THE Safe Religion.  
OR THREE DISPUTATIONS For the Reformed CATHOLIC RELIGION, AGAINST POPERY.  
Proving that Popery is against the Holy Scriptures, the Unity of the Catholic Church, the consent of the Ancient Doctors, the plainest Reason, and common judgement of sense itself.  
By Richard Baxter.  
Contra Rationem, nemo sobrius:  
Contra Scripturas, nemo Christianus:  
Contra Ecclesiam, nemo Pacificus,  Senserit. August. de Trinit. l. 4. c. 6. fine. 
London Printed, by Abraham Miller, for Thomas Vnderhill at the Anchor and Bible in Paul's Churchyard, and Francis Titan at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet, 1657.   

TO THE Protestant Reader.  
WHen the motion was first made for the Publishing of these Papers, it seemed to me to be as the Casting of water into the Sea; so great is the Number of the Learned Writings of Protestant Divines against the Papists (which will never be well answered) that the most elaborate addition may seem superfluous; much more these hasty Disputations prepared but for an exercise which is the Recreation of a few Countrey-Ministers at a monthly meeting, when they ease themselves of their ordinary work. But upon further consideration, I saw it was, The Casting of water upon a threatening fire, which the Sea itself doth but restrain. It's more Engines than a few that are openly or secretly at work at this time, to captivate these Nations again to the Roman Pope. When so many hundreds, if not thousands are night and day contriving our seduction, under the name of Reconciling us to the Church; if no body counterwork them, what may they not do. It's not enough that we have had Defenders, and that their Books are yet in the World. Old Writings are laid by, though much stronger than any new ones: But new ones are sooner taken up and read. The Papists have of late been very plentiful, and yet very sparing in their Writings. Plentiful of such as run among the simple injudicious people in secret, so that the Country's swarm with them; But sparing of such as may provoke any Learned man to a Confutation: That so, they may in time disuse us from those Studies, and so disable the Ministry therein, and catch us when we are secure through a seeming peace, and fall upon us when we have lost our strength. And I am much afraid that the generality of our people (perhaps of the best) are already so much disused from these studies, as to be much unacquainted with the Nature of Popery, and much more to seek for a preservative against it, and a through confutation of them. So that if Papists were once but as fully set out among us in their own likeness, as they are under the names of Quakers and other Sects, what work would you see in many places? I doubt many would follow their pernicius ways, and fall like Sheep of a common rot, or people in a raging pestilence, especially if they had but the countenance of the times: Not through their strength, but because our people are naked, and unmeet for a defence.  
The work that now they are upon, is, 1. By Divisions, and Reviling the Ministers, to loosen the people from their Guides; that they may be as a Masterless Dog that will follow any body that will whistle him.  
2. To take down the Minister's maintenance and encouragements, that they may be disabled so vigorously to resist them.  
3. To hinder their union, that they may abate their strength, and find them work against each other.  
4. To procure a Liberty of seducing all they can under the name of Liberty of Conscience, that so they may have as fair a game for it as we: And ignorance and the common corruption of nature (especially so heightened by a custom in sin) doth befriend the Devil's cause much more than Gods; or else how comes it to pass that the Godly are so few, and Error, Idolatry and impiety doth so abound in all the earth!  
5. To break the common people into as many Sects and parties as they can, that they may not only employ them against one another, but also may hence fetch matter of reproach, against our profession in the eyes of the World.  
6. To plead under the name of Seekers against the certainty of all Religion; that men may be brought to think that they must be either of the Popish profession or of none.  
And indeed when all Sects have done their worst it is but two, that we are in any great danger of (And of those I think we are in more danger, than the most are aware of) And that is, 1. Papists: who plead not as other parties, only by the tongue, but by exciting Princes and States against us, and disputing with the Faggot or Hatchet in their hands: And if we have not Arguments that will confute a Navy, an Army, or a Powder-plot, we can do no good against them.  
2. Profaneness; animated by Apostate Infidels: This is the Religion that men are born in. And men that Naturally are so endeared to their lusts, that they would not have the Scripture to be true, will easily hearken to him that tells them it is false.  
Yea so much doth Popery befriend men in a vicious course, that some are apt to join these together, thinking at the heart that Christianity is but a Fable: but yet for fear it should prove true, they will be Papists, that they may have that easy remedy for a reserve.  
If God will preserve us but from these two dangers, Popery, and Profaneness animated by infidelity, it will go well with England.  
The most of my former Writings having been bend against the later; I thought it not amiss to let go this one against the former. That so I may entice the common professors to a little more serious Study of these points, and furnish them with some familiar Arguments that are suited to their capacities, that every deceiver may not find them unarmed. And here I thought it best to defend our own profession and overthrow theirs in the main, and not to stand long upon particular controversies, except that one of the Resolution and Foundation of our Faith, which is the great difference. Yet that private unstudied men may understand wherein the particular differences lie, I have given them a Catalogue of them in other men's words in the end, as resolving not to do it in my own.  
In short, I have here made it plain that Popery is against Scripture, Reason, Sense, and against the Unity and Judgement of the Church.  
1. Either Scripture is True or not true: If not, Popery is not true, which pleadeth its warrant from it (And some of them argue, as if they purposed to disprove the Scripture, and to imitate Samson, in pulling down the house on their own heads and ours, in revenge for the dishonour they have suffered by the scripture.) If it be true (as nothing more true) than Popery is not true, which palpably contradicteth it, as in the points of Latin service, and denying the Cup in the Lord's Supper, and many other is most evident.  
2. Either the Catholic Church is one, or not: If not, than Popery is deceitful, which maketh this its principal pretence, for the usurping the Universal Headship. If it be One than Popery is deceitful, which is renounced by the far greater part of the Catholic Church, and again renounceth them, and separateth from them, because they will not be subject to the Pope, who never yet in his greatest height had the actual Government of half the Christian world.  
3. Either the Judgement of the Ancient Doctors is sound or not: If not, than the Church of Rome is unsound, that is sworn to expound the Scripture only according to their consent: If it be sound, than the Church of Rome is unsound, that arrogate a Uiniversal Government and Infallibility, and build upon a foundation, that was never allowed by the Ancient Doctors (as in the third Disput. I have fully proved) and which most Christians in the world do still reject.  
4. Either Reason itself is to be renounced or not: If it be, than none can be Papists but mad men. If not, than Popery must be renounced, which foundeth our very faith upon impossibilities, and teacheth men of necessity to believe in the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, before they believe in Christ, with many the like which are afterwards laid open.  
5. Either our five Senses, and the Judgement made upon them, is certain and Infallible or not. If not, than the Church of Rome, both Pope and Council are Fallible, and not at all to be t●●●●ed. For when all their Tradition is by hearing or reading, they are uncertain whether ever they heard or read any such thing; and we must all be uncertain whether they speak or write it: And then we must not only subscribe to Fransc. Sanchez, Quod nihil scitur, but also say that Nihil certo creditur. But if sense be certain and Infallible, than the Church of Rome, even Pope and Council are not only Fallible, but certainly false deceivers and deceived. For the Pope and his Council tell the Church that it is not Bread and Wine which they take, eat and drink in the Eucharist. But the senses of all sound men, do tell them that it is. I see that its Bread and Wine, I smell it, I feel it, I taste it; and somewhat I hear to further my assurance: And yet if Popery be not false, it's no such matter. One would think the dullest Reader, might be quickly here resolved, whether Popery be true or false. Look on the consecrated Bread and Wine, touch it, smell it, taste it, and if thou canst but be sure that it is indeed Bread and Wine, thou mayst be as sure that Popery is a delusion. And if thou canst but be sure; that it is not Bread and Wine, yet thou mayst be sure that the Pope or his Council, nor any of his Doctors are not to be believed. For if other men's senses be deceitful, theirs and thine are so too.  
But these things are urged in the following Disputations.  
It's worth the observing how much they are at odds among themselves, about the Resolution of their Faith, and how near some of them come to us of late, as in White's Sonus Buccinae, and Doctor H. Holden de Resol. fidei, and in Cressy and Vane and others may be seen: And their silly followers in England think verily, that theirs is the common Doctrine of that Church. And how solicitous Cressy and others are to take that Infallibility out of our way as a stumbling stone, which the Italians and most of them, make the Foundation and chief cornerstone. What a task were it to Reconcile but Bellarmine and Holden? Knot and Cressy (both in English.) White had so much wit in his Defence of rushworth's Dialogues, when he wrote in English, to carry on the matter as smoothly, as if they had been all of a mind. But when he writes in Latin, How many ways of Resolution of Faith, that are unsound can he find among the Papists as different from his own? Vid. de fide & Theolog. Tract. 1. Sect. 28.29.  
Reader, Adhere to God, and the Righteousness of Christ, and the Teachings of the Holy Ghost, by the Holy Scriptures, and a faithful Ministry, in the Communion of the Saints, and as a member of the Catholic Church, which arising at Jerusalem, is dispersed over the world, containing all that are Christians; renounce not right Reason, or thy senses; and live according to the light which is vouchsafed thee; and then thou shalt be safe from Popery and all other pernicious damning errors.  
Marc. 10. 1656/ 7. R.B.   

To the Literate Romanists that will read this Book.  
Men and Brethren,  
A Writing that so much concerneth your cause, I think, should tender you some account of its publication, especially when I know that not only the divulging, but the holding of the Doctrine contained therein, is so heinous a matter in your eyes, that if I were in your power, the suspicion of it might bring me to the Rack and the Strappado, and the confession of it would expose me to the flames. I have many times considered, that you could never sure endure to torment men in your Inquisition, and consume them to ashes, and so industriously to embroil the Nations of the earth in blood and miseries, to work them to your minds, and set up your own way, if you did not think it right, and think them exceeding bade whom you thus destroy. I find that my own heart would serve me to use Toads and Serpents, and destroying Vermin, half as bad as you do Protestants, that is, to put them to death, though not to torment them so long: but for gentler and more harmless creatures, I could not do it without a great reluctancy of my nature. I must needs therefore by your works bear you record that you have a zeal for God; but so had some before you that guided it not by knowledge, Rom. 10.2. And I suppose your way is undoubtedly right in your own eyes, or else you durst never prosecute it with such violence: And yet one that was once as zealous in his way, and shut up the Saints in prison, and received authority from the high Priests to put them to death, and compelled them to blaspheam, did afterward call all this but madness, Acts 26.9, 10, 11. But methinks I find myself obliged, when I see men differ from me with such height of confidence, to give them some Reason of my differing thoughts: And yet it is no great matter of success that I can expect from this account. To make any addition or alteration in your belief, I have no great reason to expect; while you read my words with this prejudice, that they are damnable heresy; and depend upon him whom you suppose infallible, for the fashioning of your Faith. And if I should say that I expect satisfaction from you, with any great hope, I should but dissemble. For I have not been negligent in reading such writings of your own as might acquaint me both with your Faith, and your Theological Opinions; and can scarce reasonably expect that any of you should say more to satisfy me, than these contain. For any of you to recite the Canons or Decretals of your Church or Popes, in a writing to me is in vain: For I have them at hand already, or can have them at a trice. And if you say any thing to me by way of Answer, which is not in those Canons or Decretals, or solemnly pronounced already by your Church to be de fide, you can give me little assurance of its verity; but your own writing must incur all those reproaches, which Knot bestows on the Doctrine of Chillingworth, and we hear from you so frequently, for ●he defect of Infallibility. But yet, let what will come of it, I shall leave some slender Testimony to posterity, that I dissented not from ●o many confident men, without giving them ●ome of the Reasons of my dissent.  
I was born and bred here among the Professors of the Reformed Catholik Christian Religion. When I was young, I judged of ●our Profession as I was taught, and the prejudice which I received against it, did grow up ●ith me, as yours doth against us. Yet receiving much good to my soul by Parson's Book of Resolution corrected (when I was but sixteen years of Age) it run much in my mind, that sure there were some among you that had the Fear of God. When I was capable of it, by Age and Studies, I made some diligent search into your Writers, that I might know the true state of the controversies betwixt us. But still I confess I read them with prejudice and partiality; till at last I attained (as far as I can understand by my own heart) such a love to the truth, and an impartiality in my Studies and judgement of these things, that I read your Writers, with as free a mind (I mean, as willing to find what truth was there to be found) as I do the Writings of Protestants themselves. When I had discovered undoubtedly that in some doctrinal points, the differences were made by most on both sides much greater than they were, and much greater than the most Learned on both sides tha● had any moderation, did conceive them to be▪ I was the more confirmed in my resolutions to be impartial in my Studies, and so have proceeded (if I be a competent judge of my own mind) to this day. And after all, I am left in the dissatisfaction which I here manifest▪ And by what sheps my averseness to your wa● hath been brought on since I began to search in to it impartially; I shall here further declare.  
First, I have been most offended with those doctrines and practices, that did most notoriously run against the stream of the Holy Scripture; for here the case was so plain that without any singular acuteness it might be discerned: as in your Latin Service of God with those that understand it not, your administering the Bread in the Lord's Supper without the cup; that Image-worship which your Writers do maintain, forbidding Priests marriages, with many such like. And yet suspecting my own understanding, I read what your Writers say also for these: But when I saw how palpably they forced the text, it increased my dislike: And then knowing that you contradicted the Scriptures in these, and finding withal that you build your faith upon your Church's Infallibility, I was exceedingly turned against your profession, when I saw your foundation so clearly overthrown. But yet this was not all: There was scarce any thing that more offended me, than the tendency of your Doctrines, to destroy the Knowledge of the people, and lead them on in ignorance, and please and deceive them by a company of ceremonies, instead of a Reasonable service of God: and the manner of your worship I could never digest. Other things did grate very hard upon those truths which I was confirmed in, but these went against the very bend of my heart, and crossed the very ends of my Religion and my Life. Your keeping the Scriptures from the Laity, as far as you do; and maintaining it so commonly to be the Original of Heresies to translate them into a known tongue; and making it so deadly a crime to have a Bible which they can read; with your Latin Service aforesaid, and the formalities and scenical worship in which you train up the ignorant vulgar with many other things in your doctrine and practice, are such as leave me but little room for deliberation, whither I should own them or not, because they are so plainly against the very end of the Christian Religion. Had these things come under my consideration in a carnal state, when the flesh was my end, and not God I know not how I should have entertained them. But your own Doctor's consent that God must be my end, and chiefly Loved, desired, and sought: And will you teach a man this, and whoodwinke him when you have done? Will you bid him love God, and keep him from the Knowledge of him? Will you bid him desire and seek him, and when you have done lock him up in the dark? Or will you bid him serve and obey him, and yet forbid him to search after the knowledge of his laws and will? If you would bring me to be of these opinions, your reasonings would be to as much purpose as if you should persuade me to put out my eyes and put them in your pockets, for fear of missing my way in my race, when my life is at the stake: Or as if you should persuade me to be ignorant of Ploughing and Sowing, and Merchandise, and yet to seek after provision and riches in the world. I am as easily reconciled as another to those that step out of the path that I am in, if they go towards the same end: But if you would teach me to turn my back upon Heaven, as the only way to attain it, this will not easily down with me: I know that God is light, and with him is no darkness; and that Christ is the light of the world, and his spirit is the illuminater of the Saints, and the word is a light to our feet, and giveth wisdom to the simple: And yet would you have us refuse this Light, and choose the Darkness? I know that Satan is the prince of darkness, & a state of death is a state of darkness, tending to outer darkness: and that it is the saving way of God to translate men out of darkeness into his marvellous light: And yet would you persuade me that this is the way of Life? What a difference is there between this doctrine of yours, and the very scope of Scriptures, and ancient Writers, and the sense of a gracious soul? Solomon would have men to Hide the commandment with them, and incline their ear to wisdom, and apply their hearts to understanding, and cry after knowledge, and lift up their voiec for understanding, and seek for it as silver, and search after it as for hid treasure, Prov. 2.2, 3, 4. And is your Doctrine like this? Isay bids, To the Law and the Testimony. Is. 8.20. And the Bereans are commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see whether the things were so that were taught them even by Apostles: And will you forbid this, and burn men for to promote their salvation? Did not Paul write his Epistles to the Laity as well as to the Clergy? You must strip me of the grace of God, and reduce my mind to a state of darkness, before I can ever entertain these principles of darkness: For light and darkness will not have communion. If by Arguments you would persuade me, so plainly against the life of nature, as that I am bound to blind or kill myself in order to my good, there's somewhat within me that would confute them besides reason: And why should not the Life of Grace also be a principle of self-preservation? As for your Reason, that men must let alone the Scripture and hearken to their Teachers for fear of heresies, it will never take with me till I can believe you to be less suspected guides then Christ and his Apostles, and till I can believe that a Scholar may not learn of his Book & his Teacher both without any contradiction.  
And then for your devotions, it is not all the Arguments in the world, that would ever reconcile me to them, while I have that Law in any prevailing measure written in my heart, that teacheth me to worship God in Spirit and in truth. What man of Spiritual experience can choose but distaste your way of worship, that doth but read over one of your offices, and Lady's Psalters, and see the affected repetition of words, and the ludicrous kind of devotions, which you teach the people, more like to charms then serious prayers to God especially if he also observe the huge number of ceremonies which the very body of your worship is composed of. As there is somewhat in nature, that hindereth a man, from delighting to eat chaff, or feeding upon mere air; so is there somewhat in the new nature of a Christian, that is against this trifling and jesting with God.  

* The abominable wickedness of your party, even the Roman Cardinals themselves, is proclaimed by many that have been your Priests and turned from you: as Copley, Sheldon, Boxhorne, and many more saith Sheldon (in his Survey of Rome: Miracles, p. 18. having spoken of the Cardinal's Sodomy) [Believe it Reader, the abominations which are committed by these purpured Fathers, and the Supreme Fathers of that Synagogue are so detestable, that they pass all narration either of modest or immodest pen.] And it's long since Petrarch, Dantes, Aventine, parisians. Clemangis, Sabellicus, Grosthead, Ferus and more of your own Writers have said enough, to satisfy us of your sanctity. Many a one that hath been ●iced to Popery in England, have been cured by a journey to Rome, seeing the abominations of that place.  Another thing that hath increased my distaste of your ways, is the common ungodliness of your followers. I have endeavoured as well as I could to be acquainted with them where I came and I have known but very few of them, but have been either Whoremongers, or Swearers, or Drunkards, or Gamesters, or sensual livers: nor did I ever meet with one to this day, to my best remembrance, that manifested a spiritual frame of heart, or had any delight to speak of the workings of God upon the soul, and the sweet communications of the love of Christ, or could give any savoury account of any such spiritual workings in them: but all their Religion was to stick to the Romish Church, and go on in their ceremonious forms of worship, abstaining from this meat, or that, and rioting and pampering their flesh on Holidays, etc. If I had known this to be the case only of the common people in Italy, or Spain, or France, I should not have wondered: for I know that most of the people, do take up their Religion but upon carnal accounts, and accordingly will use it: But to find it thus in England, where your number is small, and you pretend to hold your Religion in so much self-denial, the state being against you; and therefore your party should be the purest zealots, and show the face of your doctrine in its greatest glory; this makes me judge of the tree by the fruits. And the observing of this hath made me admire, that ever you can make the holiness of your Church, the matter of so great ostentation as you do: Yea that such men as H.P. de Cressy can have the face to pretend that your admirable holiness in comparison of ours, was the means of their conversion to you. Unhappy man! with whom did he converse while he seemed a Protestant? or where did he live? But this was not his fate alone; but of divers of his strain. When they are carnal Protestants, abhorring the power of the Religion, which they profess, and avoiding and reproaching the practisers of their own Religion, and so have no communion with them, nor experience of their holiness; it is a righteous thing with God to leave them to so much blindness, as to run from England to Rome for holiness; and that because they abhorred purity, they should be so blinded as not to discern the beauty of it, and yet to dote on the name and coat of it, which may be put on in the morning, and off at night. And indeed this hath somewhat increased my averseness; to observe that by how much the more godly and conscionable any are of our profession, the more they are against yours: and that so few of this sort are turned to you, that I yet know not certainly of one, that ever seemed a Godly person. And the common ignorant sort of people that know not what a Church is, nor what Religion is, and that live in sensuality and wickedness, are the favourablest to your ways, yea so forward to promote them that many of them would quickly be yours if the times were but changed to you; and these are the people that I have known become your proselytes. When we have lost our labour upon them, and left them in their wickedness, and they that were filthy are filthy still, than some of them turn Papists, and this forsooth in admiration of the holiness of your Church: When I confess for some of them, I have not been sorry to hear that they were turned to you: for I thought, it may be the liking they have to you, might make them hearken more to your reproofs, then to ours, and possibly you might persuade them from Whoredoms and Drunkenness, and Swearing, and Lying, when we were out of hope: But when I perceived that they fled to you for an indulgence in their sin, because some of these are but venial sins with you, and they have a palliate ceremonial cure at hand to befool them; I then acknowledged the justice of God against them. I am none of those that think that there is none among you shall be saved. I have read that in some of your Writers, that persuadeth me it came from a sanctified heart. I am ready to acknowledge and honour the Spirit of Christ wherever I can discern it. But I must profess that I was never yet so happy as to converse with a Papist, that manifested an experienced, gracious, heavenly mind; though I am truly willing to make the best of them. And that your Church should be as the sink or channel, to receive the excrements and filth of ours, is no great argument of its holiness in my eyes. And if a few that are less sensual turn to you, it is commonly, as far as I can discern, the Tenants or servants of some of your way, that are led by worldly respects, and they are such ignorant souls that they know not what the Religion is which they are turned to, nor are able to give a reason of their change. I have spoke with some affected to your way, and some turned to it, that have thought our doctrine was yours, and yours was ours: for instance, that we taught that men might live without sin, and you taught otherwise: and have denied that you hold the doctrine of man's merits, and divers the like. Are not these good Catholics, and well converted, that be of our mind, and do not know it? And I observe among your own Writers, that usually those that write in the most heavenly strain, are those that give some wound to your profession, by some considerable opposition, as Mirandula, Gerson, Bernard, and many more.  
