the satisfaction of Christ already made.  M. 
Their doctrine is, that it is a sacrifice propitiatory: that is, available to obtain (ex opere operato, by the very work wrought) remission & pardon of all their sins: yea, that it is available to obtain all other benefits; as peace, health, and such like, Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss. cap. 25. lib. 2. cap. 3. But let it be (as you say) that they account it but an applicatory sacrifice, yet this maketh nothing for them. The Sacrifices of the Law did serve to apply the virtue of Christ's Cross: and yet the Apostle excludeth them by this reason; that where there is remission of sins, there is no more Sacrifice, Heb. 10.18. Wherefore if the Apostles reason be good, it concludeth also against their Sacrifice applicatory. Again, the Apostle teacheth, that therefore the Sacrifices of the Law are abolished by the death of Christ; because they were but shadows of good things to come, and could not make the offerers perfect, etc. Heb. 10.1, 2, 3. And therefore, this kind of applying sacrifice (which they fain themselves) hath ceased. We need not now a Sacrifice for the application of Christ's death: for Christ to that end hath appointed the preaching of the Word, and hath instituted Sacraments, whereby his death, with all the benefits thereof, are most fruitfully applied unto us, Gal. 3.1. 1. Cor. 11.26. Again, this their applying sacrifice, is against the nature of a Sacrament, in which God gives Christ unto us: whereas in a sacrifice God receives from man, and man gives something to God.  C. 
The ancient Fathers used to call the Supper of the Lord, a Sacrifice: it should seem therefore, that there is some sacrifice offered therein to God.  M. 
It is true that they called it so: not that Christ is therein offered a Sacrifice to God, but in other respects. First, because that therein there was an offering and giving of alms, bread, wine, etc. which are a Spiritual Sacrifice. Secondly, they called the Sacrament, a Sacrifice, not properly, but figuratively: because there was therein a representation of that Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross, and because it is a commemoration of Christ's body, which he offered for us, and of his blood which he shed for us. Thirdly, It is called a sacrifice, because it is an application of the Sacrifice offered upon the Cross, unto ourselves. Fourthly, It is so called, because of the sacrifice of prayers & thanksgiuings: and because in the Lord's Supper we offered ourselves unto God to be consecrated unto him, and serve him in body and soul.  C. 
What is then your opinion of the Popish Mass?  M. 
It is an abridgement of all superstition and idolatry: there is in it adoration directed to bread: there is (as they say) the body of Christ offered really in a sacrifice of propitiation: which was never offered but once with shedding of blood. There is adoration of stocks & stones, invocation of dead men, saying of Masses to the honour of Saints & Angels, worshipping of dead men's bones, & such like abominations.  C. 
If the Mass be such an idol, and so contrary to Christ's sacrifice, whence had it then its first beginning?  M. 
The Mass had this original: First, the Lords Supper was celebrated in most simple & plain manner. Secondly, it ●egan to admit some increase of ceremonies, especially the offerings for the dead, which was but a thanksgiving for them, until more than two hundred years after Christ. Thirdly, prayers for the dead, got entrance into the Lord's Supper about the year four hundred: and then came in Purgatory, and the redemption of souls from thence by Masses, M. Perkins 2. Vol. 554. 1. D. Again, you are to know that the Mass is like a beggar's cloak, patched up with many pieces, whereof some were put in at one time, some at another. One Pope puts in one patch, another Pope puts in another: and it was not fully patched up, as now it is, till twelve hundred years after Christ, Acts and Monuments, pag. 1274. etc. And in the Canon of the Mass, there are to be found a full half hundred of errors and blasphemies, Synopsis Papismi, the 13. general controversy, quest. 8.  C. 
But how can the Mass be so late and now, seeing that the Fathers in their writings make mention of it?  M. 
The word (Missa) (which is now called the Mass) in the Fathers, signifieth a public meeting to the communion, and to prayers, or the solemn dismission of that meeting, or even the form of their religious worship. And the Phrase Missam facere, (used in some of the Fathers) doth not signify to say the Popish Mass, but to dismiss some out of the assembly. After the Sermon the Catechumenists, (that is, such as learned the Catechism, and were not yet admitted to the Lords Supper) are dismissed. And hereupon the Communion was called Missa figuratively, because when it began, there was a dismission of some, Perkins 2. Vol. 552. 2. D. 553. Synopsis Papismi. the 13. general Controversy, Quest 2.  C. 
I am satisfied touching the Sacrifice of the Mass, by which (as I do now plainly perceive) they do even deny the Priesthood, and the only sacrifice of Christ: I pray you now to show me wherein else they deny his Priesthood?  M. 
Christ's Priesthood consisteth of two parts, Satisfaction, and Intercession. As by his own Sacrifice once offered, he hath made a perfect satisfaction for our sins: so he now continually maketh intercession to God for us, Rom. 8.34 Heb. 7.25. The Papists teach, that the Saints in Heaven do● make intercession to God for particular men, according to their several wants: and that having received particular men's prayers, they present them unto God. And so herein they do also deny the Office of Christ's Priest hood, Rhem. on Luke 16. Sect. 4. on 2. Cor. 1. Sect. 3. on 2. Pet. 1. Sect. 3. and in many other places.  C. 
They say that Christ indeed is the only Mediator of Redemptions but the Saints are also Mediators of Intercession.  M. 
This is but an idle distinction: for Christ only is the Mediator as well of the one as the other. For in a true and sufficient Mediator, there must be these properties: first of all, the Word of God must reveal and propound him unto the Church. Secondly, he must be perfectly just, and such a one as in whom was no sin ever found. Thirdly, he must be a Propitiator, that is, bring some thing to God, that may appease and satisfy his wrath & justice for our sins. Now, these three properties are not to be found in any creature, but in Christ alone: and therefore he is the only Mediator of Intercession, as well as of Redemption, Perkins 1. Volume. 603. 604.  C. 
Do they teach any thing contrary to the Kingly office of Christ?  M. 
Yes, they teach that the Pope is Christ's Vicar, & head of the Church; that he can make Laws to bind the Conscience; that he can make new Articles, and abolish the old; that he can dispense with all the precepts both of the old and new Testament: And so herein (and in many other such like things) they deny the Kingly Office of Christ.  C. 
It seemeth then to me (by this which you have said) that though in words they confess Christ, yet in deed and in truth they deny him.  M. 
They do so indeed: for whosoever denyeth the office of Christ, (for the performance whereof he came in the flesh) denyeth in effect, Christ to be come in the flesh: but the Papists deny his office, therefore they deny him to be come in ●he flesh: & so they are no good Catholics, but rather Heretics.  C. 
What should move the Church of Rome in words to acknowledge CHRIST, and yet to deny his office?  M. 
It makes much for her profit, and by this means they do the more easily deceive people. That their profit and advantage is the only end they aim at, appeareth by a most blasphemous speech of a Pope of Rome, (Leo the 10) who being somewhat moved against one of his Cardinals, for alleging a place against him out of the Gospel concerning Christ, answered him thus, Quantum nobis profuit ista fabula de Christo? O what advantage hath this fable of Christ brought us? Sleydan de statu Relig. etc. Reip. lib. 1. They are herein much like to a Fowler, who spreading his net to catch Larks, hath tied to his net an artificial Lark, a Lark in show, but not indeed. This he causeth to move and stir, the which the Larks perceiving, and thinking it to be a Lark indeed, they fall down by him, and so are caught in the net. So they have a Christ in their mouths, to draw people to them, but it is a counterfeit christ. Or if it be the true Christ, yet they do it but as the Larke-catcher doth, who many times hath in his net a true and living Lark indeed, but it is to deceive the Larks, and the more easily to catch them in his net. So they profess Christ, have his Word and Sacraments among them, but it is only to deceive simple people, and to make a prey of them.   