And it hath more disaffected me to your way, to observe how low the design of your Religion is, in comparison of ours: You can let the common people be as blind as Moles, and worship they know not what! And you almost confin Religion unto Votaries and Cloisters. When as the design of our Religion is to make the generality of our Pastoral charge more holy by far than your retired Votaries. And (as far as I am able to learn) I do verily think that there are in the small Town that I live in, some hundreds of souls, that have more true self-denial, humility, acquaintance with the saving works of Grace, abhorrence of sin, delight in God, and believing serious thoughts of heaven, than is to be found in twenty of your Monasteries. When I am in one of their meetings which you account but a cursed Schismatical conventicle, I can behold their diligent attendance, their humble learning, their modest, orderly, serious devotions, and afterwards their painful recollections and improvement of what they learn. But among you, I should see a dumb show, a pompous ostentation, compounded of Ceremonies, and words which are as no words, being not by the people understood. And I am certainly informed by travellers that have known them, and by your own confessions, that you have Priests even like your people and your services. Even unlearned men, that are but able to read their Mass; like some of the worst of our old Readers, whom we have cast out: However you may have learned Jesuits and Friars, that are bred up chiefly for your Theological wars, while the people that live in peace under you are famished.  
It hath also much increased my disaffection, to observe, by what gross kind of cheating you carry on your cause. You make a noise with the ostentation of Miracles; but we can never see one of them, nor have certain proof of it. I confess if I could see them, they would work on me much: and I would go from Sea to Sea to see one: but I know not whither to go with the least hope of such a sight.  
You talk much of perfection, and keeping the Law of God without sin: But how long will it be before you will show us one of those sinless perfect men? I have enquired of those that I thought most likely, and they have told me that such men there be in the world, but would not be entreated to show me one of them. Nay, it amazeth me, that you should glory of perfection, where it is so hard to find sincerity, and to meet with a man that will not curse and swear, and whore, and be drunk. Yea more to find that after this ostentation of perfection, you come so low as to make those to be perfect which we suppose to be in a damnable state: For how many abominable sins do you make to be venial? Do I need to tell you what some of your own Writers say of Fornication; and of a Priest rather keeping a Concubine then a wife; and what gains have come to the Church by Whorehouses? and what a trade it is at Rome and Venice, etc. To give instance but in the sin of lying, how light do you make of it? yea you fear not to teach your English Proselytes, That [A lie is a mortal sin, when it is any great dishonour to God, or notable prejudice to our neighbour; Otherwise if it be merely officious or jesting it is but a venial sin] They are the words of H.T. (they say Henry Turbervile) in his Catechism, pag. 160. Yea he saith pag. 268. That [By this we must know when a sin is mortal, and when venial: Because to any mortal sin it is required, both that it be deliberate and perfectly voluntary—] And then set altogether, and consider what your Writers make of venial sin: no worse than your Doctor Thomas, saith, that [Venial sin hath not perfectam rationem peccati, but is Analogically called sin: and that non est contra Legem; quia venialiter peccans non facit quod lex prohibet, nec pretermittit id ad quod lex per praeceptum obligat, sed facit praeter legem: It is not against the Law, nor forbidden by it, but beside it.] 12. qu. 88 art. 1. ad 1. And that it deserves not damnation; and eternal punishment is not due to it, but temporal only, 12. q. 87. a. 5. c. & q. 88 a. 1. c. And that it induceth not a blot on the soul, 12. q. 89. a 1. c. But only as it hindereth the lustre of Grace, and therefore may be done away without the infusion of habitual grace, 3. q. 8.7.2. c. Apply this now to your last instanced case. It seems now that the Law of God forbiddeth not Lying, when it dishonoureth God but a little and not greatly, or when it is a prejudice to another but not notable; It forbids not men to lie Officiously or in jest; as H.T. speaks. Nay it seems if you curse or swear or blaspheam the name of God, or kill your own Father or Mother, it is but a venial sin, if you do it not deliberately, and perfectly voluntarily. And is not here a fine doctrine to make men perfect? Have you no way to make yourselves perfect, but by making the Law of God imperfect? How can you persuade us to value such perfection? Doth H.T. think that a man that hath the use of Reason is not bound by God to deliberate of all the weighty actions of his life! And if a man shall kill and blaspheam in passion, and say [I did not deliberate; and therefore it is no sin: God did not forbid it me:] Shall this excuse him? Or is such doctrine to be endured among Christians? If God do not make it a reasonable man's duty to use his reason in the greatest things, and to deliberate of what he saith or doth, I know not what either Reason or Law is made for. I think on the contrary that [Not deliberating, especially in weighty cases is a heinous sin, and the principal cause of all other sin, in many of the ungodly. So I say of the other limitation: that (it be perfectly voluntary] Passion may make a blasphemy or murder but imperfectly voluntary; and yet that proveth not that God forbiddeth it not. For the will itself is under a Law, which puts it upon duty, and not only restrains it from sinful volition or nolition: And therefore if the will do but suspend its act, in whole or in part, and thereby let the commanded faculties miscarry, I shall yet believe that this is forbidden, and a proper sin. What if you have a charge of the souls of your flock; and you sleep while they are misled: Or if you were a Physician, and had charge of your patient's lives; and you fall asleep till they are past recovery; are you no sinner, and do you not go against the Law? Yes, you are a murderer: For though the thing be not voluntary quoad actum voluntatis, it is morally or imputatively voluntary, propter omissionem actus. If Wolverhampton Papists be fed with such doctrine as this; they may well be many, but they are unlikely to be good. Inconsiderateness (which I took for one of the most destroying sins) it seems is a notable preservative from sin: For be sure you deliberate not, and you break no Law of God what ever you do. And if there be no Law against Lying, except the lies of the higher strain that are by H.T. excepted, no wonder then if Papists be Liars.  
And can you think it any injury to you if from hence I interptet, not only many of your Historical writings (such as the Image of both Churches, etc.) but also much of the jugging that is in England at this day. If you put yourselves in the Garb of Quakers, Enthusiasts, Anabaptists, etc. and pretend that you are of their opinions, and deny yourselves to be what you are, as long as you think that these lies are pious, and rather honour God, then greatly dishonour him, and rather do good to others, by promoting the Catholic cause, then notably injure them, can any man say, that's of your opinion, that they are against the Law of God? And why call you that a venial sin, which is against no Law, when sin is a transgression of the Law, and where there ●s no Law there is no transgression, 1 joh. 3.4. Rom. 4.15. And why say you ●hat veniam meretur, when yet you say that ●aenam aeternam non meretur! How can there ●e venia sine merito vel debito paenae? What ●eed you any pardon of that which was never ●eserved by you? And what need you ask forgiveness of these sins, or be beholden to God ●or it, if the punishment to be forgiven were never due? Will you beg the remission of a debt which is no debt? Aquinas makes venial and mortal sin to differ as Reparabile & irreparabile; because from an inward principle the one may be repaired, but the other not without infused supernatural grace. But is it ever the less sin, because it is reparabile? Nay what needs it reparation if it be not a transgression? But what is this Reparation that he speaks of? Is it the remission of the guilt and punishment? No sure: for eternal punishment he saith, it deserveth not; and internal principles do not sure forgive the punishment of sin? Can we forgive ourselves? What is it then? Is it the removing of the blot? No: properly peccatum veniale non inducit maculam, as before said? Is it that venial sin is easier conquered and forsaken then mortal? No sure: For Aquinas tells us that a man may live for a little while without venial sin, but not long; but without mortal sin, 
Veniale, culpa non est, sed dispositio ad culpam. Reinerius. Cont. Waldens. ubi. infra.  they may easily live till death. What this reparation than is, I do not certainly know. But whatever it is, methinks it should suppose a proper sin, and not only Analogical, an a desert of eternal punishment to be remitted.  
And here I must add, that another thin● that lately hath much disaffected me to you● profession, is to see by what actual fraud and juggling it is propagated. Do you think I see not the game that you are now playing in the dark in England, in the persons of Seekers, Behmenists, Paracelsians, Origenists, Quakers, and Anabaptists? I must confess I naturally abhor collusions and dissimulation in the matters of God. If your way were of God, it needed not such devices to uphold it, nor would it suit so well with works of darkness? If you have the truth, produce it naked, and deal plainly, and play above board! For my part I do not fear being cheated out of my Religion, by any thing but seeming force of Argument: for I mean to know what I receive before I take it, and to taste and chew it before I let it down: but the blind incautelous multitude, and half witted giddy persons, and discontented licentious half studied Gentlemen, may possibly be caught by such chaff as this.  
Another of your dissimulations which increaseth my dissatisfaction is, Your pretending ●o the ignorant people, that you are all of a mind, and there are no divisions among you, ●nd making our divisions the great Argument ●o raise ●n odium against our doctrine, calling us Schismatics, Heretics and the like. When ●ndeed no one thing doth so much turn away my heart from you as your abominable Schism. Do we not know of the multitudes of Opinions among you, mentioned by Bellarmine and other of your Writers? If you call me out to any more of this work, I mean the next time to present to the world a Catalogue of your Divisions among yourselves, that it may appear how notable your unity is? If the Jesuits are to be believed, what a silly sottish generation are your secular Priests? If your Priests are to be believed, what a seditious hypocritical, cheating pack are the Jesuits? I speak not the words of your Protestant adversaries, but of those of your own Church. Do I not know what Guiliel. de Sancto Amore and many another say of your own Church? Do you think I never read watson's Quodlibets, and the many pretty stories of the Jesuits exploits there mentioned by him? I do not think that you suffer many of your own followers to read these books that are written against one another by yourselves. But the great division among you, that quite overthrows your cause in my esteem, is that between the French and Italian, in your very foundation which all your faith is resolved into. You have no belief of Scripture, nor in Christ, no hope of heaven, you differ not from Turks and Infidels, but only upon the credit and authority of your Church: And this Church mus● be infallible, or else your faith is fallible: A● lest it must be of sovereign authority. And when it comes to the upshot, you are not agree● what this Church is? One saith it is the Pope with a General Council; and another saith it is a General Council, though the Pope dissent. One saith the Pope is fallible, and the other saith a Council is fallible. One saith, a Pope is above the Council, and another saith the Council is above the Pope. And now what is become of your Religion? Nay is it not undeniable that you are of two Churches specifically different? Certainly a body Politic is specified from the summa potestas. And therefore if the French make a Council the summa potestas, the sovereign power; and the Italians make the Pope the sovereign, and a third party make the Pope and Council conjunct●only, the sovereign, are not here undeniably several Churches specifically different?  
And then you have another deceit for the salving of all this, that increaseth my disaffection. You glory in your present judge of controversies, and tell us it is no wonder if we be all in pieces that have no such judge. And what the better are you for your judge; when he cannot or dare not decide your controversies? No, he dare not determine this fundamental controversy, whether himself or a Council be the sovereign power, for fear of losing the French and those that join with them. So that it must remain but dogma Theologicum and no point de fide, what is the summa potestas; and yet all that is de fide, even our Christianity and Salvation must be resolved into it? And doth not this directly tend to infidelity? Would you have serious Christians deliver up themselves to such a maze as this for the obtaining of unity? What the better are you for a judge of controversy, in all those hundreds of differences that are among yourselves, when your judge either cannot or will not determine them? Are not we as well without him as you are with him? Plain things that are past controversy have no need of your judge! It is no controversy with us whether Christ be the Messiah, whether he rose, ascended and will judge the world: And if we go to darker points, your own judge will say nothing or worse. Why do you cry out so much against expounding the Scripture otherwise then according to the sense of the Church, when your Church will give you no interpretation of them? Do not your expositors differ about many hundred texts of Scripture, and neither Pope nor Council will decide the controversies? These are therefore mere delusions of the world, with the empty name of a judge of controversies. And indeed you sometime show yourselves that you have no such high conceit of your Pope (whatever you would make the world believe) as to trust his judgement. Your own Priest Watson tells us in his Quodlib. pag. 56.57. That the Jesuits [Preached openly in Spain against Pope Sixtus the last of all holy memory, and railing against him as against a most wicked man, and monster on earth: they have called him a Lutherane heretic, they have termed him a Wolf; they have said, he had undone all Christendom if he had lived: and Cardinal Bellarmine himself as judge paramount being asked what he thought of his death, answered, Qui sine paenitentia vivit, & sine paenitentia moritur, proculdubio ad infernum descendit: and to an English Doctor of our Nation he said, [Conceptis verbis, quantum capio, quantum sapio, quamtum, intelligo, descendit ad infernum.] And yet we must hold our Belief in Christ on the credit of such a man's infallibility.  
But yet I have not come to that point of your Schism which above all things in the world doth alienate my mind from your profession. And that is your separation from all other Christians in the world! I find in myself so great an inclination to unity, and the title [Catholic] is so honourable, in my esteem, to them that deserve it, that if I had found you to have the unity and Catholic Religion and Church which you boast of, it would have much inclined me to your Church and way. But when I find you like the Donatists confining the Church to your party, and making yourselves a Sect and Faction, and unchurching and damning the far greatest part of the Christians in the world; this left me assured that you are most notorious Schismatics. When I saw so much knowledge and holiness comparatively among the Reformed Catholics, and so much ignorance and wickedness among the Papists (even here where are but a remnant that adhere to their Religion against the course of the Nation) and when I read so many plain promises in Scripture, that Whoever believeth in Christ shall not perish, and that if by the spirit we mortify the deeds of the body we shall live, and that if we Repent our sins shall be forgiven, yea that Godliness hath the promise of this life and that to come; and then when I find that the Papists for all these certain promises, do unchurch and damn us all, because we believe not in the Pope of Rome as well as in Christ; this satisfied me as fully that you are most audacious Schismatics, as I am satisfied that you are Papists, What! must I be a Papist on such grounds as these? Must I believe because you tell me so, that all the most conscionable heavenly Christians that I am intimately acquainted with are unsanctified, ungodly, and in a state of damnation? When I am a witness of the earnest breathe of their souls after more communion with God; When they would not live in one of those sins that you call venial, for all the world; When they mortify the flesh, and live in the spirit, and wait for Christ's appearance. And yet that such as the Papists shall be saved that are so far below them, because they believe in the Pope of Rome? Why you may almost as well persuade me to become a Papist by telling me that you have eyes in your heads, and noses on your faces, and the rest of the world have none. Doth Christ say, He-that believeth, and repenteth shall be saved; and must I believe that all Protestants shall be damned, let them believe and repent never so much? This is to bid me [cease to believe Christ] that I may believe the Pope [Cease to be a Christian] that I may become a Papist. I am confident I shall never be Papist, if it may not be done but by believing that all the Godly that I am acquainted with are ungodly, and in the way to hell.  
And (to speak of the quantity as well as the quality) I feel a kind of universal charity within me, extending to a Christian as a Christian, and therefore to all the Christians in the world, 
Armeniorum Ecclesiae, & Ethiopum & jndorum & caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt, non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae Reinerius cont. Waldens. Catal. in Biblothe●. Par. T. 4. p. 773.  which will not give me leave to believe if a hundred Popes should swear it, that the far greatest part of Christians shall be damned, because they are not subjects to the Pope! The Papists are but a handful of the Christians in the world; at least the smaller part by far! The most of them never acknowledged the sovereignty of your Pope. And a few ages ago, before Mahometanism and Heathenism diminished the number of Christians in Asia and Africa, the Papists were but a small proportion. There are but lately taken off from the Christian Religion, its probable, twice as many as all the Papists in the whole world: If it were but the Kingdoms of Nubia and Tenduc, how far would they go on this account? A Bishop of your own, and Legate of the Popes that dwelled in those Countries, saith, that the Christians in the Easterly parts of Asia alone, exceeded in multitude: the Christians both of the Greek and Latin Churches: Jacob. a Vitriaco Hist. Orient. c. 77. And which is more; the whole Church for many hundred years after Christ were far from being the subjects of the Pope of Rome! And indeed had Christ no Church till the Pope became universal Monarch? Must Paul be damned because he was not one of Peter's subjects? Do not your consciences know that swearing obedience to the Pope of Rome, was a thing unknown for many hundred years, yea that it is a novelty in the world? Must Christ lose for ever the most of his Church, even those that never heard of Rome; because they believe not in the Pope? Never shall I be Papist while I breath, if I must be engaged to send the most of the Christians on earth, to the Devil, and that upon such an account as this. These things are so uncatholike, so unchristian, so inhuman, that I wonder and wonder a hundred times, how any learned, sober men among you, are able to believe them. For my part I am a resolved Catholic; that own the universal Church of Christ; and cannot limit my charity to a corner or a faction; especially so gross a one as yours. I own not the errors or other sins of any of the Churches, so far as I can discover them: But if I must make them Heretics and unchurch them for these (yea even those that go under the name of Nestorians, and Eutichians) I must needs put you in among them, who I think do err more grossly than they. But I am none of your judge: Nor none of your most rigid adversaries. I am one that have been oft called a Papist in print, for avoiding some of those extremes, into which some others have run from you. I am one that cannot choose but hope that there are thousands that shall be saved that profess themselves of your Church and way. But that I cannot do so myself, and the Reasons why I cannot do it, I have thought good here to let you know. Many more there are, but I have mentioned some of them in the following Disputations, to which I refer you. I can truly say this in the presence of the Lord that knows my heart, that if I knew it myself, I would most gladly turn Papist before I sleep if I could discern it to be the way of God: Yea if I had but any probability of it, and knew but the man that could give me satisfactory evidence on your side, I would wander from Sea to Sea to find him, as weak and unfit for travail as I am. And therefore if any learned man among you, have so much confidence of his way, and charity to my soul, as to persuade me to his opinion, he shall at any seasonable time be welcome, and I shall thankfully entertain any evidence that he can bring, according to my capacity. But then I must desire him to deal plainly and come bare faceed, and not to juggle under the vizor of a Seeker, or any other Sect; for that way will never take with me.  
And I must further here profess that this paper comes not with any cruel or bloody design against you. I write not to exasperate the Governors against you, so far as to deal unmercifully with any of you. And whereas under the vizor of the sects before mentioned you are of late so earnest in pleading for a toleration, deal but impartially like honest men, and I will set in with you. Procure but a toleration for the Reformed Christian Religion in Italy and Spain and your part of Germany, Portugal, etc. and I should willingly petition the sovereign Powers in England that you might have as much liberty here: But that you shall have full liberty here, and Protestants have none where you can hinder it, this is not equal dealing. But how comes it to pass that you that pretend so much to unity are in this also of so many opinions; the English Papists are for liberty of Religion, and the Spanish and Italian are against it? But I must cry you mercy: I now consider, It is but yourselves that you think have right to liberty here, and others should have it but in order to yours. As hardly as you think you are used in England, you live openly among us, and no man that I hear of layeth hands on you: When you know if a Spaniard or Italian be known to be a Protestant, he's as sure tormented and burnt at a stake as the coat is on his back. Do you not know this to be true? Were I in those places where your Religion hath its will, I know one leaf of this book would cause me to be burnt to ashes: that I am alive is because I am not in your power: But for my part I wish not the shedding of one drop of your blood, nor your imprisonment or banishment, but only your moderate and necessary restraint from open iniquity and seducing of those that are unfurnished to encounter you.  
I have some invitation to make this profession, by the usage of a Justice of Peace of this County; who was so far your friend as to censure me and others for a late Gratulation, and petition to his Highness the Lord Protector, subscribed by many Justices, and by the Grand Jury and thousands of the County; and to censure the said petition to be of a cruel and bloody complexion; inserting to your honour and the reproach of the Reformed Churches, a vindication of your Religion from the guilt of the Powder-plot and Spanish invasion, and other foreign bloody acts, and charging as much on the Reformed as can be charged on you, according to the History, called [The Image of both Churches.] And what was this bloody petition of this County? Why? when you had murdered, and banished, and starved such a multitude of the poor Protestants in Savoy, and we were assured of it by a Narrative from the Lord Protector himself, inviting us to contribute to relieve the remnant, in the sense of your continued bloody dealings, and of the sad case of those poor people, and the favour of his Highness toward them, we returned him a thankful acknowledgement of his care, and added our desires to use the most effectual means to hinder the growth of so bloody a doctrine, lest it should reach ourselves at last, yet adding that we defined no rigour as to your persons: but craved the promoting of the Reformed Religion, and of unity among ourselves as the means of our preservation. The world is come to a fair pass: when our brethren are murdered by thousands, we are bloody for mentioning it, and blaming you for it, and desiring ourselves to be preserved from your doctrine and rage, so as without any rigour to our persons. Alas poor Protestants! When your throats are cut by the merciful Papists, you are cruel and bloody for saying so; When they have killed one half, the other half is bloody if they desire to escape. By my good will I'll never come to the Bench for Justice where this Gentleman hath power: For if I accuse a thief for robbing us, or a murderer for murdering twenty of my friends, I may on these terms expect to be accounted cruel for complaining: Yea though I add [I pray Sir spare the person of the Murderer: only do your best to prevent the death of the rest of my friends] I may look to be told its a bloody request. But perhaps if leisure serve I may say more to this Gentleman, in a full Reply to his paper.  
Yea I am so far from desiring your blood, that I hope I have given you no abusive language. Sure I am, I come far short of the language that you give one another, where you may judge me to be most sharp. I had once very Reverend thoughts of your Father Parsons when I read his book of Resolution, and thought that if you had any good one it was he. And yet your own Priest Watson calls him [An Atheal stratagemitor, pag. 160. A bastardly Vicar of hell, p. 157. Judge paramount on earth under the Devil in Hell, p. 156. The arch cozener, p. 149. That he was a bastard, unhonestly begot, basely born, a Wolsey in ambition, a Midas in immundicity, a traitor in action, p. 108. That all Catholics must depend upon the Archpriest, the Archpriest upon father Garnet, father Garnet upon father Parsons, and father Parsons upon the devil, the author of all rebellious conspiracies, treasons, murders, disobedience, heresies, and all other such diabolical and bloody designments as this wicked Jesuit hath hitherto devised] p. 151. One that as sure as you live on earth, doth care no more for the lives of all the Catholics themselves, then for so many dogs lives, in a time of infectious plague.] p. 153. Yea (saith he) questionless he could wish in his heart, to see all the seculars and other Catholics in England hanged rather then to be frustrate of his conceited Japonian Monarchy. Yea I verily think he would be the hangman of them all himself, rather than his platform should fail, if it stood upon so desperate a point: as a fitter office for such a base irregular bastard, then to come near God's holy Altar, etc.] Quodlib. pag. 153.154. I will not foul my paper with any more concerning him.  
And of the Jesuits in general I have thought that there are among them some temperate virtuous men: but your Priest Watson saith, Quodlib. p. 346. [I call them Jesuitical, that is, the Faction of Jesuits, by abbreviation, to avoid circumlocution, in one word expressing them to be a factious, seditious, ambitious, avaricious, treacherous, turbulent, Machivilian, Atheal consort, that abusing the rules of their society, and quite perverting the course, cause, institution, and intent of their order, etc.] The reasons he gives at large, p. 340. And p.. 108. [The Jesuits have a special privilege in two things. One is to make all things to be believed as Gospel, be it never so false that they speak or write: another, to make all things be judged false, be it as true as the Gospel itself, that any other shall write or speak without their approbation: But if directly against them; out upon it; it is not to be heard, spoken of, or once looked upon— And withal, the vilest parts that can be played, are counted acts of zeal among them, if done by a Father: so as it may be any way covered with either of their two principles, scilic●t, propt●r bonum societatis, vel ●rdine ad Deum.] And p. 149. he makes their principles to be, Omnia pro tempore, ●et divide & impera. And p. 150.151. he affirmeth that it was the Jesuits own choice and doing that the Papists had not toleration in England, because by sufferings they would have the people more passionately serve their designs.] This is the language of your own brethren (even more as well as he) but not mine.  
To conclude, concerning these following Disputations, I need not tell you, that they are none of the elaborate writings of any champion of the Protestant cause, challenging your Answer: but a few hasty (yet considered) lines, delivered in a monthly meeting of a few Country Ministers, for mutual edification, by one that never pretended to much skill or will for such Disputes. If any of you have a mind to try your strength, we boldy challenge you to do it on those mentioned by me in the end: to whom let me add Dr. Craken●horpe, especially against Spalatens▪ and Dallaeus on several particular subjects, as de Paenis & sa●i●fact de Imaginitus, de I●juniis and the rest. I pretend not in so small room to handle the particular differences between you and us, but to give my general reasons against you▪ and to choose out one particular about our foundation and yours. For I had read in Costerus Enchir. c. de sum. Pont. p. 151.152. That No men Petrae plus includat quam fundamentum▪ fundamenta quippe edificium sustinent, Petra aut●m s●u Rupes ipsa fundamenta, & Apostoli ali● fundamenta dicuntur. Petrus vero ut Rupes solidissima, etiam fundamenta ipsa continet, & ● in errores & vitia labantur detinet authoritat● pastorali.] And Skulkenius saith Apol. pro Bell▪ c. 6. p. 255. Pontificia potestas est veiut cardo, fundamentum (& ut uno verbo omnia complectar) summa fidei Christianae.  
Gretser saith Def. c. 1. l. 1. de verb. Dei p. 16. Id solum pro verbo Dei veneramur ac suscipimus, quod nobis Pontif●x ex cathedra Petri, tanquam supremus Christianorum magister, omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit.]  
Bellarm. saith lib. 4. de Pont. c. 1. In controversiis Religionis ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis. & cap. 3. solum Petrum Christus vocavit Petram, & fundamentum; non petrum cum Concilio. Et ibid. Petrus & quilibet ejus successor est petra & fundamentum Ecclesiae— Ejus praedicatio & confessio est radix mundi, & si illa errare●, totus mundus erraret.— Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem conciliorum esse a Pontifice, non partim a pontifice, partim a Concilio.] The Pope than is your foundation, yea your Church: For saith Gretser Def. c. 10. l. 3. de Verb. Dei. p. 1450. Per Ecclesiam intelligimus pontificem Romanum, qui pro tempore Ecclesiae naviculam moderatur. Et p. 1451. Ecclesiam papam interpretantur: Non abnuo.]  
But the French have another foundation. But that we renounce both yours and theirs, I thought meet to tell you in the third Disputation. Accept this account from, Your friend  
Ri. Baxter.   

THE CONTENTS. Disp. 1.  

Q WHether the Reformed Catholic Christian Religion, commonly called Protestant, be a safe way to salvation? Aff.  
The terms explained to pag. 11  
The first Argument p. 11  
The second Argument p. 14  
The third Argument p. 16  
Argument fourth p. 17. to 26.  
Obj. 1. True Religion is but one, answered p. 26.  
Obj 2. The true Religion hath still had a visible Church professing it. p. 32  
Obj. 3. Your Religion hath no certain test to discover it p. 40  
Obj. 4. You have separated from all the Churches in the world p. 41  
Obj. 5. You are divided into Sects, and have no unity among yourselves p. 42  
Obj. 6. You have no infallible certainty of your Religion p. 43  
Obj. 7. You want many Articles of the faith p. 45  
8●ou ●ou condemn one another ibid.  
Obj. 9 Your titles show you are Sectaries p. 46  
Obj. 10. You found us in possession: where was your Church before Luther? 47. to 52  
A Defence of Bishop Ushers Serm of the Church's unity, against the confutation of Paulus Veridicus: p. 52. to 77. Wherein the common Arguments of the Papists against us are refelled.  
Disp. 2. Q. Whether Popery be a safe way to salvation? Neg. p. 78  
The term [Popery] and the rest explained, to p. 84  
Twelve propositions for the full answering of the question p. 84  
Argument 1. Popery is built upon and resolved into a a notorious falsehood p. 91  
Argument 2. They hold Christianity itself on a ground utterly uncertain, if not, certainly false. p. 93  
Argument 3. They are disagreed among themselves in the very fundamentals p. 104  
Argument 4. Popery is a novel profession, unknown to the Apostles and Primitive Church p. 106  
Argument 5. They make a new Catholic Church p. 110  
Argument 6. They are the greatest Schismatics on earth p. 126  
Argument 7. Popery is an uncertain changeable thing, so that a man can never tell when he hath it all p. 128  
Argument 8. They expressly contradict the word of God, and set up man above it p. 142  
Argument 9 They worship the creature with Divine worship p. 153  
The monstrousness of Transubstantiation p. 154  
Arg. 10. They turn God's worship into scenical formalities and Ceremonies p. 161  
Arg. 11. Popery is upheld by most wicked means, and so by Satan p. 164  
Arg. 12. They add to all, impenitency and uncureableness p. 171  
Arg. 13. It plungeth men into certain perjury p. 172  
Objections for Popery. Obj. 1. It is delivered dow● from the Apostles: p. 175. Obj. 2. They are ● true Church: p. 177. Obj. 3. A Papist may be saved: p. 179. Obj. 4. There is but one true Church, and that's theirs p. 180  
Obj. 5. They have unity, universality, antiquity, succession: p. 181. Confuted.  
Disp. 3. Q. Whether the infallible judgement of the Roman Pope and his Clergy must be the ground of our belief of the Christian doctrine, or of our receiving the holy Scriptures as the word of God? Neg. p. 186  
The Resolution of the Protestants faith ibid.  
The Popish confusion about the resolution of their faith p. 189  
Three questions contained in this one. 1. Whether the Pope and his Council be judge of controversies? The truth opened in ten propositions p. 195  
Arg. 1. p. 199. Arg. 2. p. 200. Arg. 3. p. 202. Arg 4 p. 20●  
Obj. Shall every illiterate person be judge of the sense of Scripture? p. 205  
Q 2. Whether the Pope be infallibie in this decisive judgement which he pretendeth to? p. 208.  
What infallibility we hold p. 209  
An answer to that which Bellarmine saith for the Pope's infallibility p. 213. to 221  
An answer to Knots arguments against Chillingworth p. 221. to 240  
Arg. 2. against their infallibility from common sense p. 240  
Argument 3. from experience: p. 248. arg. 4. p 152. arg. 5. p. 253. arg. 6. p. 256. arg. 7. p. 257. arg 8 p. 258. arg 9 p. 259. arg. 10. p. 260. arg. 11. p. 262. arg. 12. p. 267. arg. 13. p. 267. arg. 14. p 268. arg. 15. p. 207. arg. 16. & 17. p. 272. arg. 18. p. 274. arg. 19 p. 277. arg. 20. p. 278.  
Q 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Roman authoritative judgement p 278  
Two more Argu. against the Pope's judgement p. 279  
That we must not receive our Religion on the credit of his judgement, manifested in twenty queres p. 281  
How Dr. H. Holden shuns the circle p. 282  
The ancient Fathers and Church fully against them p. 295. to 351  
Their Obj. against us for our want of infallibility, answered p. 351. to 356  
More out of antiquity against them p. 357. to 364  
Their own usuraption against Scripture p. 365  
Vincentius Lirinensis against them p. 368. to 373  
Dr. Fields Catalogue of Popish errors p. 375  
Appendix, Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish errors: p. 381. to the end.    

Errata.  
PAge 11. line 33. read go p. 12. l. 21. deal it p. 12. l. 25. r. from p. 20. l 8. r. necks p. 22. l. ult. d. purposely p. 29 l. 3 r. good p. 3●. l. 22. r. satisfactory. 38 l. 28. r. us p. 38. Mar. So Dr Whi●●▪ etc. should be printed p. 39 l. 20. d. not p. 44. l. 13. r. the p. 41. l. 9 r. ●here p. 48. l 24. r decides p. 50. l. 1 r. symptoms p. 52. l. 33 r. Egyptian Christians p 58. l. 6. r. Sacran. l. 7. r. E●t●ri l. 25. d. and the Maronites l 25 r. the p 59 l. 24. r. cause, or as p. 60 l 11. r. The Lutherans p ●● l 26. r. will and p. 74. l. 1. r. of most of the p. 7●. l. 26. d. and by obsignation p 76. l 30. r hold p 86 l 1. r Council● p. 86. l. 24. r diffident l. ult. r. on p. 91. l. 29. r. seated p. 101. l. 30. r john and p. 1●7. l 17 r necessarily p. 100L. l. 8 r. n●wer l. 14. ●. conc●l●is l. 14. r. ●ractarentur p. 114. l. 28. d. to be new p. 115. l 29. r. Teminum p. 120. l. 17. r consequence p. 122 l. 1. r name p. 130. ● 29. r. there p. 131. l. 3 r. a● p 134. l. 24 d. not p 135 l 2. r. an uninterrupted p ●38 l 14 r. school 140. l 13. r they l. 32. d. so p 146. l. ult. 1 pro●ul hinc p. 148. l 1 r. last p. 149. l 26. r 17, 18 19 p 154. l. ●. r. his p. 166 l. 22. r. they may p. 167 l. 11. r. Belsec p. 172 l 1. d. we p 7●. l. 26 r. is p. 17●. l. 25. r. saf● way l. ult d it p 187 l. 27. add by p. 189 Mar add some●92 ●92 l. 4 add and p 202 l. 22. r. u● p 209. ● 7. d. the p. 226 l. 3. r. mentioned l. 2 r was●. ●6. r. unquestionably p. 233. l. 1 add not p 243 l. 7. r. ●lludi●g p. 247 l. 9 d. sell p 249. Mar. r. Krantzius p. 250 l 10. r the tw●nty second l. 27. add not 251. l. 15. r. decrees p 255. Mar. r succeedi●g p. 2●8 l 33. r will p. 27● l. 11. r. episcopis p 2●1. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 p. 283 l 11 r. ●xp●rt●m p. 2.4 l 2 r. the p. 28. l ul●. r. ●mpartito p. 286 l. 7. r. ap●rtum p. 29. l. 21 d. it p. 308 l. 18. r judicial p. 309 l. 28. r. confute p. 314. l. 28. r theirs p. 331. l 17. r. Montanus p 333. l. 8 r. Tatianu● p. 41. l ●2. r caeteri p 342. l. 1●. r. suburbi ●r●● l. 32. ●. headed p. 34● l ●6 r. to us p. 348 l. 2. r R●ma●e l. 4. r. authors p. 355. l. ●0 r. word l. 23 r. prove●● p. 356. l. 2. r. rather than p. 358. Marg. add de l. 28. r. literis p. 59 l. 31. r. secura p. 364 l. 11. d. i e. p. 366. l. 8. r. Gloss p. 370. l. 8. r. fu●sse & p. 371. l. 28. add in l 3. add other p. 377 l 5 r. knew l 28 r. these p. 380 l. 23. r. in p. 379 l. 12. r. catalogue. p. 217. l. ●2. after [faith] add [Or the object of faith, even Christ himself (which indeed is the true sense, agreeable to 1 Cor. 10.4. And that Rock was Christ.])   


QUERY. Whether the Reformed Catholic Christian Religion, commonly called Protestant, be a safe way to Salvation?  
THE great business of the Devil the Enemy of Mankind, is to keep man from that Salvation, which Christ hath so dearly purchased, so graciously offered, and hath appointed us such excellent helps to attain: To which end it is his first endeavour, that men may not know or Believe that there is such a Felicity, and what it is, and how much to be desired; and his next, to keep them from knowing the way to it, and the last is, to keep them from walking in that way when they know it. By the first means he keeps from Salvation, all Atheists and Heathens that know not, or believe not the life to come: by the second, all Infidels that Believe not Christ to be the way, and all Heretics that Believe not those Truths which are of absolute necessity in subordination to Christ: and by the third, all Hypocrites and unsanctified, ungodly, impenitent men, in the visible Church, that yet have a superficial Belief of these Truths.  
Our Question in hand is for the escaping the second of these snares, by discovering which is the safe way to Salvation? The Policy of the Devil hath always endeavoured to hinder the world from knowing this way, by these two means: First, if it be possible by keeping them in utter darkness, that this way may not be revealed to them, or being revealed, may not be understood: Secondly, or if that will not do, by making such a number of byways on every side, that the true and only way may hardly be discerned. And this is his end in raising so many Heresies; and this is the course he takes to misled them that have escaped from the darkness of Infidelity. He begun this trade betime, even in the days of the Apostles: They saw the multifarious offspring of the Deceiver sprouting up apace in their own times: yet did it never enter into their thoughts to tell the Church, that by this, all Heresies should be known, That the Church of Rome should condemn them, or to send it down to all posterity as the true touchstone to tell them which was the only right way among all these Heresies, to wit, That which is believed by the P●pe or Church of Rome. This had been a ready and easy way for the Apostles to have prescribed, and for us to have received, if it had been true. It might have saved them much labour in giving us that Body of sacred Doctrine which they have made indeed the Touchstone of the safe way; and it might have spared us much more labour of searching and studying which is the way; and we might all have sent to Rome, and been resolved without any more ado. Surely the Apostles were not so envious to our ease and safety, as to have silenced this easy way if they had known it themselves. But as every Heretic when he findeth out a New way, doth condemn the Old, as inconsistent with his New, so do the Papists; Since this new way hath been cried up, that [No man can come to heaven but by Rome] it is their business to deter people from any other way, and to that end, to tell them that there is no safe way but theirs. As the Quakers tell us, that there is no way to Heaven but theirs, and some 
* Much contrary to Damascene, who saith that the Rebaptised do crucify Christ again, Orthod. fid. li. 4. c. 5. p. (mihi) 296. (Though I suppose he is as far on the other side.)  Anabaptists say there is no way to Heaven but by being Baptised (again as they are) so do the Papists tell us that there is no way to Heaven but by Believing in the Pope and Church of Rome, and obeying him as the head of the Church. I never saw the place, but sure that Town hath some admirable excellency in it, that the God of Heaven should so much set his heart upon it, as to endow it with such a stupendious Prerogative, that no man should be saved from everlasting Torment that doth not Believe in the Bishop of that City, and obey him as the universal head. It's a wonder to me, that he that set not his heart so much on his Temple at Jerusalem, or on that chosen people, as not to forsake them for their sins, and that hath the Heavens for his Throne, and to whom the Sun itself is as Darkness, should yet be so taken with a Town called Rome, built and long inhabited by Idolaters, defiled with the blood of thousands of Martyrs, against which the fouls under the Altar cry out [How long Lord Holy and true wilt thou not avenge our blood etc.] as to ordain that no man in the remotest parts of the world, even the Antipodes that never heard of the name of Rome, can be saved, though he should never so much believe in Jesus Christ, unless he Believe in the Bishop of this Town and obey him when yet with Andradius and other Papists, it's a hard question whether a man may not be saved in those heathen Countries without believing in Christ himself. Is it not a marvel that we never read that Rome was once named by Christ himself, and that it never was put into our Creed as one of the necessary Articles to salvation? especially when we find there the Catholic Church, and Communion of Saints, which sure would have been some way intimated to be the Roman Church or that which is headed by their Bishop, if it had been so indeed. I find but three names (strictly so called) in the Creed, and the Popes or Roman Churches is none of them: One is Jesus Christ, and the other is hers that bore him, and the third is his, that Judged him to death; and this indeed was a Roman name, and if the honour of it in the Creed will do them any service, let them make their best of it.  
But however, this advantage the enemy of the Church hath got by it, that the new Roman Title, hath made the old Catholic Title seem questionable to many, and now so great is the audacity of the usurping Pope, that he not only questioneth whether any Christians shall be saved that believe not in him as well as in Christ, but he flatly denyeth it; and what he cannot get by Scripture and reason, he would get by threatening and terrible words to affright the simple, telling them that Protestants are not of the true Church or Religion, nor in a safe way to salvation, because they will not be the subjects of the Pope of Rome: Well, we shall briefly prove our way to be safe, if not to the satisfaction of perverse, ambitious, or passionate and prejudiced men, yet I doubt not to the satisfaction of all humble, impartial, diligent persons, that are willing to know the truth, and deny themselves, that they may know it, and do not stifle it by their lusts, or imprison it in unrighteousness in their biased resolutions. And first we shall briefly open the terms.  
By 
* 
Religion in the first sense seems to be (as Martinius) propriè actio ejus qui res divinas studiose Relegit, pictatis ergo, though the word be thence variously used.  
(2) Lactantius saith (Instit. li. 4. c. 28.) Hac conditione gignimur, ut generanti nos Deo justa & debita obsequia prebcamus, hunc s●lum noverimus hunc sequamur. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo & Religati sumus un●e ipsa Religio n●men accepit; non ut Cicero interpretatus est a Relegendo. Melius id nomen Lucretius interpretatus est, qui ait, Religionum se nodos exolvere. Jerome in c. 9 Amos, & August. de via Rel. c. 55. & Retract. l. 1. c. 13. & li. 10. de Civit. Dei. c. 4. are for the same derivation.  