DIALOGUE 4.  C. 
Do they teach any other thing, contrary to any other article of the Creed?  M. 
Yes, diverse things. In the Article we profess to believe, that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost: and so he, and he only, was conceived without original sinne● They teach, that the Virgin Mary was also conceived without origin all sin: and that by this means it came to pass that Christ was free from all spot, Concil. Trid. Sess. 5. Cap. 1. ●peccato originali. And so herein they do altogether overthrew this Article of Christ's conception by the Holy Ghost, 〈◊〉 whose only power the Scripture doth impute Christ's holiness, and not the Virgin Marie, which was no less than all others conceived and borne in sin, & did need Christ to be her Mediator as well as the rest of mankind. There was a long time a foul stir in the Church of Rome, between the Dominicans and the Franciscans about this point, Acts and Monuments, pa. 732. It was the common opinion of Fathers and Writers until Lumbards' time, (which was about the year 1150.) that she was conceived in Original sin, Perkins 2. Vol. 596. In the fourth Article we profess, that Christ suffered, etc. by which he hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for the sins of his elect, and for the whole punishment thereof, both eternal and temporal.  
The Papists teach, that Christ hath satisfied for sins going before Baptism; but concerning sins following Baptism, the fault is remitted by the Passion of Christ, and the punishment (which of infinite is made finite) is to be satisfied for, by men themselves, either here or in Purgatory: that is, men themselves must satisfy the justice of God, for the temporal punishment of their offences, either on earth or in Purgatory.  
There is (say they) a certain infernal place in the earth, called Purgatory, in the which as in a prisonhouse, the souls which were not fully purged in this life, are there cleansed and purged by fire, before they can be received into heaven: Bell. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 1. and cap. 3. lib. 2. cap. 6. Rhem. on 1. Cor. 3. Sect. 4.  
They say also, that it is an Article of faith, to believe that there is a Purgatory; and that he which believes it not, is ●●re to go to hell, Bellar. ibid. l. 1. c. 15. But this is so fare from ●eing an Article of faith, as that it is a mere fable, and contrary to an Article of faith. The blood of Christ is the Purgatory of our sins, 1. joh. 1.7. Afflictions are called the fie● trial, 1. Pet. 1.7.4.12. whereby we are cleansed from our corruption, as gold is from the dross by fire. No other Purgatory is to be found in Scriptures. The Scriptures mention but two sorts of men, believers, and unbelievers; and but two places after this for them, heaven for the one, and hell for the other, Luke 16.25, 26. john 3.36. Revelation 20.14, 15.21.7, 8. They that die in the Lord, rest from their labours: which cannot be true, if any of them go to Purgatory. Their works follow them, that is, the reward of their works, Reuel. 14.13. If any man should have gone to Purgatory, than the thief upon the Cross had gone thither: who repenting at his end, wanted time to make satisfaction for the temporal punishment of his sins: but Christ said to him, To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. The doctrine of Purgatory came into the Church, out of the Heathen writers, for the Philosophers and Poets were the first that ever wrote of it: and Popish Purgatory was unknown to the Fathers many hundred years after Christ, Perkins. 2. Vol. 568.569.  C. 
If Purgatory be but a fable, contrary to an Article of faith, than what is the cause that the Church of Rome so stifty maintains it?  M. 
There is great cause why they should so do, for it keeps in the fire in the Pope's Kitchen: for, if the fire of Purgatory were not great, the fire in the Pope's Kitchen would be but small; for, by this means they have store of money for Pardons, Masses, Diriges, and other such like trumperies.   

DIALOGUE 5.  C. 
Do they teach any thing else contrary to the Creed?  M. 
Yes: The sixth Article saith, that Christ ascended into Heaven, etc. and the Scriptures say, that the Heavens must contain him, etc. Acts. 1.11.3.21. They teach contrary hereunto, namely, that Christ is corporally present in th● Sacrament, and that in many places at once: The which 〈◊〉 contrary to the nature of a true body, and contrary to th● nature of the Sacrament, which is a remembrance 〈◊〉 Christ. Virgilius against Eutyches. lib. 4. saith thus: When 〈◊〉 (that is the flesh of Christ) was on earth, it was not in heaven: and because it is now in Heaven, it is not on earth This is the Catholic faith and confession. It is an Arti● of faith to believe the Catholic Church: and faith is the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. Therefore the Catholic Church is always unto the world invisible, and not to be espied but by the eyes of faith: because things seen are not believed. The Papists teach that the Catholic Church is, and hath been always visible. Rhem. on Mat. 5. Sect. 3. The Church is said to be Catholic, that is, universal, because it is not tied to any one special place, but is spread abroad over the face of the earth. They tie it to Rome alone, which can be but a particular Church, & not universal, In the Church there is a Communion of Saints: and these are they that are sanctified by the blood and Spirit of Christ, having the perfect holiness of Christ put upon them, by imputation of faith, and the quality of imperfect holiness poured into their heart by the Spirit of sanctification, And such are the Faithful here on earth, 1. Cor. 1.2. Psal. 16.2.  
The Papists acknowledge none to be Saints, but such as are in heaven, They teach that the Pope can canonize Saints: whereas to make one a Saint, is only the work of God, 1. Cor. 11. The Pope hath canonised many, that indeed were never true Saints of God, but wicked men, and rank Traitors to their Princes, as Becket, with many others.  
This canonising of Saints was never heard of with the Fathers, until the year 880. and then Adrian took up this authority. And Alexander the Third, after him, confirmed it in his decrees.  
In the Creed we profess, to believe the forgiveness of sins, that is, I believe that God, for Christ his sake, doth freely forgive the sins of his Elect, and my sins also. And herein consisteth our justification, namely, in the free forgiveness of our sins, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. The Papists teach many things contrary to this Article. First, that men are to make satisfaction for their sins. Now, satisfaction for sins, and forgiveness of sins, are contraries. If we satisfy in our own person, we are not justified freely: if we be justified freely (as most certainly we are, Rom. 3.23.) then we make no satisfaction at all. If a man can satisfy and pay a debt, than he needs no forgiveness: but if the debt be forgiven him, than it is plain, that there is no satisfaction made. The satisfaction for our sins was made by Christ, and not by us.  C. 
Did not the ancient Fathers teach men to make satisfaction for their sins?  M. 
The satisfaction which they maintained, was an ecclesiastical and public mulct, or penalty imposed upon notorious offenders, thereby to testify their repentance, and to satisfy the Church whom they had offended, Perkins. 1. V 577, &c 2 vol. 165. 2 D. 166.  
The efficient caus● of our justification, is God alone. It is God only that forgiveth our sins. Esa. 43.25. Mar. 2.7. Ro. 8.33. They teach that the Pope can forgive sins, and we know that he gives pardons, not only for the time past, but also for the time to come: yea they teach that priests have right to remit sins, and they allege these places to prove it: Math. 16.19. joh. 20.23. Now we are to note this, that as none can forgive a debt, but the party to whom the debt is due: so none can forgive sins, but God only, against whom the sin is committed, Ps. 51.4. The power of binding and losing committed to the Apostles & Ministers of the Word, is, by declaring the will and pleasure of GOD out of his Word, both to pronounce forgiveness of sins to all that are truly penitent: and the retaining of them to the impenitent. The Pope and his Clergy are never able to prove themselves to be the true Ministers of Christ: and they cannot so much as challenge this latter authority and power to themselves, much less the former which is proper to God only. The motive or impulsive cause, which moved God to justify us, was not any thing in us, but only the grace of God, that is the free good will and pleasure of God, Rom. 3.24. Eph. 2.8 Tit. 3.5, 7. They teach that we are not justified by grace only, but by works also, that is, by the merit of our works. And to this end they have (of late years) devised a first & second justification. The first is, when a sinner (of an evil man) is made a good man: and this (they say) cometh only of God's mercy by the merit of Christ. The second is, when one (of a good or just man) is made better and more just: and this proceedeth from works.  