(3) Macrob. Saturn. li. 3. c. 3. Servius Sulpitius Religionem esse dictam tradidit quae propter sanctitatem aliquam remota ac seposita a nobis fit, quasi a relinquendo dicta, etc. vid. Martin in verb. Sometime Religious is taken for the same with sacred, and so is applied to Persons, Actions, Things, Places, Times, etc. we here take it for a prescribed way to salvation, or that which by us is Believed or professed to be such: and this is our Religion.   [Religion] here we mean, the Doctrine de credendis & agendis, about matters to be believed and practised, which we hold and profess as of Divine Revelation, and injunction, in order to God's Glory and our salvation. For though this be but the means towards those holy Affections and practices which are of nearer necessity to our salvation, as being the necessary effects of the former, yet is it not this later; bu● the former that we are now enquiring after: Not of Subjective, but Objective Religion: not of the fides quâ, but the fides quae ●creditur; not whether we be true to our Religion and so truly Religious, but whether we be of the True Religion, or hold that Doctrine which will save them that are true to it, in Belief and Practice. I shall not much stop the plain Reader therefore with any further and unnecessary inquiry into the Etymology of the word Religion, which some derive (1) a Relegendo, some (2) a Religando, and some (3) a Relegando & Relinquendo: But as long as we understand what is meant by the word, we shall not stick at the Etymology or propriety.  
By the [Reformed] Religion, we mean, the Christian Catholic Religion, as it is separated from Popery: and so by this word we do distinguish our Churches from the Roman Sectaries. For, it is not every Reformation (much less every thing so called) that here we have respect to, but the Reformation by which we cast off Popery itself, which because it was in one Country done by a solemn Protestation of certain Princes and Cities against Popery, hath been since called the Protestant Reformation, and our Churches the Protestant Churches and our Religion, the Protestant Religion.  
Our Religion is called Catholic, because it is ●he Religion of the Catholic Church, which is so ●alled a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it is universal, consisting not only of Jews and their Proselytes, as heretofore, nor of one Town like Rome, and those that will be ●he subjects of the Bishop of that Town, as the Papists dream, but of all that Believe in the name of Christ through the whole world, holding the Foundation or points of absolute necessity to salvation, and not again denying them by any such contradicting Errors, as will not consist with the practical belief of the said Fundamentals.  
As that was called A Catholic Epistle, which was directed to the whole Church, and not to any one person or people; so is that the Catholic Church which containeth all Christians.  
As Austin was wont to describe it against the Donatists (who would have confined it to the adversaries of Caecilianus and followers of Donatus in Africa) that the true Church was that which was spread over the world by the Gospel which was commanded to be preached to all Nations, beginning at Jerusalem: so do we.  
By the Christian Religion, I suppose we are agreed, is meant the Religion of Believers in Christ, or that whereof Christ is the Foundation and prescriber, and faith in him the first act, which must contain all the essential parts (though it may possibly want many integrals) or else it is not to be called the Christian Religion. They that were called Christ's Disciples were afterwards called Christians first at Antioch, Act. 11.26. To be a Christian therefore, and to be Christ's Disciple is all one.  
Note therefore, that as the word Religion denoteth the sum of doctrines and way of salvation absolutely necessary, so it is but One in all the worl● (that's true and saving) and that is the Christian Religion. So that if a Heathen, Jew or Mahometan ask me what Religion I am of; in opposition to theirs, I will say, I am a Christian, and not only that I am a Protestant: But if a Christian ask me what Religion I am of, I will say, I am a Reformed Catholic Christian: for such a question in the mouth of a Christian usually implieth that I am a Christian, and intendeth the discovery of what sort or party of Christians I belong to. But indeed Christianity is not many but one, and therefore Christians as Christians are not of many Religions, but of one: No nor Christians at all, that are truly such, if by Religion you mean, a system of doctrines in the main, necessary or sufficient to salvation (or conceited so to be:) For, as there is no such Body of Doctrine but Christ's, so no man that is indeed a Christian, can believe that there is, seeing such a Belief contradicteth the essentias of Christianity. But among those that call themselves Christians, there are some Heretics that deny or plainly subvert some part of the essentials of Christian Religion. And among those that are Christians, some have such dangerous corruptions as do much hazard the salvation, and tend to frustrate them of their benefits of the Christian Faith, and these very corruptions they Entitle by the name of Part of their Religion, as the Papists do: In which sense I must say, I am not of the same Religion with them, though I hold the same Christian Doctrine as they, because I hold not their mixture, and add not those corruptious which they make a part of their Religion. The name Protestant I reject not, because it was taken up on a just occasion: but I take it to be too extrinsical, and private to be the standing denomination of my Religion; as being not taken from the nature of the thing, but from an occasional action of a few men in one Country; though it intimateth that all of their judgement in all other Countries, do virtually at least make the like Protestation in the main. I do therefore rather choose to say that I am a Reformed Catholic Christian; and when I call myself a Protestant, this is my meaning.  
So that by the name [Christian] which expresseth all my Religion itself Positively considered, I am differenced from Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and all Infidels, and those (by some called Heretics) who usurp the name of Christians, while they deny part of the very essentials of Christianity. And by the name [Catholic] I add nothing Positive to the former, but only intimate that I am of the Universal Church, and negatively exclude myself from all divided parties, or from any that are yet in that Church, and yet take up any dividing titles or ways therein, though they withdraw not from it; as they are such, I am none of them, and therefore disclaim (when I express my Religion) such private names; I am no Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Papist, Socinian, etc. but a Catholic.  
But yet when I say I am a Reformed Catholic, I purposely disclaim the Corruptions of Popery, and in that word renounce their Errors as such, as by the word Catholic I renounced their Schism: And so I may agree with Luther, Calvin or any man in Reformation, so far as they hold to the word of God: so that if malicious adversaries will put the name of Sect upon the Catholic verity, and call it by the name of Zuinglianisme, Lutheranisme, Calvinis●● or the like, pretending that it had its spring from these men, they shall not by such unworthy means, remove me from the Catholic Religion, nor yet cause me to own their Corruptions, because they have named the opposition of them as a Heresy Augustine would not turn Donatist, because they named the Catholics Caecilians; nor would Prosper turn Pelagian, because they called the Orthodox, Predestinarians or Fatalists, nor would Athanasius before them turn Arrian because they called the Orthodox Tritheists. It is not other men's fastening upon us the name of a man, or of a Sect that proves us Sectaries, or that we had our Religion originally from that man. Yet do we so much reverence their names, that we rejoice in their labours for the Church, and bless God for them, and endeavour to imitate them in their holy doctrine and lives, though we make none but Christ the Lord of our Faith  
As for the terms of the predicate they need no great explication. By salvation we mean principally Everlasting Glory in Heaven: By the way to it, we mean the means appointed by God for the attaining it. The principal means indeed is Christ himself, who is eminently called, The way, and no man cometh to the Father but by him. But in subordination to Christ all other means are the way.  
By a safe way, we mean a way that in suo genere is sufficient to the attainment of the end; so that all that sincerely are that way shall attain that end; A certain means of happiness to all that faithfully use it. For it must be known that no Religion (or sound Doctrines) will save a man that is not faithful in the reception and improvement of them. A True Religion will not save him that is not True to his Religion. And therefore it is no wonder if multitudes even of Protestants do perish, though their Religion be the only Religion in the world. For they are not heartily of the Religion which they profess. They have that doctrine which is the seal, and fit enough of its own nature quantum in se to imprint the image of God upon their souls: But if they keep this seal in their Chests, and apply it not effectually to their hearts, they may have unholy hearts and lives, though they profess a holy faith and Religion, and therefore may perish for all that profession; yea and perish most deplorably because their profession doth aggravate their sin. If a man's Religion (or believed doctrines) be bad in the main, the man himself must needs be bad too; and therefore no man of such a Religion can be saved: But if a man's Religion (or professed doctrines) be never so good it is possible he may be bad that doth profess them: and then no Religion can save a wicked man. So that of the true Religion some are saved, but not all: but of a bad Religion (in the main) no man can be good, or be saved.  
I come to the Arguments by which I prove the Affirmative, that [The Reformed Catholic Christian Religion, commonly called Protestant, is a safe way to salvation.  
Arg. 1. That Religion which best agreeth with the word of God, above all other Religions in the world, is a safe, yea the safest way to salvation: But the Reformed Catholic Christian Religion commo●●● called Protestant, doth best agree wit● the word of God: therefore it is the safest way to salvation.  
One would think among Christians the Major should be unquestionable: But here the corrupt Romanists have presumed to make a new word of God, that so the determination of the case might be impossible, unless we will go up to these Philistines to sharpen our weapons: For they deny the holy Scripture to be the whole word of God, or sufficient to be the Rule for deciding of controversies in matter of saith, and tell us, that unwritten Traditions are another part: And those Traditions are such as are received by the whole Church as delivered down from the Apostles; and that whole Church is only the Roman party: and thus do they by their own Authority undertake to damn all the rest of the Christian world, and make themselves only the Catholic Church: and by this trick of wit they have got one half of God's word into their closerts, and that it is his word, which they say is his word: And that you may know that they are no blabs or revealers of secrets, they have for some hundred years kept this close as a secret to themselves, yea from themselves as well as to us: so that when the common Proverb takes that to be a secret which one or two knows, but not when three know it; yet these men have a word of God which all the Catholic Church is the keeper of, and yet those that keep it, know it not themselves, much less can we that stand by come to the knowledge of it; but we must all wait till the last Pope have breathed out his last determination, before the Catholic Church that is said to keep it can come to know what is the whole word of God. And so among them it is ●ome to this pass; that to be judged by God's word, is to be judged by the Pope and his entrusted Subjects.  
But if any man whatever bring us forth a Tradition, and say, that this is the word of God and came down from the Apostles, we shall desire more than ●his word for the proof of it. And when he brings us as good proof that his Tradition came from the Apostles, as we shall bring him that the Scripture came from them, then will we cheerfully receive his Traditions: but not without sufficient proof, upon the boastings of corrupted interessed men.  
As for the Minor, that our Religion is most agreeable to the Scriptures, I shall now say but this to the proof of it. First, we take the Scriptures for the only Test or Rule of our faith and practice; and we tie not ourselves to any other by-rule which may force us to a misunderstanding of it. It is only the Scripture that we still profess doth contain our Religion: And it is the chief part of the quarrel between us and Rome, that they will not take this word for the perfect or sufficient Rule of Judgement. It is this word only that we appeal to, and desire to be judged by: And the Papists wilful declining of this Trial and Judgement doth give any impartial observer sufficient cause to suspect, that they take the Scripture to be against their cause, or else why should they not have as much confidence in it, and commit their cause to it as well as we.  
2. To run over every point of difference between us and them, and prove our part by Scripture, would be a very easy work, but it would make this Disputation swell too big. And it is done so largely and often already by our Writers that it is less necessary. If any of them complain for the omission ● this part, let him but assure me that he will stand t● the Judgement of Scripture, and I shall quickly a●● willingly enter the lists with him, and go over th●● part of the task again. In the mean time let it su●●● to tell young Students, that Amesius his Bellarmi●● Enervatus hath spoiled all their cause of this defence and manifested Scripture to be fully against them, i● a little room; which may spare them the reading o● many larger. And for the mere English Reader, Mr. Ri. Bernard in his book called, Look beyond Luther, in his help annexed to it, hath given a brief and effectual discovery that Scripture is not on their side, in an enumeration and proof of many of the point● in difference, between them and us: which for brevity, I refer them to.  
In a word, if the Scripture be true, than that Religion which agreeth with them is a safe way to salvation: But the Papists confess that the Scriptures are true: Therefore, etc. The Major is plain, in that Scripture affirmeth of itself, that it is able to make us wise unto salvation, and furnish us to every good work, and is written that we might believe, and believing might have life in Christ's name, etc. Joh. 29.31. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Of which we have said somewhat in a s●ort Determination of that Question by itself.  
Arg. 2. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation, by which the Apostles and the Churches in their days were saved: But by the Reformed Catholic Christian Religion, now called Protestant, were the Apostles and the Churches in their days saved: therefore it is a safe way to salvation.  
The Major with reasonable men needeth no proof. There is not many Religions but only one that are a ●●fe way to Salvation: and that which the Apostles ●ent in and the Churches in their days, is undoubtedly that one. God hath not since taken down ●hat Religion and set up another, and made ●hat way safe to us, which was unsafe to them.  
The Minor is thus proved, The Apostles and Churches in their days were saved by that Religion which is contained or expressed in the holy Scriptures: But that is the same with this which is called ●he Protestant Religion. For proof whereof I refer you, and offer as abovesaid. Yield once that Scripture shall be the Rule to judge by, and the controversy will soon be ended betwixt us.  
And I need not to say but these two things for proof of the point.  
1. That their own Writers confess that the Affirmative or Positive part of our Religion, as it was here in England professed, was not against the word of God, contained in the holy Scriptures, only they told us that the Negatives were, of which we shall consider further anon.  
2. As it is the great care of the Papists to keep the Scriptures from the people, accounting it the Original of Heresies to have them translated (as Arboreus and many expressly say) and burning men to ashes for reading the Scriptures, when God will burn them in Hell, if they obey them not (which they are not like to do without knowing them) so experience hath convinced them that where the reading of the Scriptures in a known tongue is but permitted, there doth our Religion most increase, and Popery decay; so that if this one means were but permitted, in Spain and Italy as it is whether they will or no in other parts, undoubtedly the Pope's Kingdom would soon come down: I say, if they durst but permit men to read the Word of God in a known tongue. They know this well enough, or else they would never so torture poor Christians by the Inquisition for having a Bible in their houses. They have sure some humanity in them, as well as others: and therefore could never go so exceeding far beyond the Turk in Cruelty to Christians themselves, but that they know their whole cause and Kingdom is concerned in it, and if once Scripture get in, they are gone. In a word, multitudes of volumes have already proved that Scripture is against Popery.  
Argu. 3. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation, in which the Church in the three or four first Ages at least was saved: But the Church in the three or four first Ages at least was saved in that Catholic Christian Religion, which now is called the Reformed or Protestant Religion: Therefore this is a safe way to salvation.  
I mention not the former Ages as if all other following Ages had come to heaven by any other Religion, than the former; but 1. because in them alone there is a sufficient proof of the Major Proposition: None could be saved in it, especially not so many Ages of the purest times, if it were not a safe way. 2. Because some Popish Errors began among the worse sort of Ambitious, Superstitious Prelates to creep in betimes; and Popery itself appeared in the world soon after the six hundredth year, and was openly established about the thousandth year. And according to the degrees of corruption in the Church there was a greater difficulty of salvation, because more impediments: but still those that were saved, were all saved in and by the same Religion of the former Ages; and if they were saved in any Corruption, yet not By it, but from it, or against it.  
As for the proof of the Minor as it requireth a full volume of itself, to produce the particular Testimonies of the Fathers for us, so is it already done in many Volumes: And because the continual clamour of the Papist, is, that Antiquity is on their side, I shall anon disprove them in the fundamental difference between them and us, in the following Disputation, about their pretended Sovereignty and Infallibility; and in other particulars desire them to give some reasonable answer to what is already alleged by Bishop Usher, Dr Field, and many mor● of our Writers, before they expect we should regard their vain immodest pretences: And still let is be remembered that for all the Positive part of our Religion, they themselves cannot deny but that the Churches still held it. Our Religion is the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures; and doubtless that was entertained by all the Churches; and in that Religion they were saved.  
Argu. 4. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation, whose faithful Professors have a promise of Salvation made them by God in his holy word: But such is the Reformed Catholic Christian Religion, commonly called Protestant: therefore it is a safe way to Salvation.  
The Major cannot be denied: for God cannot ●ye, or break his promise. And the Minor is easily proved by parts. Our Religion is to believe all that is in the Holy Scripture to be the true word of God● and more particularly we believe all the Articles ● the Creed called the Apostles, the Nicene Creed, and that of Athanasius; with the Doctrine of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, an● we confess that in a larger sense other sacred mysteries may be called Sacraments: we believe that every man must unfeignedly Repent of all sin, and t●●● from it to God, and Love God above all, and 〈◊〉 neighbour as himself, and faithfully obey the who●● revealed will of God; with other parciculars whic● may be seen at large in our several confessions. An● he that faithfully Believeth and doth all this, hath m●ny promises of Salvation in the Scripture, John 3.26 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. But Protestants believe in him; and subvert not, nor nullify that belief by any contradiction; therefore they shall not perish (if they be true to their profession) but have everlasting life.  
Mark. 16.16 Go and preach the Gospel to every creature: he that Believeth and is Baptised shall b● saved. But Protestants believe and are baptised Obj. So Heretics and wicked men may say. Ans. But not truly: For 1. Heretics truly so called, that cannot be saved, do not Believe the whole Doctrine which is fundamental or of Absolute necessity to Salvation. Let them show that by us if they can 2. As Heretics have not the true faith, so wicke● men are not true in the faith: The former want the fides quae & qua both, that is, both true objectiuè and subjective faith: and the later want true subjective faith at least. And so they will confe●● that many a Pope hath done.  
Rom. 10.9. If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God ●aised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For ●ith the heart man believeth to righteousness, and ●ith the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ●ut thus do the Protestants; therefore they shall be ●●ved.  
The Doctrine which Peter preached to Cornelius as sufficient to save him and all his house, Act. 10.14. ●ut every word of that is believed by the Protestants, ●●erefore it may save them.  
The Jailor is promised, Act. 16.31. that if he ●●ll believe on the Lord Jesus Christ he shall be sav●●. So Heb. 10.39. Luk. 8.12. It is not said, If ●●ou wilt believe in Christ and the Pope of Rome●●ou ●●ou shalt be saved, Act. 4.12. [Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name ●●der heaven given among men, whereby we must be ●●ved] Therefore not the Pope's name. In Act. 15.1. ●●s said that certain men came down from Judaea●●●ught ●●●ught the brethren, that except they were circum●●sed after the manner of Moses they could not be ●●ved: against these Paul wrote the Epistle to the ●●latians, where you may see how to think of such: ●nd in the like manner do the Papists teach men, that ●●cept they believe in the Pope of Rome, and except ●●ey believe that there is a Purgatory, and that Images may be worshipped, and that the consecrated ●●st may be adored, and that we may pray to ●●ints departed, and that the Priest must take the sacrament while the people only look on, and that 〈◊〉 the Priest must receive it in both kinds, and the ●ead alone may serve the people, and that prayers and other Church-service should be in th● Latin tongue when the people understand it not with abundance more of their vile inventions I say, those that believe not all this, they say cann●● be saved: But what say the Apostles, Elders, an● Brethren at Jerusalem, when the former case ● brought before them? They would not have me tempt God, by putting a yoke on the most of th● Disciples, but believe that through the Grace of th● Lord Jesus Christ, those that used none of th● ceremonies should be saved as well as the Jews, Ver● 10, 11. And the sum of their Decrees or answer is that. [Those men who went out from them and troubled people with such words, did but subvert the● souls, by saying that they must be circumcised a● keep the Law, and that they gave them no such commandment; and that it seemed good to the Hol● Ghost and them to lay upon the Gentiles no great●● burden than these necessary things, etc.] The P●pists thus go out as from the Apostles, pretending an Apostolical Tradition, and impose upon the who●● Christian world a multitude of Ceremonies and Doctrines as necessary to salvation, which are not ● be found in the holy Scripture. How shall we kno● whether these men indeed have any command ● Tradition from the Apostles for any such course Why 1. Let them show their Commission, and t●● proof of their Traditions. 2. We fully dispro●● them from the Apostles own words. It seems go● to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay ● the Gentiles no greater burden than the ●●cessary things here named; and by these they m● be saved, and they that teach otherwise are p●nounced by them subverters of souls, that had ● command from them for what they did. But it ●emeth good to the Pope and his faction to lay on ●●e Gentile Churches unnecessary things, and mul●●tudes of them, pretending a necessity of them, ●hen they are none of the four that are here only ●ade necessary by the Apostles, nor are so made by ●ny other word of Scripture; and some they impose ●n pain of damnation, which they will not pretend ●o be of necessity themselves. By proportion therefore we may hence judge, that the Papists are mere ●lse pretenders to Apostolical Tradition, and sub●erters of souls, and that the Protestants may be sa●ed for all their presumptuous sentence to the con●●ary.  
The Gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthians, and which they received, was such as would ●●ve them, if they kept it in memory, viz. that ●hrist died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ●nd that he was buried, and that he rose again the ●●ird day, etc. as Paul witnesseth, 1 Cor. 15.1, 2, 3, 4, ●nd the Corinthians by the belief of this Doctrine, ●ere a Church of God and sanctified, 1 Cor. 1.1, 2. ●ut the Protestants believe all that the Corinthians●●ceived ●●ceived to make them such a Church and sancti●●ed and saved; Therefore the Protestants are so ●o.  
John wrote his Gospel that men might believe, ●nd believing might have life, Joh. 20.30, 31. Therefore he that believeth that Gospel shall have life: at the Protestants believe all that Gospel; therefore ●●ey shall have life (supposing it to be a true faith ●●at worketh by love.) The Jews that heard Peters●●rmon ●●rmon, Act. 2. were converted and added to the church (even thre● thousand souls) and put into a state of Justification by Believing that Sermon, 〈◊〉 37, 38, 41, 46, 47. But the Protestants believe ● that Peter preached in that Sermon: there●● they also are of the Church and justified.  
And lest the Accusing Devil or Papists, sh●● trouble the peace of any of his people, Christ 〈◊〉 protested it with his own mouth, Joh. 5.24 [Ve●●ly, Verily I say unto you, He that heareth my word 〈◊〉 believed on him that sent me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed fr●● death to life] Me thinks this should make any ●●liever tremble at the thoughts of condemning tho● that Christ hath protested shall not be condemned.  
Christ hath promised that all those that receive ● words, and in whom his words abide, shall be beloved of the Father and have everlasting life, and ● heard in what they ask, Joh. 14.23. & 15.7. Doubtless that which Christ himself preached was the t● Gospel, and so far sufficient that whoever believe● it shall be saved. Otherwise Christ could not ●a● converted any soul, so far as to have brought the● into a state of Salvation by his Doctrine: and the● Peter and the rest of the Apostles were not tr●● Christians by the belief of the Doctrine of Christ, 〈◊〉 if the Doctrine which Christ preached be sufficient to make true Christians and Church-members o● those that receive it, than the Protestants are such▪ For, they believe every word that the Evangelists record of the Doctrine of Christ. And if the Papi●● say that there is more of his Doctrine necessary t● salvation, which the Evangelists did not record i● Scripture, 1. We call for their proof of it, and 2. W●●●●ow that the Evangelists did purposely write th● ●●ur Gospels or Histories of Christ, of purpose to acquaint the world with his Nature, Birth, Life, doctrine ●eath and Resurrection, etc. Luke professeth that he ●rote his Gospel upon perfect understanding of all ●●ings from the very first, which containeth a Decla●●tion of those things which are most surely believed ●mong us, even as they were delivered by them that ●●om the beginning were eye Witnesses and Ministers ●f the Word, Luk. 1.1, 2, 3, 4. And he tells us Act. ●. 1, 2. that he wrote his Gospel of all things that ●esus began both to do and teach, until the day in ●hich he was taken up. It would therefore have ●een an exceeding blemish to the Evangelists that ●rote of set purpose both the History of Christ's ●ife and Doctrine, if they had left out any part of it ●hat was of necessity to salvation. Protestants therefore that believe all the Gospel do believe so much ●s may bring them safely to salvation. If Christ himself be not a sufficient Teacher, nor the Gospel itself a ●ufficient Doctrine of Life, Then whither shall we go to seek it? Then Peter himself was not the Rock, ●or a true Christian by Christ's Teaching: And then ●he Pope could not derive that from Peter which he ●ad not. But Peter himself thought and taught otherwise. He saith [Lord whether shall we go? we know that thou hast the words of Eternal Life] For my part I will take Peter's counsel, and go to Christ for the words of Eternal Life, which are purposely recorded by four Evangelists in the Gospel: Let who will go to the Pope for another Gospel, to supply the supposed defects of this, for I will not.  
In Act. 22. & 26. and other places Paul preacheth so much of the Gospel, as might have made true Believers, and all that, the Protestants receive.  
The Church of Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to them, were a true Church, Rom. 1.7. and all the Doctrine that Paul writeth to them we do believe:  
Paul telleth the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20.27. that he had not shunned to declare to them the whole council of God: and this is summed up in [Repentance toward God, and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ] verse. 21. And whatsoever Paul hath written to these Ephesians or any other Churches or persons, we believe.  
But what should we talk any more with such an arrogant unreasonable sort of men, that dare maintain that the belief of all the Holy Scripture is not large enough to salvation. Atheists and Infidels say of the Scripture, that it is too big to be all true: And Papists say that it is not big enough to bring a man to heaven that believeth and obeyeth it. Shall the Holy Ghost indite a Volume as big as the Bible, and when he hath done shall any pretending to be Christians, persuade the world that he that believeth all this, shall be damned if he believe not the closet. Traditions which the Roman Bishop pretendeth to be the keeper of?  
Nay see the strange contradictions of this giddy fiction! They lock up this Scripture itself from the common people in an unknown tongue: They damn the translating of it as the root of all Heresies, and burn men to ashes for using the Bible; when they cannot keep it unknown any longer, they translate it themselves as far as they can to their own advantage and put it forth with their perverting Annotations; and yet when they have all done, they condemn any that read it without a special licence from their Ordinary: which in England and France they sometime grant to avoid suspicions; but in Spain, Italy, etc. too few if any at all. And when they have written voluminously to prove that the Scriptures are not necessary to the people for salvation, and that Ignorance is the mother of devotion, they come back again, and dispute against the Protestants, that the whole Scripture is not sufficient to salvation, and he that believes but the Scriptures is not in a safe way to salvation. It seems then that the Pope's Canons are more necessary than the Scripture: For a man may be saved without the knowledge of Scripture, but not without the knowledge of the Canons of the Pope: Yes, that he may too: if some of them mistake not, if they will but implicitly believe that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and that the Pope is the infallible sovereign of the Christian world, and believe some Articles of the Creed upon his credit, he may be saved without either Scripture or Canons, so he be but ready to believe and obey whatever shall be offered to him by the Pope for the time to come.  
Moreover Christ and his Apostles do frequently promise Remission and salvation to all that truly Repent, that love God in Christ, that mortify the flesh, etc. but all this do the Protestants, and their Religion teacheth them to do it. Paul concludeth that, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit, Rom. 8.11. But the Protestants are in Christ Jesus, and their Religion teacheth and engageth them so to walk: therefore there is no condemnation to them (that do so) and they may with the same Apostle, Rom. 8.33, 34. Challenge all the Papists in the world. It is God that justifieth, who shall condemn us?  
Paul telleth Timothy that the holy Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3.15. therefore they may make us also wise to salvation. And he addeth, that [All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works,] vers. 16, 17. It were endless to recite all that proveth the salvation of them that believe and obey the holy Scriptures. But this all true Protestants do. I shall therefore leave this task, and next hear what the Papists can say to the contrary, and what they are able to produce to prove that we are not in a safe way to salvation.  
Obj. 1. There is but one safe way to Heaven: The Protestant Religion is not that one way: Therefore not a safe way. The Minor is proved thus: That Religion which the Church hath owned from the Apostles days till now▪ is that one way: The Protestant Religion is not that which the Church hath so owned: therefore it is not that one Religion. The Minor is proved by parts: 1. As to Doctrine, 2. as to Discipline, 3. as to worship. 1. The Church ever since the Apostles days, hath maintained the Doctrines of, 1. freewill to good or evil, 2. of Predestination upon foreseen faith, 3. of man's merits, 4. of Justification by Inherent Grace, 5. against the certain Perseverance of all the Justified, and consequently against their certainty of salvation. 6. Vowed Chastity and Monastical Life. In Discipline the Church ever held, 1. The Pope's Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction; 2. The Government by Bishops over Presbyters: 3. Ordination by them, and not without them. 4. Pennance and Confession of sin. 3. In matter of Worship the Church hath still used▪ 1. Chrism to the Baptised. 2. Imposition of hands in confirmation. 3. The sacrifice of the Altar. 4. The Cross. 5. Holy days. 6. Fasting days. All which the Protestants have cast off: Therefore they are not of the same Religion.  
Answ. 1. To the Major Proposition of the main Argument, I answer. The word [safe] referreth too some Danger that we are safe from: The way may be called safe therefore, either in respect of sin or damnation: Also this way may be called [one] in respect of the Essentials of Religion, or else in respect of some inferior truths and duties, that are not of absolute necessity to salvation. And so I say that there is but one Religion as to the Essential and absolutely necessary points, in which a man can be safe from Damnation. And there is but one Religion as comprehending all the Integral parts, in which a man can be safe from sin: But yet that Religion which in the Essentials and Absolutely necessary points is but one, may yet consist with errors in lower and lesser things in the minds of those that hold it; and yet be a safe way to salvation, though not so safe as to freemen from all sin. And consequently there may be differences among true Christians that shall be saved, though there be nothing but perfect Harmony in the entire Doctrine of Christian Religion as delivered from Christ and his Spirit: Because no man holds that Doctrine entirely and perfectly without any error or ignorance, and therefore there will be much difference among those that shall be saved. To the Major of the Prosyllogisme, I answer, Implicitly and in Generals the Church hath owned the perfect truth in all ages, because it hath Believed that all that God saith is true, and that the Scripture is his word: But explicitly and particularly the Church hath not held all the truth of Religion, in any one age since the Apostles. For every man on earth hath been Ignorant, and the most knowing men erroneous in some things: seeing we are all imperfect, and here know but in part. And so one particular Church might err in one thing, and another in another thing, as the differences about Easter, Rebaptising, the Millennium, Infants Communicating, etc. show they did. And of the same Church one Member might err in one thing and another in another thing: it being as certain that no two men on the earth are in all things of the same mind, as that none on earth are perfect in knowledge. To the Minor I answer, that the Religion called Protestant is the same in all points absolutely necessary to salvation which the Church hath still owned! And in other inferior points, the Churches having not been all or always of one mind, some ages were more pure, and others more corrupt: The Protestant Religion is nearer to that of the purer times than the Papists is: It is the same in the Essentials; it is the nearest it in the Integrals; it is more remote from latter corruptions introduced in times more remote from the Apostolical purity.  
To the particular instances of our differences from the former Churches, I answer particularly. 1. For Free will to God, if you mean a natural freedom, which is [the wills self-determining Power] so the Protestants maintain it as well as the Fathers. If you mean a moral freedom from ill-inclining habits, which is properly a right-disposition, so the Fathers maintained it not.  
Obj. Let Scultetus in Medulla Patru● and others of your own Writers be judge who still number this inter naevos Patrum.  
Answ. Scultetus and Calvin and others might mistake the Father's sense and think that they spoke of moral Freedom, when they spoke but of natural, which is inseparable from the will. And its like that they did so, seeing the Fathers maintained Original sin, which is that pravity of humane nature, which is clean contrary to moral freewill. 2. And if the Fathers were for a freewill in a moral-Ethical sense, so is one part of the Protestants as much as they were▪ And if they were in the right, so are those Protestants? If in the wrong then the other part of the Protestants are in this, in the right. 3. This is a point that men may differ in, as much as the Fathers did from us, and yet be in a safe way to salvation. 4. The Dominicans and the Jesuits differ about it as much as we and the Fathers; yea, they cannot yet agree, what natural freewill is. 2. For Predestination upon foreseen faith. 
* In this the Ancients differed among themselves Austin and his followers being for absolute Predestination and for Reprobation upon foreseen unbelief: and others being for Predestination (i. e. Election) upon foreseen faith.  1. There is no Declaration of the Church's mind in those times about it, but what is found in the wrigtings of particular Doctors. 2. We confess that men are Elected to Glory and Justification from guilt, upon foreseen faith: But we say withal that they are Elected to that faith; and that God did foresee it as a thing which he intended to give, and not as a thing which corrupted unregenerate nature would produce. 3. And we say also, that this is a point that men may differ in that yet are in a safe way to salvation.  
3. As to the point of man's merits, we say; that the Fathers differed from us but in word and not indeed: It seemed good to them to call every moral aptitude or Ordination ad Praemium, that is, the Rewardableness of our actions, by the name of merit; and every Rewardable work meritorious. We think it fittest to forbear this name. This Verbal difference makes not two distinct Religions.  
4. As to the point of Justification, we confess that the Fathers commonly called that Justification which we now call Sanctification. And we ourselves maintain that Sanctification doth consist in Inherent Graces This difference therefore being but verbal, the Religion and the way to salvation is nevertheless the same.  
5. As for the points of 
* Austin, Prosper Fulgentius, &c ● fully maintain the Perseverance of all the Elect, ●hou●h not of all the Justified.  Perseverance and certainty of Salvation, and Virginity or vowed Chastity, with the supposed merit thereof, and of a Monastical or Eremetical life; we think that most of the Churches since the first century, have departed from the Apostles Doctrine in these points; and therefore we appeal to the Scripture. But yet we know that these are not points of absolute necessity to salvation; so that whether those Churches, or we were mistaken, yet is our Religion the same, and both they, and we in a safe way to Heaven.  
2. For matters of Government and Discipline we say 1. That we undertake to manifest it as clear as the light, that the Pope's Supreme Headship, and universal jurisdiction, is a novelty introduced above six hundred years after Christ. 2. For Diocesane Episcopacy and their ordination, some of the Reformed Churches do own it: But it is not a matter so necessary to Salvation, as that all men that will be saved must needs be of one mind in it. 3. We confess and maintain the necessity of true Penitence and such confession of sin as is necessary to manifest Penitence to the Church after a notorious scandal: and of confession to those that we have wronged: and of private confession to our Pastors, in case that we cannot have a through cure of our wounds, or comfort to our consciences without it. Lastly, as for the Ceremonies mentioned which the former Churches used, and as for the bare name of a Sacrifice and Altar (while they agreed with us in sense) we take them not to be matters of so great moment, as must make them and us of two Religions; as if both were not in a safe way to salvation. The best men on earth may differ in as great a matter as one of these: and if they in a mistaken zeal shall depart from the Apostles, so that we cannot imitate both the Apostles and them, we had rather of the two leave them then the Apostles; yet holding with them still in the main.  
Obj. The Religion of Protestants differs from the Abassine and Greek Churches and all the world as well as the Roman, and therefore cannot be a safe way. Answ. 1. If that be not a safe way which differs from the Greeks, Abassines, etc. then the Papists way is much less safe than ours: for they do not only differ from them, but un-Church them and condemn them to Hell, and so do not we. 2. We are of the same Religion with them: only we have by God's great mercy cast out of that one way some stones of offence, which they have not yet cast out.  
Obj. 2. The true safe Religion hath had a visible Church professing it from Christ's time till this day: But the Protestant Religion hath not had a visible Church, professing it to this day: therefore it is not the true safe Religion.  
Ans. The Major I easily grant and disclaim the needless snift of them that would deny it. But the Minor I deny: If they call for the proof of that visible Church, and ask where it was before Luther, we say that it was wherever Christ had a Church: From Christ's time till many hundred years after, even at Rome itself and many other places: and from Christ's time to this day it hath been in Ethiopia, Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and many other Countries, if not still among the Romanists themselves: for full proof of which, note, that it is from the Essentials, and points of great necessity that we denominate our Religion; and every difference in ●esser things doth not make a distinct Religion: else there were as many Religions in the world as men. Note also that the main difference between us and the Papists is, not that they deny the substance of our Religion directly, but that they superadded a great many of new Articles to the old Creed, and have made their Religion much larger than ours, many of their new Articles consequently subverting the Fundamentals which they profess. So that our Re●gion is, and still hath been among the Papists, and other Churches: and if they ●dde mor● to it, that makes it not cease in itself to be what it was Our Religion is wholly contained in the Holy Scriptures▪ ●nd that all the Churches have still allowed of: The Papists themselves confess it all to be the Word of God, which we appeal to as the only Touchstone ●nd rule of our faith.  
Obj. So you would make our Religion and ●ours to be all one. Ans. As the word Religion signifies the Essentials of the Christian Faith, or the ●oints of absolute necessity to Salvation, so our religion is with you, and is owned or confessed by ●ou: As it signifieth all those points that are conceited necessary to Salvation with the professors, so your religion is not all, but part, with us: And as it com●rehendeth also all those Integral parts, which a man ●ay confessedly be saved without, so he do not wil●lly reject them, so yours and ours do much differ●nd that your Religion is not all with us is no loss to ●; because the points of yours which we disown ●e both novel additions of your own brain, and al●● such as contradict the acknowledged verities. Wherever then Christ had a Church that did believe all the Doctrine of the Scripture, and specially th● Creed, the Lords Prayer, the Decalogue, the Doctrine of the new Covenant, Baptism, the Lord Supper, and the Ministry, there was our Religion before Luther: If any added hay and stubble, if the● work be burnt, and they suffer loss, yet our Religion among them is the same still.  
Obj. But do not you make this Negative a part ● your Religion; that nothing but Scripture is to ●● believed fide divinâ? and what Church was of th● Opinion?  
Answ. 1. We have oft at large showed that m●● of the ancient Doctors of the Church have asser●● the Scriptures sufficiency at large, and appealed ● them as the full Revelation of Gods will concerning all things necessary to salvation, and the sufficient Rule to Judge of controversies. 2. If they did 〈◊〉 of them think that the Church had a supperad●● Revelation by Tradition, in points of order, of ● necessity to salvation; this doth not make them ●● us to be of two Religions, or ways of Salvation as long as they do not introduce any dangerous ● destructive points under that pretence.  
Obj. But the Church still held those things as ●●cessary to Salvation which you deny. Ans. W● deny that to be true: Some of the points in differ●●● are novelties of your own, which the ancient Chur●● did never hold: the rest are such as they never ● such a stress, as men's salvation upon.  
To conclude, Let it be considered whether th● Argument may not damn yourselves which I t● against you Thus. The true safe Religion hath 〈◊〉 a visible Church professing it from Christ's time ● ●●w: But the Religion of the Romanists (as comprehending all points of their faith, or made by them be necessary to salvation) hath not had any visible ●●urch professing it of many hundred years after ●●rist: Therefore it is not the true Religion, nor a ●●e way to salvation, The Minor I shall undertake ●●re seasonably to make good: And our Divines ●●e done it already.  
No doubt but common reason and justice requir●●, that you that call to us so earnestly for a Catalogue of the Professors of our Religion in all Ages ●●uld be as much obliged yourselves to give us a ●●●alogue of yours: yea and to give it first, because 〈◊〉 are the first in pleading the necessity of it. Undertake this task therefore, and perform it well, and ●u shall carry the whole cause. Give us a Cata●ue of any, besides impeached Heretics, that did ●n your main points of Popery for many hundred ●●rs after Christ, and we will give you a full ac●●nt of such as contradicted those conceits and be●●●ed as we do, and let both be compared together, ● let the most satisfaction and the fullest evidence ●●●ry it. You make a mere empty noise among the ●●gar, of Antiquity and Universality, and call for ●roof of the perpetual or continued visibility of ● Church, as if in this you had the advantage, ● the balance did turn on your side: When as ●●ough we know that there is no such necessity of ● proof in this as you pretend yet) we know your advantage here to be so great, that if you will ● be persuaded to this way of trial, it will be to the ●●●er shame and confusion of your cause. What's the ●●tter else that you still appeal to the latter or pre●●t Church, and that is only to the Roman, and that's only to yourselves? If we do but invite you to trial by Scripture, and the Fathers and Records the three first ages, you presently scorn the mo● and fall upon the Fathers with accusations, as if th● had not understood or believed all that was necessary to salvation, or to the being of a Christian or Church; for you say they did not meddle with th● controversies; and so you call us down to the la● or present times, as having equal authority with ● first: To which we say, 1. That the silence of ● first times concerning these matters, if there w● no more (as yet there is) is sufficient to prove t● they were not then taken for any necessary points faith. For, Though our Records of the sec● Age be very short, yet both they and m● more those of the third and fourth Ages contain such purposely undertaken, explication● the Christian faith, that we cannot imagine suc● multitude of necessary points would have been o●ted. 2. And though the Pastors of the present ● have equal Authority in Ruling their Congregation with those of the second, yet they cannot give ● sure an account what was the doctrine and prac● of the former Ages, nor any way prove it to us ● by producing such records.  
The Papists themselves are so far from deny● that the Ancient Fathers and Churches did hold ● Positive part of our Religion, that they hold it themselves; For they themselves profess to believe ●● book of holy Scripture that we do: They say ● believe the Creed called the Apostles, and the scene and Constantinopolitan Creed, and that of ●●thanasius; and so do we (still taking the holy Scepture only for our Rule) so that their own tong● ●ust confess the Antiquity, and Universality, and accession of our Religion: For this is ours.  
But all that they have to ob●ject is this, That we ●n name no Churches or Fathers that held our Negatives. To which I say, 1. The Negatives at least, for the most part of them, if not all) are ●e mere consequences of the Affirmatives and Posi●ves, and employed or plainly included in them: For example, when our Religion saith [Thou shalt wor●ip the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve] ●is includeth the Negative [Thou shalt ●ot worship or serve Saints, 
Mat 4.10.  Angels or ●ny other, save only by a service and honour duly ●bservient to the service and worship of God: and ●herefore that we give not Divine worship to the consecrated host, or the Virgin Mary, or to any ●ther mere creature. Our Religion teacheth us [to ●o all things to edifying] 1 Cor. 14.26. This includ●th the negatives [that we must not worship God in ●n unknown tongue or unedifying manner, bleating ●nd bellowing out our prayers in hideous or ridiculous tones.] Our Religion maketh it the Ministerial Commission, to teach the Nations and Baptise, Mat. 28.19, 20. This includeth the Negative that women or lay men should not so teach (that is, as Commissioned officers) nor baptise: 
Mat. 28.19.  This affirmative [Peter was sent to Disciple Nations] includeth this Negative [Peter was not sent to be the fixed Bishop of Rome, and there ●o reside. This affirmative [The Apostles are the Foundation of the Church] includeth this negative ● Peter alone is not the Foundation of the Church] This Affirmative [It is bread and wine which we take ●nd eat and drink in the Eucharist] containeth or implieth the Negative, that [It is not Christ's flesh and blood, which the bread and wine is transubstantiator into] I might thus instance in many more: Our Negatives are contained or imply●● in our Affirmatives which yo● hold or confess yourselves. 