But we are to know, that there are not two kinds of justification, a first and second; but one and the same justification, considered in different respects. In respect of Gods actual acceptation of a man's person, justification is absolute: but in respect of the actual application, and manifestation of God's acceptation unto a man's conscience, justification is by parts and degrees. (M. Scudder on the Lord's Prayer, pag. 303. to 309.  
And further we are to note, that the Papists second justification, is no other than sanctification, which is an effect & fruit of justification: the which is imperfect, & not able to justify us before God The material cause of our justification, is the active and passive righteousness and obedience of jesus Christ, his inherent holiness, his fulfilling of the Law, his death, sacrifice, and full satisfaction.  
The formal cause, or the form of justification, is the righteousness of Christ, imputed of God unto us, Rom. 5.19. Rom. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 1. Cor. 1.30. 2. Cor. 5.19, 21. Phil. 3.9. The Papists deride this doctrine, that Men are justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: which righteousness is not in us, but in Christ. The Rhemists call it a new no-iustice, a fantastical apprehension of that which is not. Rhem. on Ro. 3. Sect 7. They hold them accursed that so affirm and teach: And they teach, that the only formal cause of our justification, is the justice of God, whereby we are not reputed and accounted just, but are made just indeed: and this justice is ●hat which every man hath within himself, and is inherent ●n him, Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. can. 10, 11. Rhem. on Phil. cha. 3. Sect. 3. ●he instrumental cause of justification, on our part, is a true ●nd lively faith, whereby we receive and apply unto our selves the mercy of God, Christ jesus and all his benefits, resting upon him alone for salvation.  
They teach, that faith doth not justify, as an instrument in apprehending the righteousness of Christ, but as a proper and true cause, it actually justifieth by the dignity, worthiness and meritorious work thereof, Bellar. l. 1. de iustificat. cap. 17. They teach also, that faith is not the only cause of our justification, but that there are other also, as hope, charity, almsdeeds and other virtues: yea, they say, that works are more principal than faith, in the matter of justification: and pronounce him accursed that shall say, a man is justified only by faith. Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 6. and on I●m. 2. Sect. 7. Bellar. l. 1 de iustif. c. 13. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6 Can. 9 These and other such like things they teach, contrary to the doctrine of justification, which is a main ground of Religion. And if there were no more points of difference between us, these were sufficient to keep us from uniting of our Religions: for hereby the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation.  C. 
You said before, that we are justified freely: I would know how this can be, if we be justified by the righteousness, and for the merit of Christ.  M. 
Because the Decree of God the Father for our Redemption is free, and we pay nothing again to God of our own. And therefore by the word (freely) our merits are excluded, but not Christ's. By which it appeareth, that in respect of ourselves, we are justified freely of God's mere mercy and grace, without any respect of our own righteousness or worthiness, but yet through Christ, and for his righteousness and obedience imputed to us: both which are signifie● by the Apostle, Rom. 3.23, 24.  C. 
Show me (I pray you what is meant by (Merit) what the doctor of the Papists is concerning merit, and whether that our works be mansorious or no.  M. 
By (Merit) we understand any thing, or any worke● whereby God's favour and life everlasting is procured; 〈◊〉 that for the dignity and excellency of the work or thi● done. Now the true merit whereby we look to attain the favour of God, and life everlasting, is to be found in the person of Christ alone, in whom God is well pleased. The Papists make two kinds of merit: the merit of the person, and the merit of the work. The merit of the person is (as they say) a dignity in the person, whereby it is worthy of life everlasting. The merit of the work, is a dignity or excellency in the work, whereby it is made fit, and enabled to deserve life everlasting for the doer of the work. See Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 5. We now do renounce our own personal merits, and all merit of our own works, and rely only upon the merits of Christ, and we hold that no works of ours can merit. That no man by any works of his can merit, may be proved by the properties and conditions that must be in a work meritorious, and they are five.  
First, the work must be absolutely perfect: but all our works are unperfect, as well in parts, as in degrees of accomplishment. In parts, because we omit many things which the Law prescribeth, and do many evil things which the Law prohibiteth. In degrees, because the works of the Saints are unclean, Esay 64.6. Phil. 3.8.  
Secondly, a man must do the work of himself, and by himself: for if it be done by the help of another, the merit doth not properly belong to the doer. But the good works which we do, are not ours, but are wrought by God in us.  
Thirdly, a man must do the work, of his own free will and pleasure, not of due debt: for when we do that which we are bound to do, we do no more but our duty. But whatsoever we do, we do it as poor debtors; nay, we are worse than poor debtors; we are miserable bankerupts, we have nothing; we have less than nothing to pay, Luke 17.10.  
Fourthly, the work must be done to the benefit and profit of him from whom we look to be repaid. But no man by any work of his can bring any profit unto God, job 22.2.35.7. Psal. 16.2.50.12. We may benefit men, but we cannot benefit our Maker, from whom we have received life and limb, soul and body, and all that we have: we can give him nothing, and therefore can deserve nothing from him, Rom. 11.35, 36.  
Lastly, the work and the reward must be in proportion equal: for if the reward be more than the work, it is not then a reward of desert, but a gift of goodwill. But there is no proportion between our works, which are altogether unperfect, and the excellency of those great blessings, and benefits which the Father giveth us freely in his Son, Rom. 8.18. And therefore in this and the former respects, there can be no merit in any mere man: wherefore it is no less absurd to say, that we merit salvation at God's hands by good works, then if one should say, Thou hast given me an hundred pounds, therefore thou oughtest to give me a thousand.  C. 
Was not this doctrine of merit taught in the times of ancient Fathers?  M. 
Merit being taken in his proper sense, for due & just desert, was never allowed of the sound Professors for a thousand years after Christ, Perkins 1. Vol. 574, 575. second Vol. 535, 536. Such therefore as will be justified and saved by their own works, and challenge eternal life by their merits, do show themselves to be most proud and unthankful persons, and deserve most justly to be condemned eternally.  C. 
The Papists at their end, do renounce their own merits, and profess that they look to be saved only by the merits of Christ.  M. 
If there were nothing else but this, it were enough to prove their doctrine of merit, to be a false doctrine: for if it were a truth, than a man is not only in his life time to profess it, and maintain it, but also in his death; yea rather to dye for it, then to deny it. But seeing they in their life profess it and maintain it, but at their death renounce it; it is a manifest argument, that even they themselves do know, that it is not a true, but a fal●e doctrine.  C. 
If they know that it is not a truth, what makes them then in their life-time so stiffly to maintain it?  M. 
It serves greatly to maintain and uphold the Pope's kingdom: for they teach, that the ouer-plus of Christ's merits, and of the merits of Saints and Martyrs, is the treasure of the Church, which being gathered together, and put into a store-chest, is in the Pope's custody, and he alone hath the plenary opening and shutting of this Chest, and the ordering and disposing of these merits: by virtue whereof, he gives out Indulgences and Pardons when and to whom he will: So that such as have not merits enough of their own, may have them from thence. And so hereby he maintains and upholds his kingdom: for hereby comes in infinite wealth and revenues, Perkins 3. vol. 1. part. pag. 165 2. D. 2. vol. 590. 2. a. In these and many other particular points, the Papists teach contrary to the Articles of the Creed, and therefore are no true Catholics, neither do they belong to the Catholic Church, as is thus proved: Whosoever have not the Catholic faith, do not belong to the Catholic Church: but the Papists have not the Catholic faith; therefore they do not belong to the Catholic Church. That they have not the Catholic faith, is plain by that aforegoing.   