So Dr. White confesseth that we cannot bring a Catalogue of those that in all ages have maintained our Negations of their corruptions, because the Corrupters were 〈◊〉 then risen up; and how should we prove that the Church opposed an error before it was hatched.   
2. I answer further, that we have express negatives also both in Scriptures and Fathers, in the main points of difference between us and the Papists We have a plain [Thou shalt not make to thyself any Graven Image, etc. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them, etc.] We have a plain [I● the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also, the● ten thousand words in a tongue] (unknown) 1 Cor. 14.19. We have a plain [See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant] Rev. 22.9. And so of the chief differences through the rest.  
3. If we had but this one point proved, that [the holy Scripture is a sufficient Rule of Faith] it fully warranteth all our Negatives wherein we differ from the Papists. For, to Believe all that is in Scripture, and that this is sufficient, will surely warrant as to exclude their additions. And we have oft proved that the first ages did maintain the Scripture sufficiency. This one answer doth fully justify us against this c●vil of the Papists. The Ancient Church and Fathers believed the Scripture and the sufficiency of that Scripture as containing all points of faith: And so do we. And so all Popish faith is excluded (Though we confess many Ceremonies and points of order ●ere then admitted as from the Church.  
4. Negatives became necessary to be expressly asserted by occasion of Heresies. And therefore who ●an wonder if many of them are never mentioned till ●hose heresies did call them out. When there was ●o man so impudent as to say that [The Pope of ●ome is the Universal Bishop and Governor of the whole Church] or that [God must be worshipped in ●n unknown tongue] or that [Images must be worshipped] who could expect that the Church should have occasion in words to express it as a part of their faith that [The Pope is not the universal Bishop; not infallible, etc.] and so of the rest? If Popery had risen sooner, it had sooner been contradicted.  
5. There may be an hundred Negatives made necessary hereafter by heresies, which it is not necessary now to put into our Creed or confessions, because they are not yet sufficiently contained or employed in the contrary Affirmatives. If Heretics arise that say that man hath seven souls; that the soul returns to be God's Essence, and was so eternally; that there are fourteen Sacraments; that Infants must take Orders; with a hundred the like; than it might be necessary for us expressly to deny these; and shall they then tell us that our Religion is new and theirs old, because we cannot prove that any did before deny theirs? So what if we could not prove that any before had said [The Pope is not the Universal Governor?] that is because there was none so shamless for six hundred years as to say he was. Whose Religion then is proved new by this, ours or theirs?  
But I shall say somewhat more to this anon in the end▪  
Obj. 3. That Religion which cannot be known 〈◊〉 having no certain test to discern it by, can be no sa●● way to salvation: But such is the Reformed Religion, therefore, etc. The Minor is proved: If they have any such test, either it is Scripture, or so●● confessions of their own: But neither of these: therefore not Scripture: For that is appealed to by many Religions, and therefore can be no proper Test to discern one of them from the rest: Besides it knows not so much as the name of the Refor●●● Protestant Religion: Not any confession: for they have no one which they agree in, but one disclaimeth what another owneth: And they have none agreed on by a General Council, or by all themselves.  
Ans 1. The Test of our Religion is the holy Scripture; This we profess jointly to be the Rule of our faith and life: To this we still Appeal, If we misunderstand it in any point, we implicitly renounce all such errors, because we explicitly in general renounce all that is contrary to the Scripture. This may be the true Test of our Religion though others falsely pre●end that theirs is more agreeable to it. Many things may be tried by the same Touchstone, and weighed by the same balance; whereof some may be currant▪ and others unfound, or light. May not the Law of the Land be the true Rule of our obedience to our Governors, though in the Rebellious or disobedient should pretend to be Ruled by the same Laws.  
2. They are not all distinct Religions which the Papists call so: Many appeal to the same Scriptures, who agree in the main concerning the sense, and disagree only in some inferior things. These are not several Religions.  
3. Our confessions do show how we understand the Scripture; wherein we agree in the main, as the Harmony of Confessions testifieth, though in some lesser things we differ.  
Obj. 4. They that have causelessly separated from all the Churches in the world are not of the true Religion nor in a safe way to Salvation: But so have the Protestants done: for they are divided both from Roman Church, the Greeks, Abassines, Armenians, and all: therefore they are not in a safe way.  
Ans. It's one thing to withdraw from some corruption of a Church and another to withdraw from the Church. 1. We that are now living did not withdraw from Rome or any of the rest: for we were never among you or under you. 2. Our Fathers withdrew not from the Church as Christian or Catholic, but from the particular corruptions of the Roman faction, in Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship; rejecting their lately usurped Tyranny, by which they would have still obliged them to sin against God. As we are commanded to withdraw from each particular Brother that walketh disorderly, so must we from a particular Church when they will be so disordered, as to Tyrannize over the universal. 3. The Church of Rome rejected us by a causeless excommunication, who were not the jure under her power. 4. We still profess ourselves of the same Church with the Greeks, Abassines, Arminians, Copties, and all others on earth that hold the Scriptures, and that so hold the Anticent Creeds or fundamentals of Christianity; as that they do not evidently subvert it again by contradictory Errors: If they hold no Errors but what may consist with a true belief of the Fundamentals in the same persons (though by an unseen consequence they may contradict them) we separate not from that Church so as to disclaim it from being a true Church: And therefore it's not true that we so separate from all the world: but as to the Local Personal Communion or presence, we dare not join with the truest Church in the least known sin: But in that respect we cannot be said to separate from the Greeks or Abassines, that we have no opportunity of Local Communion with. While all men are imperfect, one may see that Error which another seeth not: and to separate merely from a sin of one man or a Church is not simply to separate from the man or Church.  
Obj. 5. That Religion which hath no unity in itself or consistency, but is broken into many Sects, and still running further, is no safe way to salvation. But such is the Protestant Religion, therefore.  
Answ. We deny the Minor. Our Religion is one, simply one, and most consistent, and having one sure standing Rule, not subject to changes as yours is; even the word of God himself. The same Rule that the first Churches had, and the same Test by which the Christian Religion was known of old, when the Belief of the Scripture, and particularly the Ancient Creeds, and the actual Communion with the true Church, was the test of a Catholic, the one in Doctrine, the other in Communion, as freeing him from Schisms. We believe all the same Articles, and we divide not from the Catholic Church. If any depart from Scripcures as to the sense in points absolutely necessary, they cease to be of our Religion. If any depart from it in lesser things, they may yet be of the same Religion with us; but so far we disown them, if we know it. Popery hath no, sure test, or means to prevent mutation. But we have in that we fix on the Immutable Rock. If Anabaptists, Separatists, or any erroneous persons live among us, so far as they hold those errors, so far they are none of us: And if any err, whom we dare not reject, we yet reject their errors, and take them for no part of our Religion. And if this Argument hold, it will much more condemn the Romanists, who have more diversity of opinions and ways among them then the Protestants, as may in due place be showed.  
Obj. 6. That is not the true Religion nor a safe way to Heaven, which men can have no Infallible certainty of. But the Protestant Religion is such: For they all profess their Church to be fallible.  
Answ. We must distinguish between a man that May be deceived, and a man that Is deceived: And between Infallibility in the Object, and in the Subject or Intellect. And between Infallibility in the absolutely necessary points, and in some Inferior smaller matters. And so I Ans. 1. The Rule of our Religion, viz. the word of God, is Infallible, yea the only Infallible Rule of Religion: and therefore we have an Infallible, and the only Infallible Religion. 2. The weakness of the Recipient must be differenced from the Religion which hath no such weakness There is still the certainty and Infallibility of the Object, when the believer through his own weakness may be uncertain. 3. No man is Falsus actually deceived, while he believes that doctrine of our Religion, that is, the holy Scripture: And this we are certain of. 4. No Christian in sensu composito, nor no Church is fallible, or can err in the Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary. For if he do so, he ceaseth to be a Christian, and that to be a Church. 5. In sensu diviso, he that was a common believer, may Apostatise from the faith, and so may a particular Church: and therefore is fallible, but is not, as is said, Deceived, till it turn from the Infallible truth. 6. The best man or Church on earth doth know but in part, and therefore erreth in part, and therefore is fallible in part or in lower things. So that it is not the least proof of the fallibility of Scripture or the Reformed Religion, that men may Apostatise from it, or that they may stagger in Believing an Infallible Truth, or that we are fallible in lesser things. All true Believers are actually Infalliblly persuaded of the Truth of God's Word, and particularly of all things absolutely necessary.  
Obj. 7. That Religion is not true nor a safe way to heaven which wanteth many Articles of faith; But the Protestant Religion wanteth many Articles of faith: Therefore.  
Answ. 1. We must distinguish of our Religion as it is in the Professed Rule, and as it is Impressed in the minds of men: In the former respect, we say that our Religion wanteth no Article of faith: for God's perfect Word is our Religion: But in the minds of men Religion is more or less imperfect according to the strength or weakness of men's faith. 2. We must distinguish between true Articles of Faith, and false ones made by the Church of Rome, We are without the latter (but want them not) but we expect that they who call them Articles of faith, do prove them so.  
Obj. 8. Your Religion is unsafe by your own Testimony: You condemn one another: the Lutheran condemneth the Calvinist as Blasphemous, impious, and damnable: the Calvinists condemn the Lutherans: the Anabaptists both: and every sect is condemned by others: Therefore.  
Ans. 1. The Church's confessions pass no such condemnation; nor any moderate sober men. 2. If two children fall out, & call one another Bastard, they are never the more Bastards for that, nor will the father therefore call them so; else what will become of your Jesuits and Dominicans.  
Obj. 9 The very name of Lutherans, Calvinists, Protestants, do plainly express a Sect or party, different from the Name [Catholic] which denoteth the true Church which only holds the true Religion: And the very name [Reformed] is novel, and no proper title of the Catholic Church, but only a cloak for your Schism, which discloseth the novelty of your Church and way.  
Answ. 1. And of how much better signification think you, is the name [Papist] or [Romanist? You call yourselves Catholics, and we call ourselves Catholics: You scornfully call us Lutherans, and Calvinists which are names that we disclaim, and then argue from your own imposed names. Would you have us do so by you? And as for the names of Protestants, and Reform, we use them not to express the Essential nature of our Religion, but the Accidental Removal of your Corruptions. So that though Scripture or Antiquity talk not of [A Protestant, or Reformed Religion] by name, yet it commendeth to us that same Religion, which we now call [Protestant, 〈◊〉 Reformed] but than it could not so be called, because you had not then hatched your corruptions and deformities, which are presupposed to our Reformation. The man that fell among thiefs, when his wounds were healed, was a [Cured man] whereas before he was not a cured man, because not a wounded man: And yet he was the same man as before; and the Thief's ●hat wounded him would have made but a foolish ●lea, if they would have dispossessed him of his Inheritance on pretence that he is not the same man, and have proved him not the same, because he hath ●ot the same name, it being not a Cured man that owned that inheritance before.  
Obj. 10. Where the Catholic Church is, there the Catholic Religion is, and no where else: But the Catholic Church is not with you, but with us▪ For, you found us in Possession of the name and thing and then departed from us as Heretics in former ages did from the Church: Therefore it is not you but we that have the true Catholic Religion, which is the only safe way to salvation.  
Answ. 1. The Church must be known to be true and Catholic by the Religion which it owneth, and not the Religion by the Church. You begin at the wrong end: As if I would prove such a thing to be a Virtue because it is in such a man, as I esteem, when I should rather prove him to be honest and Virtuous, because that which is first, proved honesty, & Virtue dwelleth in him. 2. Did we not find the Greek, Ethiopian and other Churches in possession of the name of the Catholic Church as well as you? Yet you would dispossess them. 3. We found you in Possession of All in your own account: and all is yours if yourselves must be Judges. But in the account of the Greek, Abassine and other Churches we found you in Possession but of the name of [A Church] and not [The Church] a Part of the Church Catholic, and not the whole; a Corrupt part and not the Head, 〈◊〉 the Purest part. 4. We departed not from you as ● Church, much less as the Catholic Church, but ● corrupted: Nor do we yet deny you to be a Church but to be a sound Church or the Catholic Church.  
Concerning this and the former Queries, especially [when our Church was in all Ages before L●ther] we shall clear ourselves by giving the true state of the case, which will Justify itself.  
Christ came to be the Physician of diseased souls▪ In his Gospel he proclaimeth his office, and call them to himself for cure, and prescribeth them the means: But he takes the time of this life for the accomplishing it, and cureth no man perfectly 〈◊〉 death. His Church therefore is as an Hospital or ● City so infected, that there is not one in it that is perfectly sound: One of the deepest radical diseases is Pride, which corrupted the blood even of the Apostles themselves. So far that it broke out into such an Itch, that they could not forbear contending who should be the greatest even in the presence of Christ himself. He derides the controversy, telling them [with you it shall not be so, but he that will be great shall be the servant of all.] This disease of Pride was still alive in part, even wherever it was mortified, so that such like desires of superiority were excited by it also in the Apostles successors, the Pastors of the Church in following ages. But it came but to a troublesome Itch till Constantine's time▪ For the nails of Persecution did so claw it, that the corrupt blood was let out, and the Itch was frequently abated by the smart: But when Constantine lifted up the Bishops with honours, revenue, and the adjunction of secular power to their wills or censures, ●hen the itch turned to a plain Scab, the corrupt ●lood continuing, and the scarifying scratches of persecution ceasing. But this overspread not the whole body, the Catholic Church much less all alike: but it seized mainly upon the Clergy who should have been examples of humility and self-denial to the rest: And principally on the Clergy of the Roman Empire, and some others that they infected: But on none so much as the Bishop of Rome, and his Clergys. For Rome being the Imperial seat, and drawing to it the glory, riches, and observance of the world, the Bishop of that place must needs be accordingly magnified and observed: especially because that he being at the Emperor's ear might have pleasured or displeasured almost any Prince or Prelate in the Empire. At last by translation of much of the Glory to Constantinople, the heat of the disease was conveyed thither too, so that John of Constantinople and Gregory of Rome, contended about the Universal Supremacy: John laid the first claim to it, because he was Bishop of the Imperial ●eat. Gregory lays no claim to it himself, but contradicteth john's, pronouncing it a note of Antichrist ●o claim the title of Universal Bishop, little thinking that his own successors would have claimed it so ●oon. At last Phocas being helped by the Roman Bishop to possess the throne of his murdered Prince, doth help the Pope to the Title of Universal Bishop, ●nd the glory and strength of Constantinople abating, Rome did the more easily hold what they had go●. By this time the Seab was turned to a Leprosy, which drew on many other concomitant diseases a● its symptuous: The rest of the Church was some of it infected with some of the foresaid Scab, some more 〈◊〉 some less, and some of them still were only troubled with the old itch, though none perfectly sou● nor was that to be expected; much of the Western parts comply with their Leprous Patriarch, and ●●mit to him while he calls himself Universal Bishop and Head of the Catholic Church, some conse●● some say nothing though they descent, and inde●● the power was got into his hand, so that for fear ● persecution few durst contradict, and specially whe● they saw no likelihood of doing good: Yet some i● all Ages even under his nose, did signify their disl●●● and offer some help to the cure. At last in Luther● days whole Countries do withdraw from the Roman Leprosy (as thousands called Albigenses, W●●denses, etc. had done before them) and so free themselves from the infection, and get off the very scab and make fair attempts for the Cure of the very itch. Now what doth the Roman Clergy, but cry out after us as Heretics and Schismatics, and as●● us [where was our Church before Luther?] and who were of our Religion till then? We answer them that if they have the Leprosy, and the times before them had (in most parts) the scab, and the former times the itch, cannot we prove that we are Men as well as they, unless we prove that we have the Leprosy, Scab, or Itch as they had? Are these Essential or Integral parts of a man? As humane nature is still with a Leper, but Leprous; and still with him that hath the Scab, but scabbed: so our Religion and Church was at Rome and still is, but Leprous since the Usurpation before mentioned: It was before that at I●●●e, but forely scabbed: It was before that Rome troubled with the itch: It is still in Greece, Abassia, and other parts, but somewhat scabbed: is in millions of the people free from that scab, ●ho in all Ages disliked the Clergies usurpations: ●●ough we cannot expect to hear this from them in a ●eneral Council, where they are not to be. But ●e take the people to be a true part of the Church. ●e have separated from you as from Lepers, not from the Dead. We bury not your title of a church or Christians, so you will add [Leprous] ●nd a Leprosy proves most commonly a kill dis●●se. We have reason to secure ourselves from our infection, though our love to you were never ● dear.  
So that here's the quarrel; and here's our defence. ● all Christ's Hospital in the Western part of the ●orld, have much increased the disease that he would ●ave cured them of; it doth not follow that any man ●●at is cured of their Leprosy, ceaseth presently to ●e a man, that he that is reform of those vices, ceaseth to be a member of the Catholic Church: ●r that such Reformed Churches are new things that ●ere not before: The Reformation may be new as ●o the latter Ages since corruption prevailed, but ●●e Religion or Church-state is not new. It's a sad case ●ith the Church when its corruptions are come to be ●●counted of its essence, so that he that will not re●ine the corruptions, must not be accounted to be a ●hristian or a Catholic at least, and he that will be ●ured must be accounted to be killed; The Church ●as a Church before it catcht the Romish Scab or Leprosy, and therefore is a Church where that is cu●ed; and I think far better without it, then with ●t.  
By all this therefore it evidently appeareth that a Papists do most vainly charge us with novelty 〈◊〉 call for a Catalogue ● the professors of our Religion, 
How far we account the Church of Rome a true Church▪ and yet the Papacy no true Church. See Junius in his exact book de Ecclesia Cant. Bellarm. oper. Vol. 2. col. 1019. And the judgement of several of our Divines by Bishop Hall in his Defence against Burton.  when the no●ty is theirs, and themselves do yet profess ● Religion, though to ● they have added th● corrupting Leprosed Though we cannot ●●der take to prove that th● Church was perfect (nor never will be, till it co● to heaven) yet we have oft proved that it was ma● Ages without their Popery, and are ready to undertake the further proof: Of which the next Disp●●tion shall give you a taste.  
There is a Railing Pamphlet extant, called [● brief confutation of certain absurd, heretical 〈◊〉 damnable doctrines, delivered by Master James Usher in a Sermon preached before King James at Wanste● Jun. 20. 1624.] The Author calls himself Paul● Veridicus: Its printed at St Omers, 1627. Because take the same way against the Romanists as this Reverend Bishop of Armagh taketh, and hath led me i● that Sermon, I think myself the more obliged 〈◊〉 consider of what is said against it.  
The first onset of this Mr Maledious, pag. 9.10, 11▪ Is against our assertion that we are of the same Re●gion, and Church as the Grecians, Egyptians, Christians, Aethiopians, etc. and that all these are not ● be damned as Heretics and unchurched, because they ●re not subjects of the Pope. To this 1. He confesses that even the Greeks themselves are not sub●ect to the Pope; and that [they soon departed ●om the (seeming) union made in the Council of ●●lorence, about the year 1439.] 2. He confesseth ●at their doctrine about the Procession of the Holy ●host a patre per silium and not a patre filioque, was ●ch, that [when they had explicated it they were ●und to believe very Orthodoxly and catholicly in ●e same matter, and for such were admitted.] ●. He affirmeth that [he findeth not that in any substantial point they do descent from the Roman catholic Church, excepting the matter of Primacy.] Let us first observe the consequences of this much. ●. From hence it followeth that the Greek Churches ●e guilty of no Heresy, but non subjection to the ●ope of Rome. 2. And that therefore indeed they ●re no Heretics. 3. And therefore it is not of necessity to the being of a Church or Catholic Chri●ian to be subject to the Pope: And that the Pope ●r Roman Church is not to enter the definition of ●he Catholic Church: for as the Greeks may be Ca●holikes without subjection to Rome, so may others▪ ●. And therefore they are no General Counsels ●here all those Churches are absent, as at Trent, Constance, etc. And that its a false excuse of Bellar●ine and the rest, to say that the Greeks and the rest ●re Heretics or Schismatics. 5. And therefore it declareth to all the world, both that the Popish deign and Religion is carnal and selfish, to exalt themselves above the whole Church of God, and also that they are more than barbarously tyrannical censorious, and most extremely schismatical, that will presume to cut off from Christ and the Church, the greatest part of the Christi●● in the world, even those that themselves confess ● be in all other things Orthodox, and that me●● because they will not be the Pope's subjects. ● now proceed to the next.  