DIALOGUE 6.  C. 
Do they teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of the Sacraments?  M. 
Yes, many things. Christ ordained but only two Sacraments. The Church of Rome hath added to them five more; namely, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Orders, and extreme Unction.  C. 
Are not these Sacraments indeed?  M. 
No surely: for there are four things necessarily required to make a Sacrament. First, the authority of Christ commanding it. Secondly, the element or outward sign, as the matter of it. Thirdly, the word of institution, as the form. Fourthly, the end and use, to be a seal of our faith, for remission of sins. These four things are not to be found in their five latter Sacraments, and therefore they are no Sacraments indeed. Master Attersoll on the Sacraments, pag. 119. to 150. Synopsis Papis. Controu. 14, 15, 16.  C. 
May not the Church then institute and ordain Sacraments?  M. 
None may ordain a Sacrament, but only the Lord. As none may put a sign and seal to a man's last Will and Testament, but only the maker of the Testament: so none may ordain Sacraments (which are signs and seals of the new Testament and covenant of grace) but only the Lord which made the covenant. And therefore the Church of Rome, in doing the contrary, proves herself not to be the true Church of Christ, but rather the Church of Antichrist. They do also in many other things teach contrary to the doctrine of the Sacraments. As;  
First, that the Sacraments do give grace, and namely, remission of sins, ex opere operato, by the work wrought, Rhem. Acts 22. Sect. 1.  
Secondly, that not only faith doth justify, but the Sacraments also, Rhem. Rom. 6. Sect. 5. Whereas Sacraments are signs and seals of justification, Rom. 4.11.  
Thirdly, that Infants dying without Baptism, cannot be saved, Rhem. joh. 3. Sect. 2. They have also added many idle ceremonies to Baptism, as Cream, Tapers, Salt, etc. with an opinion of salvation and worship annexed unto them: yea in times past they baptised Bells, but now they begin to be ashamed of it, and say that they were but only hallowed and consecrated to holy uses, Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. Synopsis Papismi, Controu 12. Quest. 5. Concerning the Lord's Supper, they have likewise most grossly abused it in many things.  
First, they take away the Cup from the Laity: whereas the Church of Rome for above a thousand years after Christ, used both signs in the Communion. The Communion under one kind, was decreed, defined, and determined as a public Law in the Council of Constance, about the year 1114. Perk. 2. Vol. 554.2. b.  
Secondly, they reserve the Bread in boxes, pixes & other vessels of the Church, for days, weeks, and months. They show it to the people, the Priest lifting it over his head, an● going with it in procession. All this is contrary to the Sacrament: for it is no Sacrament, unless there be a giving, receiving, eating, and drinking, M. Attersoll on the Sacraments, 386, 387.  
The reservation of the Sacrament was not allowed of, but rather found fault withal by the Fathers, Perk. 2. vol. 557.  
Thirdly, they adore, fall down and honour the Sacrament with divine worship, calling it their Lord and God. A thing never heard of among the heathen Idolaters, namely, to worship a piece of bread, or rather, a thin Wafer.  
The adoration in the Sacrament belongeth unto Christ sitting in heaven: and is an inward worship of the heart, or lifting up of the mind, being stirred up with the outward signs. Pope Honorius the third (in the year 1220.) was the first that ever instituted the adoration of the Sacrament. And after him Vrban the fourth ordained a feast in honour of the body of Christ. Perk. 2. Vol. 564. Attersoll on the Sacraments, 388, 389.  
Fourthly, they turn the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the quick & the dead, abolishing the fruit & remembrance of the death of Christ, disannulling his Priesthood, giving him to his Father, whereas the Father hath given him to us, etc. ibid. page 390.  
Fiftly, they maintain Transubstantiation. These are their very words: If any man shall say, that there remaineth the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, or shall deny that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is changed and converted into the body and blood of Christ (the forms and shows only of Bread and Wine remaining: which singular and miraculous conversion the Church calleth Transubstantiation:) let him be accursed. Con. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 2. This their doctrine of Transubstantiation, is a very fable to mock fools withal, and it overturneth both the nature and use of the Sacrament, Attersoll on the Sacraments, page 45. 46. & page 365. to 369. If there were a miraculous conversion (as they say there is) of the Bread and Wine, it would appear to the outward senses. For all true miracles are wrought openly, clearly, & evidently to men's senses, joh. 6.26. But the Bread and Wine, by the judgement of all the senses, remaineth and appeareth to be the same in substance which it was before, of the same quality, quantity, colour, taste, handling, smelling, virtue and nourishment: there is not any one sense, or all the senses together, that can judge otherwise of it, than it did before. If a man should be called in, when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table, and bidden to consider well what he there seethe, smelleth & tasteth, and then is willed to go forth, and to come in again, after the Consecration is ended by the Priest, and to do the like: and then is asked what he thinketh of it: he, no doubt, will answer (unless fear of persecution make him to conceal the truth) I see, feel, smell, and taste the same wafercake, and wine that I did before: I can perceive no natural and substantial change therein. And therefore it followeth, that there is no miracle wrought, and consequently, no transubstantiation at all. The difference that is, is in the end & use only. Before consecration, it was common bread and wine, ordained for the nourishing of our bodies. After consecration, it becometh holy Bread and Wine, sanctified by the Lord, not so much to feed the body, as the soul.  C. 
Did not the ancient Fathers hold this doctrine of Transubstantiation?  M. 
They knew nothing hereof, for at least 800. years after Christ. Afterwards begun the disputations of Transubstantiation, but not approved as an Article of faith. The Church for a whole thousand years taught no other than spiritual receiving of Christ. In the year 1215. Transubstantiation was decreed and determined in the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent the Third, and made a main matter of faith, Perk. 2. vol. 558, 559.  C. 
What say you then of their Transubstantiated, or consecrated host (as it is called) or the bread in the box carried in procession & worshipped?  M. 
Surely it is nothing else, but a wheaten, or breaden god, or rather an Idol, nothing inferior to Aaron's Calf, or jerohoams' Calves, or the Nehustan, and piece of brass that Ezechias broke in pieces: nay, as vile and detestable as an Idol among the Heathen. And for a conclusion of their doctrine of Transubstantiation, I will here set down a witty conceit which one shown me not long since: I have kept the matter, but changed the meeter, to make it sound somewhat the sweeter.  
The Priests do make Christ's body and blood,  
Hereof none must once doubt:  
They eat, they drink, they box him up,  
They bear him all about.   

DIALOGUE 7.  C. 
I am satisfied touching the first point, namely, that the Papists are not of sound faith: but how do you prove that they are not of good life, seeing they do so many good works?  M. 
I prove it thus: Where the Doctrine is corrupt, the life cannot be good: but their doctrine (as you have heard) is most corrupt, therefore their life cannot be good. A true faith is the ground of a good life, and without which it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. yea, whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14.23. A true faith they have not, and therefore their works cannot be good, and such as may please God. That they have not a true and sound faith, hath been showed in many particulars, and it further appeareth also in this, that they do even wilfully reject the means whereby it is wrought, namely, the preaching, hearing and reading the Word of God. They have not, neither will they have the Scriptures to be sound preached, read, and heard in their own tongue. That they cannot abide to have them in their own language, appeareth by this one example▪ One Pavier a Town-clerk of London (in the time of King Henry the Eighth) hearing that the Scriptures should be put into English, he spoke to this effect, and confirmed it with an oath: viz. that if he knew that the Scriptures should be put into English, and that the King would have them to be read in the Church, rather than he would l●ue so long to see it, he ●ould cut his own throat: But (as Hall saith, who heard him speak it) he was not so good as his word: for, instead of cutting his throat, he hanged himself.  C. 
What is the cause that they cannot abide to have the Scriptures in their own language?  M. 
S. John gives the reason. For, every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither comes to it, left his deeds should be reproved & discovered, joh. 3.20. If the Owl flieth abroad by day, the birds by & by discern him, follow him, & fall upon him; and therefore he flies abroad in the night, and then he is quiet. If the Scriptures should be suffered to be expounded and read of all Nations in their own language, than that Owl of Rome (the Pope I mean) with all his fooleries and abominations, would be discerned and discovered, and then the world would hate him, follow after him, & persecute him, (even as the small birds do the Owl:) and therefore they cannot abide the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, but love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil: john 3.19.  C. 
What say you then to their good works, as building of Churches, giving of Alms, & c?  M. 
These and such like works, required in the Law of God, in themselves are good, and to be practised of all: but to them they are (as the Fathers called the virtues of the Heathen) but splendida peccata, glittering dross, and beautiful deformities.  C. 
Do they teach any thing contrary to the moral Law, and to the doctrine of good works?  M. 
Yes, they do both teach and practise many things directly contrary to God's Commandments. They reach for good works, such things as are not commanded, but rather forbidden in the Law of God, as namely, to go on Pilgrimage, to vow single life, to fast forty days and forty nights▪ etc.  
First, concerning set Pilgrimages unto certain Images there was none of the Fathers did so much as dream of th● for 600. years after Christ at the least, Perkins 2. Vol. p▪ 141, 542.  
Secondly, the necessity of the vow of continency was established first, and annexed unto Orders, about 380. years after Christ, and that by Pope Siricius. But it had no universal admission, until the time of Pope Hildebrand, in the year 1070. Perkins 1. Vol. 583. to 587. 2. Volume 575, 576. Acts and Monuments, 1151.  
Thirdly, their doctrine of single life was never commanded of God, nor known in the Primitive Church, but hath sprung up since, and is indeed the very doctrine of Devils, 1. Tim. 4.13. So is also their forbidding of meats for religions sake. They teach also, that a man may fulfil the Law; yea, do works of Supererogation, that is, more than the Law doth require: and that men of their abundance, may allot to others such works of Supererogation, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 9 sect. 6. 2. Cor. 8. sect. 3. This doctrine of theirs makes the Law of God to be unperfect, and is directly contrary to the words of Christ, Luke 17.10. And it was not known of the ancient Fathers. They spoke indeed sometimes of Supererogation, but in a fare other sense then Papists do. There are no such works to be found in the person of any mere man or Angel, but only in the person of Christ, God and man, Perk. 1. vol. 598. 599. 2. vol. 540. 541.   

DIALOGUE 8.  C. 
Show me, I pray you, in particular, what things they teach contrary to the commandments?  M. 
I could plainly prove unto you, that they do both teach and practise many things contrary to every one of the Commandments: but I will only set down the chiefest, and such as most men know to be true.  
The first Commandment concerns the inward worship of God: the ground of which worship is the true knowledge of God; and without which, none can truly worship and serve him: for such as our knowledge is, such is our worship, ●. Chron. 28.9. Psal. 9.10. jer. 9.24. The Papists teach, that ●gnorance is the mother of devotion: but the truth is, it is ●he mother of superstition and idolatry, Gal. 4.8. The Papists therefore being ignorant, and without the true knowledge of God, cannot truly worship him, but must needs be Idolaters, worshipping they know not what. The first Commandment requireth that we have the true jehova for our only God. They make Christ's body to be God, because they hold that it may be in many places at once, which thing is proper only to God. They make the Pope to be God, & that in plain words. Christopher Marcellus said to the Pope, Thou art another God upon earth: and the Pope took it to himself, Concil. Later. Sess. 4.  
They give the power to the Pope, which is proper to God, and so make him to be God. As, that he can make holy that which is unholy, pardon sins, etc. Perkins 1. vol. 400. 1. and they give divine worship to creatures, and so make them their Gods. The second Commandment concerneth the outward worship of God, or the form & manner of his worship. This Commandment they have clean put out of the Decalogue, and to fill up the number, they divide the last into two. The scope of this Commandment is, that no Image is to be made of God, nor any worship performed to him in an Image, Deut. 4.15, 16. But they teach it lawful to make Images of the true God, and to worship him in them, and that there is a religious worship due to them, Belarm. 〈◊〉 imag. sanct. lib. 2. cap. 21. And in the second Nicen Council it it was decreed, that the Image of God should be worshipped with the same worship that is due unto God. Their practice is answerable to their doctrine: for they worship the Images of God, of Christ, the Saints, the wooden Cross, yea, a piece of bread.  C. 
They say, that they do not worship the images, but God, Christ, and the Saints in the image.  M. 
Suppose that this were true, yet in so doing, they commit gross idolatry, and the same that the people of Israe● did, for which God plagued them greatly, Exod. 32.5, 28. 〈◊〉 think there is none so very a Calf, as to think that they did worship the Calf itself. The Calf was but a representation of God; and yet they sinned greatly in making it, and worshipping God in it. The Heathen in times past could say as much for themselves, concerning their worshipping of Images, as the Papists now do: and yet as they were Idolaters, so are the Papists: for as touching their superstition and idolatry, blood cannot be more like to blood, or an egg to an egg, than the one of them is to another. The Heathen had for every Nation and Province, some peculiar god. Among them, the Elements had their several gods to rule over them. The Heathen had a certain god assigned to their cattles. The Heathen had peculiar gods for learning and learned men, and for handi-crafts men. And all these have the Papists likewise. The Heathen erected Altars, ordained Priests to offer sacrifices, fell down before their idols, etc. So the Papists deck and adorn their images, go on Pilgrimage to them, fall down upon their knees before them, and make their prayers unto them. And what is all this, but to worship the very images themselves, the which is most gross idolatry? Musculus on Psa. 16. ver. 4. page 139. 140, Virels grounds, pag. 87. to 92. Attersoll on Philemon, pag. 63. 64.  C. 
They say, that there be degrees of religious worship, the highest is latria, and this is due unto God: the lowest is Dulia, proper to Saints, etc. Bellar. de imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25 The Scripture acknowledgeth one only kind of religious worship, and that due only to God, Math. 4.10. Reu. 22.9. And this distinction of theirs was not known and received into the Church, till 400. years after Christ, Perk. 1. ●ol. page 696. 2. vol. 530.  C. 
Was not the making and worshipping of Images approved of 〈◊〉 ●he ancient Fathers?  M. 
There was no use of Images among Christians, specially in their Churches, for 379. years after Christ. Adoration of Images was never publicly authorized till 788. years ●fter Christ, in the second Council of Nice, Perk. 1. vol. page ●6. 2. vol 421.  
If you be disposed to see more at large when images first ●●e up, how they were forbidden and condemned by Fathers, Emperors and Counsels, and how all that the Papists can say for them, is answered: then read the book of Homilies against peril of idolatry: for I know none that hath written more sound, fully, and plainly thereof.  C. 
Do they teach and practise any thing else against the second Commandment?  M. 
Yes: to the right worshipping of God, there is required a reverend use of the means of God's worship and service, the which are sincere prayer, preaching, hearing of God's Word, and the use of the Sacraments. Concerning prayer, it must be made with understanding, 1. Cor. 14 ver. 15. Contrary hereunto is their praying in an unknown tongue. In the purest Churches for the space of 800. years at the least, divine prayer was never performed in a tongue unknown to the people, Perk. 2. vol. 557. Concerning the Sacraments, they do not rightly administer and receive them, but have added and taken from them at their pleasure.  