The substance of his Answer consisteth of t●● gross untruths in a public matter of fact, wher● many millions of men are able at the first hearing ● prove him a bold false witness, making falsehood ● prop of his ill cause. The first untruth which ● layeth down, is that the Grecians do claim that ●●preamacy to their own Patriarch of Constantinople which they deny the Pope: and therefore if it be h● it is as bad in them as the Papists, and so they are ● Protestant's. To which I say, it is not true: whatever any private or particular man may say, its we● known that it's not true of their Church in comm●● nor found in any of their Church confessions, ● utterly and ordinarily disclaimed by them. Though John of Constantinople did claim the title of Universal Bishop because of the Emperor's residence there yet did he not get it, much less to be the Universal Governor, and yet much less is it now claimed wh● the Christian Empire is removed. To be Episc●p● prima sedis is as much as is desired by the Patriarc● himself; which yet he is content to leave, and ta●● the second place, though neither of them concerns an Universal Episcopacy.  
Can they read such books ● Nilus' 
* You may see it in Mich G●ld●stus d● Monarch. pag● 30. Tom. 1.  Archbishop of Thessalonica de primatu Pa● Parham, and many other of the Greeks, and yet belie●● themselves in these fictions? Why do we read or hear nothing from the Patriache of Constantinople in●iting and persuading us all to submit to his Government, as we and all the Christian world almost have ●een solicited by the Pope's Emissaries to submit our ●elves to him? A short Reply may serve to such immodest false assertions as this nicknamed Veri●ieus maketh the chiefest part of his confutation.  
The second untruth which constituteth this part of ●is answer, is, that [The Grecians, Moscovites, and Egyptians do in one only point dissent from Rome, and ●n no point at all agree with the Protestants sin quan●um such, and descent from their Catholic Church.]  
This one great falsehood containeth two not small ones in it, and each of those two contain abundance more.  
1. That all these Churches differ from you in no one point but the Pope's supreamacy is a falsehood beyond all modesty. For besides the supremacy they believe not your pretended Infallibility, nor do they pretend to the like of their own: They believe not your Purgatory: they own not your pardons for easing the pains of Purgatory, nor prayers for the dead to that end; nor the application of the treasury of the Saints Merits to that end, or for satisfaction to the Justice of God. They own not your Transubstantiation: They have the Scripture in their known languages: They worship God in their Liturgies in their known languages, the Moscovites in the Moscovian tongue, the Georgians in the Iberick; the Arabians in the Arabic; and so the Carmanians, Slavonians, Greeks in theirs: They administer the Eucharist in both kinds, and detest your Sacrilegious withholding of the cup: They reject your confirmation: so do they your extreme Unction▪ They admit Priests to live with their wives which were married before ordination: They reject t●e Religious use of graven Images or Statues: They teach that the holy Scriptures are a sufficient and perfect rule of faith: they believe that they should not be locked up from the people: They maintain that God is to be worshipped in understanding, and they a●hor your praying by Beads and tale: They think not to wash away sin or drive away the devil by holy water: They take not Traditions to be one part of God's Word, necessary to supply the defects of Scripture; but take them and Church customs and constitutions to be only for matters of order and determination of such circumstances as it belonged not to the perfection of God's Laws, to determine, but were to be left to the wisdom of Governors; the Scriptures containing sufficient for salvation: They believe with the Protestants that Justification is not by the Merit of works: And that it is impossible for us properly to Merit ex condigno the least mercy, much less the Kingdom of Heaven at the hands of God: They have but one order of Monks, viz. of St Basil, and those not such as the Papists; that live a private, unprofitable, droanish life; but their Monasteries are as Colleges to fit them for the service of God in the Church, and thence they oft proceed to be Priests and Prelates: They take your Pope to be condemnable for his pride, cruelty and presumption: his pride for pretending to an universal jurisdiction, and usurping a power to depose Princes and dispose of their Crowns: his cruelty in persecuting other Christians for their differing judgements: and his presumption in granting pardons and deliverances from Purgatory. In a word they take the Papists for Schismatics and accordingly condemn them with a solemn condemnation. The Muscovites and Russians admit not Priests or Deacons to Ordination unless they be married: and they refuse to communicate with the Roman Church. The Egyptian Christians allow not of Baptism in any necessity whatsoever but only by the Priest and in the Church, and administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds: they give not the Lord's Supper or extreme unction to the sick. They deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead: They marry in the second degree of consanguinity without dispensations: They elevate not the host: They reject all the general Counsels after that of Ephesus: They repute the Papists to be Heretics, and avoid their communion no less than of the Jews: Most of these also is common to the Abassines, who also admit Marriages of Priests and Bishops, and eat flesh on Fridays, communicate standing in both kinds.  
Are all these nothing? What, no one difference, with this Popish Veridicus? I will not desire him to take my word for all this, because I will not take his for the contrary, nor will I turn him to any Protestant for satisfaction, unless he will better use that one which himself citeth (Sands Relation of the West. Relig. or Europae Specul. p. 234. etc.) But I may with reason entreat him to believe his own brethren the Papists, and the Greeks themselves: And in some of them he may see many more differences than I have here named: For example in their Possevin. de Rebus Moscov. at large. See also Concil. Florent. Sess. 18. Jerem. Patriarch. Const. in Resp. 1. ad Germ. Zonar. Ann●l. T●m. 3. in Imper. Leo. Nilus de Primate. Papae. ●a●lam de Primatu Papae. figebert in Chron. ad 〈◊〉 1054. Leo & Epist. ad Episcop. Constant. Jacob ● Vitriaco histor. Orient. Sigism. de Rebus Musc●. Guagu. descript. Muscov. Saecram de Errorib. ●●the●. Boleri. Relat. Thom. a Jes. Conver. Gent. G●iliel. de Rubri. Itiner. Tartar. Oforius de Reb. Emanuel. Saligniac. Itiner. Alphons. a Castro contr. Haeres. Damian a Goes. Prateol. de Haerefib. Alvarez hister. Ethiop. (which yet have much falsehood) Gui● sum●. de Haerefib. Burchardus Descript. te●●. Sanct.  
If our confuter cannot have leisure to read all these, let him only read Thom. a Jes. & Possevin. de●eb. Moscov. & Apparat. Sacra. and see to his shame what his own friends say against his falsehoods.  
And that all these Christians are as considerable as all the Papists in the world, far over matching them for number, is apparent: Much more when we add to the Grecians and Moscovites, and Copti's, all the Syrians, the Georgians, the Indians of Saint Thomas the Abassines, the Nestorians, the Jacobits, the Armenians, and the Maronites, and to them as Protestants, where then is the Papists Universality, and how few are they comparatively, and how plainly do they play the Donatists (but that it is on a far worse ground?)  
The Patriarch of Constantinople alone hath under him in Asia (as Brierwood noteth) the Christians of Anatolia (excepting Armenia the less and Cilicia) of Circassia, of Mengrelia, and of Russia: And in Europe also the Christians of Greece, Macedon, Epirus Thrace, Bulgaria, Rascia, Sextia, Bosnia, Walachia, Moldavia, Podolia, and Muscovia (till lately) together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea, and others about Greece, as far as Corfu, with much more.  
And as is noted in Curopalat. de Offic. Palas. Constant. & office Mag. Eccl. he hath under him, The Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; 2. Ephesus, 3. Heraclea, 4. Ancyra, 5. Cizicum, 6. Sardis, 7, Nicomedia, 8. Nice, 9 Chalcedon, 10. Mitylene, 11. Thessalonica, 12. Laodicea, 13. Synadae, 14. Iconium, 15. Corinth, 16. Athens, 17. Patrae, 18. Trapezuntium, 19 Larissae, 20 Naupactus, 21. Adrianopolis. These are all Archbishops, and have many Bishops under them, viz. Of Muscovy 17. of Larissae 13. of Athens 11. of Corinth 10. of Tessalonica 9 etc.  
And if these be under the Patriarch of Constantinople alone, how great a number are all the rest in the great Empire of the Abassines, and elsewhere through the rest of the Christian world?  
I do not mention all these to intimate either that multitudes prove them or any to have the best cause, if we were in all things of their minds, or as if I preferred them for Arts and Civil Policy to the Romans, but to show both the haniousness of the Popish Schism that would unchurch so many, and the cruelty of their censures that would damn so many, and the Impudence of their pretence of Universality, and their vain boasting of [All the Church] when they are so small a part of the Church, and more bad than small.  
But we have been too long on this: let us come to the confuters next untruth; and that is [That the Grecians, etc. do in no one point agree with Protestants as such] what hath been said doth sufficiently shame that fiction.  
But he instanceth in our differences: And 1. he saith [The Grecians hold one supreme head of the whole Church under Christ] Repl. An immodest fiction to uphold a cause that's like it.  
2. He saith [The Grecians hold the Real presence of our Saviour's body and blood in the Eucharist] Repl. not Transubstantiation; which they deny: The But Protestants do hold some kind of Real presence.  
3. He saith [The Grecians defend the necessity of Baptism to salvation, and that Original sin is remitted thereby] Repl. And the Protestants hold it necessary necessitate praecepti, and as an ordinary means where it can be had: And neither the Greeks nor all your own dare damn all Infants that die before Baptism, when it could not be had; but you say that the Votum may serve turn. And also Protestants hold that if the Infants be within the Covenant, as it pardoneth their Original sin primarily, so Baptism pardoneth it by way of obsignation and solemn conveyance: But what is all this to your error that Original sin is not only remitted, but quite extinct or done away out of our natures by Baptism; so that the new baptised Infant, is perfectly without any Radical sin, as well as without the Gild of it?  
4. He saith [They say that works do justify with faith: You not] Repl. They say that we are not justified by the Merit of Works, but by the alone Merit of Christ; and so do we. We deny not in every sense that [we are Justified by Works, and not by faith only] for in James his sense we maintain it; else we should deny the Scripture: The question is not therefore absolutely, whether we are Justified by Works? but, In what sense we are, and in what not? We say that Christ is the only Satisfier of God's Justice and Meriter of Righteousness; and that Faith is the only Receiving Condition; and that the Works of the Law that Paul excludeth have no hand in it; and that the Works of Grace which James takes in, are but conditions without which our Justification (begun without them) shall not be continued, and of our final Absolution or Justification in Judgement; and so are but a Particular, and not an Universal or Legal Righteousness. (Of which I have given a full account in my Confession.)  
5. He saith [They maintain Freewill, even in the best actions. You not] Repl. Freewill is either 1. Natural; which is but its self-determining power, with spontaneity; and this we deny not (For who denyeth man to be man, and to have the Facultatem Volendi?) Or it is, 2. Moral, and that is 1. Political, when a Governor gives the subject leave to do a thing; and so we maintain that God giveth our Wills Freedom to all good, and to no evil: Or 2. Ethical, which is nothing but the right inclination and Habits of the will with the absence of the contrary Habits: And so we say that, the better men are, the Freer, that is, the better are their Wills: And the unconverted have not this Freewill: nor the converted in perfection till they come to Glory: For the Freedom is the Goodness. And seeing the Will so far Free Ethically as it is Good, Virtuous or Holy, the Question than is, Whether every man's Will be Good and Holy? which I am conceited you will not dare to affirm. A covetous man, a drunkard, ●● ungodly man, is as much or more denominated such, from the habit as from the act: he is most vicious that is Habitually so: To say therefore that such a man's Will is Free in this Ethical sense is to say that he is habitually no covetous man, no drunkard, no ungodly man no sinner: which being contrary to unquestionable experience, me thinks should be easily deserted. If you know of any thing else called Freewill besides these three before mentioned, we should be glad to know it too. The natural Essential Freedom, viz. A spontaneous self-determining power, we all confess: The Political Freedom, yea and obligation none denyeth: The Ethical Freedom, that is, Virtuous or holy Inclinations in wicked men, you will deny yourselves; where then is the difference between us and either the Greeks or you.  
Why you'll say, perhaps, that it's here, That we deny the will to have that Indifferency which you affirm, as to opposite objects. But we are loath to sight with you in the Dark. Do you mean by Indifferency an Indifferency of Natural Power, or an indifferency of inclination or Habit? The first we do not deny: The will is a natural faculty that hath naturally no determination to One, where many means are propounded, but is undetermined, and hath a natural Power to determine itself to either: But yet you know the Wills Natural Power is exercised according to inclining Objects and Habits: And you cannot expect that men who are Habitually in●ined earthwards, should Will Heavenly things and ●●nounce earthly things, merely because they have a natural Power of choosing: for they want that in●●ination, which is called commonly the Moral ●ower: And I should suppose that in regard of this ●oral Power, you will not affirm yourselves that he ●ath indifferentiam ad oppositum? To say that a man's ●ill is indifferently inclined to Good and to Evil, ● to say that the man is habitually neither good nor ●ad, unless as privation of due inclinations denominate him bad. I say the more of this, 
Dr. IT.  because I find others of your party, and ●ome that seem to disown both you and us (as a late Treatise of Repentance among others can witness) ●o harp so much on this string, and confusedly talk ●f Freewill before they tell us what they mean, and ●o persuade the world that we teach that God hath ●aid such a natural necessity on man to sin as he hath ●o eat and drink and sleep, and that God might as well damn men for being hungry or sleepy, as for being sinful in our sense! As if there were no more faultiness in a vicious disposition of the Will itself, then in a necessary natural inclination or Appetite of those faculties which were never made to rule themselves, but to be moderated by the Will of Reason. It may be these men will either deny the truth of the words of the Holy Ghost, that They that are accustomed to do evil cannot learn to do well no more than a Leopard can change his spots, or a Blackamoor his skin; or else they will think such men excusable because they are so strongly inclined to evil; and so if a man habituated to Lust shall vitiate their wives, or a man habituated to malice shall beat them often, or maim them, or kill their friends, they may think that he deserveth 〈◊〉 punishment but pity, because he is so bad that 〈◊〉 could not (morally, that is, he would not) 〈◊〉 it.  
But they say, we teach that men's Wills have a necessity of sinning imposed on them. But we h●●● learned that Habits do not determine the Will nationally, nor always infallibly, but leave it free to a ●●tural self-determination: But yet we know that 〈◊〉 ordinarily determineth itself according to predominant habits. And there must be somewhat extraordinary to procure the Will to determine itself 〈◊〉 good where it is habitually inclined to evil. So much may serve to vindicate our Doctrine about Freewill▪ And as for the cause of its captivity, it belongs no● to this subject to speak of it, but to that of Original sin (where the said Doctor so notably plays his part) to which we shall not now digress.  
The next instance of the Papist is this [They (i●● the Greeks maintain) seven Sacraments, you not.] Repl. 1. This is another very immodest untruth: I wonder that men dare venture their souls upon a Religion that must be thus upheld by falsehoods. Your own Writers before alleged, witness that the Greeks deny the very use of confirmation and extreme Unction: and how then can they account them Sacraments! Nor do they take Marriage for a prop●● Sacrament. 2. We cannot dispute this point wi●● you upon the bare name; Give us the definition of a Sacrament, and we shall give you our Reply. As a Sacrament signifieth any Christian mystery, or mysterious Ordinance signifying some spiritual thing, we doubt not but there are more than seven Sacraments, but not as it signifieth, an instituted sign, to seal the Covenant of Grace, and exhibit its great benefits. Calvin hath yielded to you, that in a ●●rger sense Ordination is a Sacrament.  
He next addeth [They say that Christ died for all mankind; You say not, but only for the Elect.] Repl. ●till more confusion, do not your own Schoolmen ●nd other Divines say that he died, for All men sufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually? And 〈◊〉 do we! where then is the difference? Not so much 〈◊〉 this point as in another conjunct: You say that ●●s man's freewill, that is the chief differencing ●ause, in making Christ's death effectual for the sal●ation of the Elect; and we deny it, and say that 〈◊〉 is God's special Grace. 2. Do not you know that about this and the former point of Freewill, you differ as much among yourselves, and that we say ●o more than your Dominicans do (no nor so much 〈◊〉 the point of predetermination.) 3. Do you not ●now that half the Protestants (those whom you ●all Lutherans) do hold universal Redemption as well as you? Be it right or wrong therefore you ●hould not impute the contrary to all.  
We say that it was the sins of all mankind and not only of the Elect that lay upon Christ in his ●uffering: and that God as Legislator of the old violated Law hath received a sufficient satisfaction for ●ll, and that hereupon a conditional Pardon is granted to all by a Law of Grace, and that the condition 〈◊〉 but their Acceptance of what is freely offered (according to its nature and use) and that all and only ●hey that perform this condition shall have Actual pardon and salvation. But then we do not say, that Christ did equally intend the procurement of the performance of this condition: but that he giveth some an inseparable special Grace which shall infallib●● procure it, which he doth not to others, who y● have so much as shall leave them in their own consciences and at his bar without any just excuse. I pra● you show us next what the Greeks say more than th●● In particular that Reverend man against whom y●● write hath an excellent M.S. abroad for Universe Redemption.  
The next feigned difference between us and th● Greek is this [They confess that God hath given sufficient Grace to every one to be saved: You 〈◊〉 but only to the Elect] Repl. You again wrong them show us where they say so if you can. You own th● Doctrine yourselves it seems; and thereby discover your enmity to Grace; Do you think that every child, ignorant sot, or wicked person ha● Grace sufficient to salvation? If he have sufficient, either he needs no more, or he may be saved without more. And then it seems converting Grace i● needless to an Infidel, for he hath enough already: than it seems, you will be beholden to God for no more Grace after the first hour of your conversion, nay after the first hour of your life or use of reason, to your death. For if you had sufficient for salvation the first hour, then what need you any more▪ you will it seems pray God to keep it to himself, for you have enough already. I will tell you what th● Greeks and we, and some of yourselves hold, th●● is, that every man hath so much Grace (th●● is, Help and Mercy contrary to Merit) as is in ● own kind sufficient to make him better than he is, and to bring him nearer to Christ or salvation, and which his own will is obliged to make effectual by ● right entertainment and improvement, and might do: But we do not say that all men have sufficient ●race to believe to justification, or sufficient to sal●●tion; nay we say that no Believer hath sufficient grace to salvation, till the soul pass from the body: ●r still he hath need of preserving Grace to the last ●eath. Men that are at a great distance from Christ ●ay have sufficient Grace to come near to him; ●d justly perish if they refuse or abuse such Grace, ●ough they never had Grace sufficient to believe; because it is their own fault that they had it ●ot.  
The next pretended difference, is [They pray and ●er Sacrifice for the dead: You not] Repl. I will see ●our proof of this too, before I will believe you. ●e know they do it not in the Popish sense, that for delivering souls out of the fire of Purgatory, because they deny such a state. If you will read this reverend Bishop whom you oppose in his Answer to ●e Jesuits challenge, on that point, you will see ●e difference between the Ancients (and so the ●reeks) praying for the dead and yours.  
He addeth [They invocate Saints and Angels; you ●ot] Repl. Of this also see Bishop Usher in the fore●ted place. We take this for their error: and we ●o not take ourselves to be of a different Church or religion from every one that erreth.  
He next addeth [They worship the Cross and Images: you not] Repl. But they do it not as many of ●ours, with Divine worship. Their worship is but reverence for the Relation sake; and they will not so ●uch as use any Statues or Graven Images as you ●o. And do not those you call Lutherans, do as ●hey in this (though how rightly I say not?)  
He adds [They honour relics: you not] Rep. 〈◊〉 honour them as far as they have any true Relation 〈◊〉 any honourable person. But we will not therefore carry them about us to keep away the Devil, 〈◊〉 forge a multitude of lies about the cures which the miraculously perform: Nor do the Greeks so far 〈◊〉 I know or hear.  
The next is [They maintain Traditions: you 〈◊〉] Repl. They renounce your Traditions which are pretended to be part of God's Word, supplying the ●●fects of Scripture which is but the other half: 〈◊〉 they maintain the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation. And some Traditions both they and we maintain As the Tradition of the Scriptures themselves do 〈◊〉 to our hands; the Tradition of the Sum of Chri●●●anity in the Creed and Baptism, etc. Of which 〈◊〉 what I have said elsewhere, in the Preface to the seco●● part of the Saints Rest Edit. 2. etc. And in the determination in a book called, The unreasonableness 〈◊〉 Infidelity: And see what the Bishop, whom you oppose hath said against the Jesuit on Tradition.  
The next is [They Auricular confession: you not▪] Rep. 1. The Christians that deny your communion are divided in this: These called Nestorians and ●●ny more deny Auricular Confession: and others 〈◊〉 it. 2. We deny not ourselves, but that it is the duty 〈◊〉 Christians when sin lieth on their consciences, 〈◊〉 when they have fallen into it, and know not the wa● out again to have recourse to their faithful judicious Guides for advice herein for the safety of their sou●● and so far to confess as is necessary to such advice a●● safety. But we do not believe that we are bound to tell the Priest of every sin, no nor of every ●●●●ous sin: for in some cases we may have a fitter cure▪ will not go to a Pyhsician for every prick of a pin, ● cut finger, which many neighbours or myself can ●re as well as he: I will not so far needlessly trouble ●m: Nor will I go to a bad unfaithful Physician, ●hen I can have a better; nor yet to an ignorant ●an, because he hath got the degree of a Doctor of physic, when I may go to an able man that pro●sseth not Physic. You know the Application.  