The helps and furtherances of God's worship are specially two; vows and fasting. The Papists make these to be parts of God's worship: yea, they make fasting to be a work of satisfaction to God's justice, for the temporal punishment of sin, and a meritorious work, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 15. Sect. 7. Perk. 1. vol. 596. Synopsis Papismi. The sixth general Controversy, quest. 3.4. The 19 general Controversy, quest. 8. In a word, all their carnal ceremonies, devised by men, and wherein they place the worship of God, are contrary to the second Commandment. The most of which ceremonies, they have borrowed, partly, from the jews, partly from the Gentiles. Wil●●● on jude, pag. 215. 216.   

DIALOGUE 9  C. 
Do they teach and practise any thing contrary to the Commandments following?  M. 
Yes: The third Commandment concerneth the glorifying of God's name in the whole course of our life. Th● teach men to give the glory which is proper to God, to cre●tures, as to the Virgin Mary, the Pope, etc. They teach it lawful to swear by Saints, and not by God only. They maintain perjury, because they teach with one consent, that one being examined, may answer doubtfully against the direct intention of the Examiner, framing another meaning to himself in the doubtfulness of his words. As for example, A man is asked whether he were not such a day at the Mass, in such a place? They affirm that he may say no, and swear unto it (although he were at it) reserving this to himself; not with purpose to reveal it to the Examiner: whereas (in the very Law of nature) he that takes an oath, should swear according to the intention of him that hath power to administer an oath: and that in truth, judgement and righteousness, jer. 4.2. They are also egregious blasphemers of God's name. They have uttered most horrible blasphemies concerning the Scriptures. See Doctor willet's four pillars of Papistry, pa. 49. to 61. The fift Commandment requireth subjection and obedience to Superiors, and namely, to Kings & Princes, who are supreme and next under Christ, Ro. 13.1, 2. 1. Pet. 2.13. They teach that the Pope is supreme head over all persons, etc. that he oweth no subjection to Kings and Princes, but hath power to make them, and to put them down at his pleasure. The Pope and his Clergy will not be in subjection to them, but rather exercise Lordship over them The Pope's supremacy was unheard of and unknown, till the year of Christ 600. It was first broached by the murdering Emperor Phocas, at the ambitious desire of the proud Pope Boniface the third, about the year 607. And since that time, the Popes have showed their intolerable pride, in their behaviour towards Princes. The Pope in his writings calls himself, Seruus seruorum Dei, The servant of God's servants: but in his actions he will be Dominus dominorum, the Lord of Lords: wherein he plainly showeth himself to be that man of sin and Antichrist, which exalteth himself above all that is called God, 2. Thes. 2.4. This may be showed by many examples.  
Alexander the Third, did tread upon the neck of the Emperor Frederick the First, blasphemously abusing the words of the Psalm, Thou shalt tread upon the Lion and Adder, etc. Acts and Monuments, pa. 185. Pope Celestine crowned Henry the Fift with his foot, and with his foot spurned it off again, ibid. 221. The Papists also teach and maintain disobedience to Parents: for, they teach that it is lawful for the child, being a Roman Catholic, to deny his duty to his parents being Heretics. And as the Scribes and Pharises taught, that if the children did bring to their Corban, (that is, their Treasury) though they neglected their parents, yet they were free: so they teach children to give that they have to Monasteries, etc. wherewith they should relieve their Parents, Bucanus Common places, page 901.   

DIALOGUE 10.  C. 
Do they teach and practise any thing contrary to the sixth commandment?  M. 
Yes, the sixth commandment forbiddeth us to kill, or hurt any man. They teach it lawful for subjects not only to rise up against, but even to kill their Princes the Lords Anointed (if they be excommunicated by the Pope) and that it is a meritorious work so to do. This with other such like devilish doctrines, and the Authors thereof, are to be seen more at large in Bucanus Common places, concerning Magistrates: and in Master Taylor on Psalm 32. pag. 208, 209.  C. 
Can you name any that have put it in practice?  M. 
Yes, Pope Gregory the Seventh, called Hildebrand, hired one to kill the Emperor. A Monk poisoned King john, Henry the third, King of France, was slain by a Friar. Yea, Pope Sixtus Quintus highly commended the Friar for doing of it. Henry the fourth of France was also slain by a Papist. Many of them, (yea of their Priests and jesuites) have attempted to kill our late Queen Elizabeth, and our King james, with all his royal Issue, and that after a most barbarous manner. These Popish Traitors may very fitly be compared to that base and unnatural bird the Cuckoo: who though he be hatched, fed and brought up by a little bird, yet he devoureth both the natural young ones, and also the dam herself.  C. 
Are there none that teach and practise the kill of Prince's bu● Papists?  M. 
This doctrine was never maintained by any Heretics (besides the Papists) as our most Christian and learned King hath showed in a speech of his, uttered in the Parliament house, in the year ●605. by occasion of the Gunpowder Treason. And herein you may see how contrary they are both to the doctrine & practice of the Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles, who both taught and practised subjection, even to wicked and idolatrous Princes, and did never so much as attempt to hurt them. As for example: Saul was a wicked King, forsaken of God, and one that did most cruelly persecute David, who was anointed to be King after him. At two several times the Lord delivered Saul into his hands, so that he might (without any resistance) have killed him: yea, Abishai desired that he might strike him but once with his spear. But what said David? Touch him not, for who can lay his hand on the Lords anointed, and be guiltless? Nay, his heart smote him for cutting off the skirt of saul's Robe, 1. Sam. 24.4, 5, 6. etc. chap. 26.8, 9, etc. And afterwards, when one brought tidings to David that he had slain Saul, what did David? Did he commend him for it, as the Pope did the Friar? No, he caused him to be slain for his labour, 2. Sam. 1.14, 15, 16. Now what think you of David?  C. 
He was a man after Gods own heart, endued with the Spirit of God.  M. 
It is most true: and therefore the Papists (which both teach and practise the contrary) are endued with the Spirit of Satan. S. Paul saith, that to forbid marriage and meats, is a doctrine of devils, 1. Tim. 4.1, 3. If that be a doctrine of devils, then much more is this. In the sixth Commandment is also condemned all cruelty: yet herein they exceed and excel all others. And this is a special note of a false Religion; and yet this is one special means whereby Popery is upheld. See Tailor on Psal. 32. p. 204. to 208. Solomon describes an Harlot by three properties, cruelty, treachery, and flattery, Pro. 2.16, 17, 18. As a dishonest and unchaste woman is thus discerned, so is a corrupt religion. And these are the very ●adges and ensigns of the Whore of Babylon: Where they get the sword, they show all cruelty: where their power faileth, they work by treachery: where this speedeth not, they will deceive by flattery and hypocrisy. See the Preface to Doctor willet's Treatise on the Epistle of S. jude, page 2, 3, etc.   

DIALOGUE 11.  C. 
What do they teach and practise contrary to the seventh Commandment?  M. 
They hold and teach, that marriage is unlawful in the Clergy: and that the marriage of Ministers is the worst sort of incontinency and fornication, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 7.9. Sect. 8. whereas marriage is the remedy against fornication, 1. Cor. 7.2. They allow their Priests to keep harlots, (rather than to marry) so they do it closely: for this caveat is given them: Si non caste, tamen cautè. If thou canst not live chastely, thou mayst keep a whore warily. And what uncleanness and filthiness hath been committed by many Popes and Popish priests, all the world knoweth. A taste hereof, I will give you in a few examples.  
Pope john the 13. was an Adulterer, and an incestuous person. Being found without the City with another man's wife, he was so wounded of her husband, that within eight days after he died, Acts and Monuments, page 143. Pope Sixtus the fourth erected at Rome a Stews of double abomination, not only of women; but also of men, ibid. 6. pag. 667. Alexander the sixth committed incest with his own daughter Lucretia, Guicciardine lib. 3. Jnnocentius the eighth had diverse bastards, and boasted of them. See Willet on jude, page 188. They had one Pope that did beget no child, but was begotten with child, and brought it forth in going on procession: and that was Pope john the eighth, who proved to be Joan, and not john. This they deny, but there was of late years written a book by M. Alexander Cook: and another written in Latin by a stranger, wherein they prove (and that out of Popish Writers) that there was such a one. For they sufficiently prove themselves to be men indeed, in begetting Bastards. It is an old saying, It must needs be a holy Procession, where the Devil bears the Cross: so it must needs be an holy, chaste and pure Church, that hath such unholy, impure, unchaste, and filthy heads, as many Popes have been. And as were the heads, such was the rest of the body. Their Monasteries and Monkish Cells were detected of most infamous incests, fornications, etc. as doth appear in the inquisition made in the time of King Henry the eighth, Praefat. Balaei. de acts Roman. Pontif. See a little book (lately set forth) called the Friar's Chronicle. Contrary to the eighth Commandment are the Pope's Bulls, Indulgences and pardons for sins and all for money. They sell such things as are not to be sold, namely, remission of sins, and the merits by which men may come to the Kingdom of Heaven. But no penny, no Paternoster, Synopsis Papismi. Controversy 14. part. 3. Pope's Bulls and Indulgences (wherein is given absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment) were not known to the Catholic Church, for 1000 years and more after Christ, Perk. 2. vol. 589. And herein they maintain licentiousness: for what need one care what sin he committeth, when for a little money he may have a Pardon for it?  
One Roger Holland (sometime a Papist) saith thus, I was of this your blind religion; having liberty under your auricular confession, I made no conscience of sin, but trusted to the Priest's absolution; he also for money, doing some penance for me: which after I had given, I cared no further what offences I did: no more than he cared, after he had my money, whether he fasted with bread or water for me or no, Acts and Monuments, pa. 2040.   

DIALOGUE 12.  C. 
Show me also, I pray you, what they teach and practise contrary to the two last Commandments.  M. 
The ninth Commandment condemns all lying, and dissimulation, railing, mocking, etc. They maintain equivocation, which (as the Secular Priests have said) (Quodlibet 3. Art. 4. page 6.) you may term in plain English, lying, and cogging. They are notorious liars, and slanderers, railers and mockers, Willet on jude p. 195. & 205. 212. They have falsified men's writings, putting in, and putting out what they please, as is to be seen in their Index expurgatorius. See Perk. 2. vol. page 489, etc.  
There have been in times past games appointed for lying. If there were any such now, the Papists would carry the whetstone from all the Heretics in Christendom. The tenth Commandment condemneth original corruption, and the very evil thoughts and lusts of the heart without consent.  
They teach, that concupiscence in itself is not sin. These are the very words of the Council of Trent: This concupiscence (which the Apostle sometime calleth sin) the holy Synod declareth, that the Catholic Church did never understand to be called sin, because it is truly & properly sin in the regenerate, but because it cometh of sin, and inclineth unto sin: If any man think the contrary, let him be accursed, Sess. 5. cap. 1. de pecc. orig. Wherein they both decree against the Apostle himself, Rom. 7.23. and also they gain say themselves: for if this concupiscence boil out of original sin, as out of a fountain, and that is damnable: it followeth, that concupiscence or lust is also sin before God, and doth deserve condemnation. They say that in the regenerate it is venial. But this is an undoubted principle, that all sins in themselves and their own nature are mortal. And concerning this venial sin, it was not known among the Fathers for 700. years after Christ. And thus you see, what gross things they both teach and practise contrary to the Commandments of God: whereby it plainly appeareth, that Popery cannot be of God: for thus I reason: Whatsoever religion doth teach things contrary to the Commandments of God, is not of God: but Popery doth so, and therefore it is not of GOD: and so by good consequence, Papists cannot be good Catholics.   

DIALOGUE 13.  C. 
Hitherto you have showed, that the Papists teach many things contrary to the Creed, the Sacraments, and the ten Commandments, now tell me, I pray you, whether they teach any thing contrary to the Lords Prayer?  M. 
They do likewise teach & practise many things contrary thereunto, I will but only name some of them. The Lord's Prayer teacheth us to call upon God only. They teach and practise prayer to Saints. In the first Petition, we pray for the hallowing of God's Name. They give unto Saints departed, that which is proper to God, and so dishonour God's Name. In the second petition, we pray for the erecting of God's Kingdom of grace in our hearts, and also for the means thereof, namely, the preaching & hearing of God's Word. They hinder the coming of God's Kingdom, in rejecting the Word of God, and in persecuting such as will preach, hear, and read it. Contrary to the third petition is their doctrine of freewill. Contrary to the fifth petition is their doctrine of satisfaction for sin. In the sixth petition, we pray for strength to withstand Satan & his temptations. They teach people to drive away the Devil with holy-water, and such like childish toys. These and other such like things, they teach and practise contrary to the Lords Prayer.   

DIALOGUE 14.  C. 
If Popery be so contrary to the grounds of Religion, than we may ●ot join with the Papists in their profession?  M. 
It is true indeed: we must therefore do as the Lord ●●de jeremy (Chap. 15.19.) Let them return to thee, but return not thou to them. We may join with them in respect ●f civil society, but not in respect of Religion: and yet e●en then we are to take heed, left we be corrupted by them: ●r he that toucheth Pitch, shall be defiled therewith. Some think that our Religion, and the religion of the present Church of Rome, are all one for substance, and that they may be united: but they are grossly deceived: for an union of these two Religions can never be made, more than the union of light and darkness, and that because the Church of Rome (as hath at large been shown) hath strooke at the very foundation.  C. 
If Popery be so contrary to the very grounds of Religion, then, what is the cause that so many (yea, of the more wise and learned sort) do embrace and cleave to it?  M. 
One special cause of it is, that because men will not receive the love of the Truth, therefore God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, 2. Thes. 2.10, 11.  
A second cause is, ignorance of the Scriptures, and of the grounds of Religion, for if men would well acquaint themselves herewith, they should easily see the grossness of Popery.  
A third cause is, that Popery is very agreeable and pleasing to man's corrupt nature: As for example: to be justified by our good works: to have images to worship God in: to live in ignorance: to have pardons for our sins: to serve God in outward ceremonies, as in choice of meat, difference of days, etc. these are things very agreeable & pleasing to our corrupt nature, and therefore one especial cause why so many embrace Popery.  
A fourth cause is, the tyranny of the Church of Rome, whose chief means to uphold her religion, is fire & sword for were it not for this, many thousands in a few years would utterly renounce Popery.  
A fifth cause why so many (especially of the Learned) d● embrace it, is pomp and profit: that is, ambition and covetousness.  
This was that which made the Scribes and Pharises (eue● against their own knowledge) to withstand Christ and 〈◊〉 Gospel.  
And this makes many learned Papists ro do the like. They know (no doubt) that in some things they err: as it doth appear by the words of Stephen Gardiner on his death bed.  
The Bishop of Chichester seeing him to be in a desperate case, comforteth him with the hope of remission of sins by the merits of Christ. Gardiner hereunto answereth thus: What, will you open that gap now? you may speak it to me, and to such as are in my case: but if you teach it to the people, then farewell all; meaning our authority, pomp, and profit by absolutions, Masses, etc. These are the special causes why so many embrace Popery.  C. 
There is one thing more that I would gladly know concerning the Papists, and that is, whether a Papist may be saved, seeing that Popery is so contrary to the grounds of Religion?  M. 
You are then to mark what a Papist is. A Papist (as the Rhemists on Acts 11. Sect. 4. do describe him) is one that cleaveth to the Pope in Religion, and is obedient to him in all things.  
Every one now that is under the jurisdiction of the Pope, is not to be counted a Papist: for there are some even in Italy, ●paine, etc. that hold the Grounds of Religion, do sigh and ●rone under the Romish yoke, and desire to be freed from 〈◊〉, yea, would rejoice to see it.  
Again, there may be some, that (for want of knowledge, ●nd the means thereof) are entangled with some points of ●opery, but yet they hold the foundation, which is CHRIST ●ESVS, and look to be saved by his merits, and not by their twne, or any others. Such we account not Papists, but the ●●e Church and children of GOD. But by Papists, we mean such as cleave fast to the Pope in Religion, are in all ●●ings obedient to him, will not be reclaimed from their errors, refuse to hear the Word of God, to read the Scriptures, or any other good books. Of such we may boldly say, ●●t if they thus continue to the end, they cannot be saved.   

DIALOGUE 15.  C. 
I do now plainly see that Papists are no good Catholics, because they are neither of sound faith, nor good life: but tell me (I pray you) who indeed are the true Church, and true Catholics?  M. 
All that do truly and sincerely embrace, profess, and practise the aforesaid grounds of Religion, in what Country soever they live.  C. 
Is the Church of England the true Church?  M. 
Yes, for it hath the special marks of the true Church namely, the Word of God sincerely and sound preached and the Sacraments rightly administered.  C. 
The Papists say, that there are diversiities of opinions among v● that we cannot agree among ourselves, and that therefore we are 〈◊〉 the true Church.  M. 
In all substantial points of Religion we agree both amongst ourselves, and also with all other sound Protestants in Christendom. In other things there have been, are, and will be diversities of opinions and differences to the world's end. They should first pluck out the beam of their own eyes: for we can truly charge them with greater differences: As namely, with that sharp and bloody contention between the Franciscans and the Dominicans; and with the late bitter contention between the jesuites and the secular Priests: wherein the Priests did write as bitterly against the jesuites (and namely, against Parsons) as ever did any Protestant: nay there was never any Protestant Write● that did lay such foul & odious crimes to their charge, as th● Priests did. And herein they verified the old Proverb When thiefs fall by the ears, true men come to have the● goods. For one dissension that is among us, they have (〈◊〉 lest) ten among themselves. Doctor Willet (in his fourth ●●ler of Papistry) hath set down at large:  
First, the conradictions and divers opinions of old Papi●● and new.  
2. The contradictions of the jesuites anongst themsel●●  
Thirdly, that their stoutest Champion, Bellarmine, is at ●riance with himself, shamefully forgetting himself, say● and unsaying: now of one opinion, by and by of another And no marvel. Oportet enim mendacem esse memorem. A liar had need to have a good memory.  
Fourthly, he showeth the repugnances, inconveniences, and inconsequent opinions which Popish Religion hath in itself. And thus you see, how they charge us with that, wherein themselves are most faulty.   

DIALOGUE 16.  C. 
Are there none among us, that maintain any strange and new opinions, contrary to the grounds of Religion?  M. 
If there be any such, our Church doth not approve of them, but rather censure and punish them.  C. 
There be some that profess the former grounds of Religion as we do, and yet say that there is no true Church among us: and therefore will not join with us in prayers, hearing the Word, and in the use of the sacraments, but separate themselves from us: what say you of such?  M. 
I say, that they are possessed with the spirit of pride and singularity; and that in so doing, they do even deny ●hese Articles of faith, the Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints, and are such as the Apostle speaks of, Ro. ●6. 17. Heb. 10.25, 39 Master Perkins (in his first Vol. pag. 409.) ●ls them a schismatical and undiscreet company, and saith, ●●at they are full of pride, thinking themselves to be full, ●hen they are empty; to have all knowledge, when they are ●●norant, & have need to be catechised. Another saith thus 〈◊〉 them: The error of those men is full of evil, yea of bles●●emie, who do in such manner make a departure from this church, as if Christ were quite banished from hence, and ●●at there could be no hope of salvation to those that abide ●●ere. And further he saith, that if they cannot find Christ ●ere, they shall find him no where. The errors of these ●●n you may see in a little Treatise set forth by M. Bernard, ●●led, The Separatists Schism.  C. 
I pray show me some example, that they ought not to separate themselves from us, and that they do sin in so doing.  M. 
In the Church of Corinth, the incestuous man was not ●●nished: fornication was lightly regarded, yea there were some that even denied the Resurrection, yet S. Paul doth account and call them the Church and Saints: he doth not persuade any to make a separation, but doth plainly rebuke them, and sheweth how they should punish the evil doer. I speak not this to excuse any gross sin that reigneth amongst us: (for I wish that the same might be severely punished) but to show, that where the Word is truly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered (as in our Church they are) none ought for any cause to separate themselves▪ And, that such as do it, do sin grievously, I will show yo● by a familiar example. A mother conceiveth and bringeth forth a son, and that with great travail and pain: She● traineth him up to man's estate, and that not without great care and labour: This son at length espying some spot and blemish, or some infirmity in his mother, forsaketh her, and will not acknowledge her to be his mother, what would you now think of him?  C. 
Surely I should think such a one to be a very wicked and unnatural son.  M. 
Even such are they, who (for some seeming faults i● our Church) deny it to be a true Church, and do separate themselves from it: whereas this Church hath conceiue● them, brought them forth, and nourished them. For if e●e● they were truly begotten unto Christ, and borne anew, i● hath been by our Church, and our Ministry, by whic● likewise they have been trained up, and brought to th●● knowledge which they have.  C. 
There are many amongst us that make great profession of R●●●on, but I can see no good works come from them: nay, they are 〈◊〉 only barren in good works, but also live in some one gross sin or 〈◊〉▪ Are these the true Church, and true Catholics?  M. 
Though they live in the Church, yet they are no● the Church: they are but Hypocrites, and shall (if they rep●●● not) have the reward of Hypocrites: yea it shall be e●● in the Day of judgement for many Papists, then for the●● because by their barten and fruitless, yea wicked 〈◊〉 they have caused the Name of God, his Gospel, & the true Professors thereof, to be evil spoken of. Let all therefore that will be accounted the true Church, and true Christians, be careful to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things, and that by a godly conversation, and by doing of good works.  C. 
The name of God be blessed for this our conference, whereby I find myself much edified. There remaineth yet one thing more, which I will demand of you: and that is, How I may come to know and be assured, that I am indeed a member of the true Church, and that I shall certainly be saved?  M. 
Be diligent to hear the Word of God preached. Read the Scriptures. Receive often the Sacrament. Acquaint yourself throughly with the aforesaid grounds of Religion. join hereunto earnest and hearty prayer. Set apart some time for these things, specially be careful to spend the Sabbath herein. And to all these things join an holy conversation, endeavouring above all things to have always a clear conscience toward God, and toward men. In doing this, you shall at length come to that full assurance, whereof S. Paul speaketh, namely, that you are the child of God, and that nothing shall be able to separate you from the love of God, which is in Christ, Rom. 8.38.    Babylon is fall'n, is fall'n; Reu. 14.8. 
Praise, honour, glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore. Amen.  Revelation 5.13. 
FINIS.