Its next said [They evangelical counsels and works ● supererrogation: You not] Rep. We acknowledge ●hat there are many very good works. 1. Which ●re the duty of some few Christians upon some special occasions, and not of all or most. 2. Which are so ●he duty of those few, as that yet many of them are ●aved that perform them not; being not made of the ●ame necessity to salvation as some other duties are. And we see not how any man can reasonably imagine, ●hat there is any work more excellent than others, which yet is not a duty; when God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart, and might, and strength; and to employ all talents to the utmost for his Glory: and that any Duty can be neglected without sin, is as absurd. How the Greeks and we differ in this, we shall better know when you show and prove it to us  
He next adds [They the Merit of good Works: you not] We acknowledge, that Good Works are pleasing to God through Christ, and rewardable; and they say in sense no more: We think not meet to quarrel about the mere name. They renounce and abhor the Popish Merit of condignity ex proportione operis; as is before said.  
In the next place the confuter allegeth his proofs of all these differences from us, and consent with them. The first proof is out of Act. Theolog. Witte●berg. in Crispin. de statu Eccles. in these words [Th● Greek and Roman Church are divided only in the controversy of Primacy, and variety of Ceremony] Rep●. I have not Crispinius now by me, and therefore 〈◊〉 make no other answer but this, that if he be truel● alleged, yet 1. Abundance of great differences (〈◊〉 about Sacraments, Orders, Traditions, etc.) may be comprised in that of Ceremony. 2. Else your own Writers will tell you that this is a mistake.  
His second proof is from Sir Edwin Sands Europ● Specul. To which I say 1. How unworthily did you conceal the multitude of differences mentioned in the same Author in the same place between you and th● Greeks, and say there was but one? 2. By Purgatory Sands tells you after he means not your Purgatory: And it's known the Greeks deny it: Though they think that the Saints have some less degree of glory distant from the face of God before the resurrection. 3. About Transubstantiation and the M●ss Sands is mistaken. The Greeks hold a kind of Real presence, but not Transubstantiation: And the Mass of the Papists doth abundantly differ from theirs (as in the denial of Transubstantiation, elevation, etc. may appear, and is at large by many of ours expressed, which may save me the labour of a recital.)  
Next the ignorant Priest would by a Syllogism prove the Bishop a Papist, and in the making of his Syllogism he is out before he could reach the conclusion, and begins again, and yet would not blot out his former error, so wary is he that he lose not a line of his own writing. The mended Syllogism is his [Those who embrace the Communion of the Graecian Church notwitstanding the error of supremacy, cannot in reason refuse the Communion of the Roman ●or the same: But Mr. Ushers Church embraceth the Communion of the Greek Church notwithstanding that Error: Therefore, etc.] Repl. 1. To the Major it is falsely supposed that we refuse your Communion for ●hat Error alone: It is for that with abundance more. 2. To the Minor, I answer by denying it: and say you shamelessly slander the Greek Church: They maintain not any Power of Governing the whole Church as the head of it, and Christ's Vicar general, nor any infallibility, etc. as you do.  
Next he will prove that Mr. Ushers Church can have no Union or Communion with the Greek Church at all: and that by this Syllogism [That Church which is a member of another Church, that other Church must also be a member of it: But the Greek Church is no member of Mr. Ushers Church: therefore Mr. Ushers is no member of the Greek Church.] The Minor he proveth from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople and Respons. Basil. Ducis Moscov. Rep. 1. The part is not a part of another part, a member is not a member of another coordinate member; but of the whole. 2. I say the proofs of your Minor are vain. It is not two men's sayings that ●an make the Greek Church and the Protestants so disjoined as not to be members of the Universal Church. If Italy tell France, and France again tell Italy that they are no part of Europe, it is not therefore true. If Canterbury tell York that they are not a part of England, it is not therefore true. Every child is not a Bastard that is so called by an angry brother. If Patriarch Jeremiah fit yo●● turn (which I know not, for I have not seen him) why may not we as well plead the consent of Pat●iarch Cyrill, whose Protestant confession you may see in Alstedius' Euclucopaedia, and elsewhere?  
Next he comes to the Abassines, where (after the mention of their circumcision) he as falsely affirmeth, that [In all other things they profess the faith of the Catholic Church acknowledging the Pope the supreme head thereof, and Christ's Vicar upon earth] which he proves by a confession exhibited to Gregory the 13. and recorded by Possevine. Rep. This is to make the foundation like the superstructure, and defend falsehood with falsehood: If you were so ignorant yourselves as not to know the Roman juggling about that confession, you could not imagine the learned Bishop so ignorant. Not only your own Godigam de rebus Abassinorum, may tell you, but the generality, of your faction may sure inform you by this time, that all your cunning industry cannot get the Abassines under your Papal Yoke. And if you should prevail for the time to come, that's nothing to the time past. The Abassines (to let pass their errors wherein they differ from you and us) do communicate in both kinds, they believe the souls of Infants departing unbaptised to be saved because they spring from faithful parents: They reject Statues ●● massy Images: They elevate not the Sacrament, nor reserve it after Communion: Their Priests, labour, but beg not: The Emperor conferreth Bishoprics and Benefices: They use no confirmation nor extreme unction: They admit a first marriage in Bishops and Priests: They eat flesh on Fridays. And yet this man saith they differ not from them.  
The second Chapter is the mere ebullition of foolish malice, deserving no reply to those that do not desire to be deceived. He would prove that according to these lax principles of our charity, we may agree with Jews, Turks, Mahometans! As if we needed a dispute to prove that these are no Christians, and that the Greeks, Abassines, etc. are: But such disputes do the Papists put us upon.  
The Bishop had concluded in his Sermon, that [If we should survey the several professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world, and put by the points wherein they differ one from another, and gather into one body the rest of the Articles wherein all generally agree, we should find so much truth in them, as being joined with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation; neither have we cause to doubt but as many as do walk according to this rule, neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation, Peace shall be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God.]  
And what hath the Confuter to say against this? Why first he begins with the Sacraments, to try whether those commonly agreed on may save. And here he first tells us, that [Some Churches are for seven, some for three, and some for two, ●●d no more: therefore here is no agreement] Rep. 1. Le● the nominal differences about the word Sacrament be first laid by (unless you think that word necessary to salvation) and then we shall the better see what real difference remaineth. 2. The two Sacraments than are confessed by all, and the use of the rest which you call Sacraments: This much (in its own place) then may save, where no more is confessed. 3. You vainly put in the exclusion of more, for that's none of the things that all agree on: All agree that there are two Sacraments: and those may save. But all agree not that there is but two. This man therefore seems to dote; when he should gather up the common agreements according to the Bishop's proposal, he gathers up the disagreements, or vainly pretendeth that we agree in nothing. What, do not you confess that Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments? and do not we do so too?  
Next he comes to the use of Baptism, and saith that [The Romans and Greeks, say, that there is no other use of baptism but to wash away sin: The Protestants of England and Geneva say, that it is no laver of Regeneration at all, but only a seal of Gods promise made to the party baptised: and that the child unbaptised may be saved and the baptised damned.] Repl. 1. You make yourselves (much more the Greeks) worse than you are. Do not your own maintain that Baptism admitteth into the Church and granteth many other privileges, besides washing away sin. 2. We say, that to the children of promise it doth secondarily and by obsignation wash away (or pardon) sin by way of obsignation and solemn exhibition, as the promise doth primarily as a deed of gift or legal Grant: as also that in the same way it secondarily conveyeth further Grace according to the capacity of the subject, and admitteth into the Church. And all this is commonly confessed by yourselves and all Christians of the Greek or Abassine Churches, etc. This much alone without your additions is as much (at least) as is necessary to salvation, to be believed concerning baptism.  
Next he cometh to the Lords Supper, and saith, that one party holdeth the real presence and the other not? And what of this? Doth that prove the insufficiency of what all are agreed on? what we hold, you deny not: We hold the signifying, and sealing and exhibiting use of the Sacrament (though we deny Transubstantiation) And dare you deny these? We hold that it is the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood offered once on the Cross for the sins of the world: and that it is a means of Church-communion: And dare you deny these? Lay by your Additions, and that which we are all agreed in is enough to salvation.  
His next instance is about Faith; Because we say, that Historical faith may be in Devils, and Miraculous faith in the wicked, and Calvin defineth justifying faith to be a firm and certain knowledge of the love of God to us, etc. and the Lutherans, that it is an undoubted persuasion of the pardon of our sins and adoption, etc. and this faith is by the Council of Trent condemned to the pit of hell, therefore he concludeth that there is no saving faith common to Papists and Protestants.  
Repl. Here again you vainly and fallaciously bring in the disagreements, and over pass the agreements. 1. We are agreed that all those which the Protestants call the Canonical books of Scripture are the word of God: and true, and particularly all the Articles of the Creed, and many things more: We are agreed that Christ and life is offered by the Universal promise in the Gospel to all that hear it: and that all must first believe the truth of this promise and then heartily consent to the offer and accept the benefit, and also believe and fear the threatening, and join sincere love and obedience to all this. This we are all agreed in: And this is certainly saving to all that sincerely believe and do as they thus profess. But then, whether Historical faith be common or not? whether assurance or strong persuasion of pardon, be faith, or justifying faith, with other the like, these we are not agreed in; and without these we may be saved.  
The next exception is only this, The Bishop tells us not what be those Heresies that destroy this common faith. Rep. And doth that cross his former charitable conclusion? What? because he undertakes not an alien task? Why in general, they are any thing that is so held as that the common Articles of faith cannot be held with it, and that practically.  
The sum of the next passage, is this [That its absurd for us to call them the true Church, or say they may be saved, when we have charged them with so much error and idolatry, &c] Repl. 1. We only say that you are a polluted part of the Church. 2. If your salvation be made so difficult by your errors look you to that: The Bishop's conclusion (of the sufficiency of the communiter credita) is nevertheless sound, though you destroy yourselves by your corrupt additions. 3. Multitudes among you believe not your Infallibility, Transubstantiation, and many the like errors. 4. Many that behold them as opinions speculatively, may yet hold the contrary truths practically, not discerning the contradiction.  
I would gladly have showed the vainty of the rest of that Pamphlet, because I see he hath contracted most of their common cavils into a narrow room; but the rest is less to our present purpose, and the same things are already answered by many; and therefore I shall no further Digress in the pursuit of this Confuter, having already said so much against the chief of their objections, as may leave the impartial Reader confirmed in it, That notwithstanding the Popish cavils to the contrary, it is apparent, that the Christian Catholic Reform Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to Salvation.   

Query. Whether Popery be a safe way to Salvation? Neg.  
IT is not as other men's Judges that we determine this Question; to their own master do they stand or fall: but it is to render an account of our own Belief and practice, and for our further confirmation in the truth for the defence of it against gainsayers, and for the establishing of our people against the sophistry and seduction of Deceivers.  
For the explication of the terms, I shall tell you 1. What I mean by Popery. 2. What I mean by Salvation. 3. What by the way to it. 4. What by the word Safe.  
1. Popery is a certain farrago, a mixture of many grievous errors in the doctrine of Faith, Government and Worship, expressed in their Authorized writings, especially in their decretals and Councils, corrupting the Christian Religion which they profess; the whole being denominated from that one falsehood, that the Pope of Rome is, the Universal Bishop, and Visible Head of the Universal Church and Christ's Vicar-General on earth, and that only is the Catholic Church, and those only Catholics that so believe.  
Where note 1. That the Papists professing to be Christians, do first own the substance of Christian doctrine, and then corrupt it, and contradict it by this fardel of their own inventions superadded. They profess to believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God, and to be true: every Book that we believe (and more) They profess to believe all the Articles of the ancient Creeds commonly called the Apostles, the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan. It is not the Christianity or true doctrine which they profess, which we call Popery. 2. It is therefore only their own invented corruptions, by which they contradict the Christian verity which they profess, which we call Popery. 3. Note, That the common denominating corruption, is the forementioned doctrine of the Pope's Universal Episcopacy and Headship, or a supreamacy at least, if not Infallibility: and that the Catholic Church, and the Roman Church is all one: and the Pope is the visible centre of its Unity. 4. Note also that as to the rest of their corruptions, they agree not among themselves what is to be esteemed of their faith or Religion, and what not: and therefore it cannot be expected that we should give you an exact enumeration of the points of their faith, and so a complete description of Popery, which is such a self-contradicting unreconcilable hodge podge. But their errors may be distributed into these three ranks. 1 Those that are established by the Pope and his (supposed) general Council: These they all receive and own. 2. Those that are established by the Pope's Decretals without a Council. These some own as points of their faith, and some reject them. I will not add as the third▪ those that are established by a Council without the Pope; not because there never was a Council that dissented from him in Good, but because it is a difficult matter at least to find any Council that did go beyond or without him in Evil, or erred without his Approbation. 3. The third sort therefore shall be those opinions that are commonly maintained by their most Approved Writers which are published in books that are licenced and commended by the Popes Authorized agents, but are not determined by the Pope or his Council. These though they contend for, and lay great weight on them in their disputations, yet dare they not own them as any part of the matter of their faith, lest they seem to be what they are; divided and mutable▪ A man would think that those volumnious hot disputes about Divine things, did intimate that the Authors did fide divin● believe those points which they do so zealously dispute of. But if it be their pleasure, that we should so distinguish, we will call the rest the Popish faith or Religion, and these last, the Popish opinions, because we would fasten on them nothing but their own.  
If you ask me, which be those doctrines which they take for points of faith, which we call Popery; I must refer you to their Decretals and Councils on one side, and God's word on the other; and all the Doctrines in those their Canons or determinations that are against the word of God, are the doctrines which we mean by this name. If they do lay greater stress upon any one point than others, its likely to be on those that are put into their Creeds and Vows, and therefore I shall only recite the latter half of their Tridentine Creed, seeing they will own that or ●othing: When they have begun with the ancient Constantinopolitan Creed, containing the true Principles of Christian Religion, and have ended that they proceed thus as followeth.  
The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions, and the rest of the Observations and constitutions of the same Church, I do most firmly admit and embrace. I admit also the sacred Scripture according to that sense which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures: and I will never take and interpret it, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. I do profess also that there are seven truly and properly Sacraments of the new Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary to the salvation of mankind, ●hough not all to every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony: and that they confer ●race; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, cannot be reiterated without Sacrilege. I do also receive and admit the received and approved Rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn Administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments. I do embrace and receive all and singular things which in the Holy Council of Trent were defined and declared about Original sin and Justification. In like manner I do profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true p●per, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living, and f● the dead; and that in the most holy Srcrament of ● Eucharist there is Truly, Really, and Substanti●●y the body and blood, together with the soul and Di●●nity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there 〈◊〉 change made of the whole substance of Bread ● the Body, and of the whole substance of Wine 〈◊〉 blood; which change the Catholic Church c●l● Trasubstantiation. I confess also that under one 〈◊〉 only, whole and entire Christ, and the true Savement is taken. I do constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are h●lp●● by the suffrages of the faithful. As also that the Sai●● reigning with Christ, are to be reverenced and called upon, and that they do offer prayers to God for m● and their relics are to be reverenced (or honoured) I do most firmly assert that the Images of Christ, and of the Mother of God-ever a Virgin, as also of other Sai●● are to be had and kept, and that due honour and Vibration is to be given them. I affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in the Church, a● that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. I acknowledge that the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome, is the Mother and Mistress ● all Churches: And I do promise and swear true Obedience to the Pope of Rome successor of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Chris● Also all other things delivered, defined and declare● by the sacred Canons, and Ecumenical Councils, a● especially of the holy Synod of Trent, I do with●● doubting receive and profess: and also all things contrary, and all heresies whatsoever condemned by th● Church, and rejected; and Anathematised, do I i● like manner condemn, reject and Anathematise. This ●rue Catholic faith, without which no man can be sa●ed, which at the present I do voluntarily profess, ●nd truly hold, the same will I take care to hold and confess entire and inviolate, by God's help, most con●antly, even to the last breath of my life; and as much ●s in me lieth, to be held, taught and preached, by ●hose that are under me, or those whose care belongs to ●e in my office. This I.N. do Promise, Vow, and ●wear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.  
So far the Trent Confession, which I the ra●her recite that you may see what their Religion is ● their own words and oaths; where you see also ●●at this is but a small part of it; for it is moreover ● large, as all the Council of Trent, and all other ecumenical Councils and holy Canons; of the Impossibilities and self-contradictions of which faith, we ●hall say more anon.  
So that I conclude that it is not Christianity, but ●is additional Leprosy which we call by the name of ●opery: they believe this much more than we (or a ●reat part more) and by believing more, they believe ●ss, while they destroy the sound faith which they ●efore seemed to profess.  
2 For the next term to be explained [Salvation] ●e mean by it principally, Everlasting Glory; and withal those beginnings of it inclusively which we ●ve in this life, consisting in our Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Consolation, and Perse●erance.  
3. By the term [Way] we mean, such necessary ●eans as are prescribed us by God for the attainment ● Salvation, either as to our Belief, or our Affection and Practice according to the directions of the doctrine which we do believe.  
4. As to the sense of the word [Safe] it signifieth that which is free from danger, or which tendeth to a man's welfare. Now here is a double safety considerable in Doctrines answerable to a double danger. First, it's one thing to be safe from any sin in the way to Salvation; and so we may well say that Popery is no safe way which leadeth to so much sin: But that's not all that is here intended: But it's another matter to be so deep in sin, as not to be safe from the Everlasting Punishment, but that salvation itself is endangered thereby: and this we principally intent. And whereas there are several Degrees of Danger, we mean that true Popery heartily entertained and practised, doth leave but small probability, if any possibility, of the Salvation of any that do persevere impenitently therein to the end.  
Though you may see what I deny in what is already said, yet for the greater perspicuity, I shall express my sense in these few Propositions following.  
Prop. 1. That Christian doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures which the Papists do profess to believe, is of itself without their corruptions, a safe way to salvation.  
Prop. 2. Whatever errors are held by Papists or any others, which do consist with a true practic● belief of the foresaid Christian doctrine which they confess, and we are agreed in, those errors sh●●● not exclude the erroneous from Salvation.  
Prop. 3. The Papists do not expressly in terms and sense deny any fundamental point of faith.  
Prop. 4. It's possible even practically to hold an error, which by remote consequence contradicteth a fundamental Truth, and yet to hold that truth practically, and so to be saved. For either all moral ●errots in Theology (as Amesius thought) do contradict the Foundation by consequence, by reason of the necessary concatenation of Truths; or most at least.  
Prop. 5. There are some errors so great that if they were cordially and practically held, would be inconsistent with the cordial practical holding of the Foundation; which yet may be held but speculatively and notionally in consistency with the cordial and practical belief of the fundamentals; and the person not knowing the contradiction may be saved.  
Prop. 6. Multitudes of people while they take common terms in Divinity in a wrong sense, do maintain Propositions which by plain consequence, if not directly contradict the Fundamentals according to the proper genuine sense of the words; when yet in the sense as they mistake and misuse them in, there is no contradiction. Even as many on the other side, do hold the Christian verity in words, who in sense deny it.  
Prop. 7. We have great reason to think that many millions of the Laity among the Papists, if not the far greatest part of them, do not cordially embrace the most of the Popish corruptions in doctrinals, nor the most dangerous of them.  
1. Because they do not understand them, and so cannot so much as speculatively receive them. It is not one of a hundred, perhaps of many hundreds among them, that knows all contained in the Council of Trent alone, much less in all the rest of the Council, and Canons and customs wherein they place their Religion. Nay perhaps it's but few of their Clergy that know this comparatively. So that it is but an implicit general belief that they can give to such Canons as are unknown, which is not a belief of the particular doctrines contained in them, as such.  
2. Because (I hope among most or many of them) they are first taught the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and ten Commandments (or at least the Creed, and Decalogue, though the Lords Prayer be usually taught them in Latin) which contain the Fundamentals of Christian faith and practice: and therefore we have reason to hope that these are deeper in their minds then any contradictory doctrines: especially when they must have so much time afterward, to build upon this foundation their hay and stubbles, that we have great reason to hope that it is but few that throughly understand or entertain them.  
3. Because we know that the generality of the people, or a very great part of them, do look upon their Clergy as having a carnal self-interest to carry on, and so far have hard and different thoughts of them; though they are yet captivated by them too much.  
4. Because we see that the Pope is fain to keep them in subjection by the most cruel force of secular power: by the bloody inquisition, tormenting and burning them, or rasing wars against them to ruin them; or else by worldly honours, dignities, and riches to entice and ensnare them; which were needless if he could carry it by the cogent evidence of his doctrines or their understandings.  
5. Because we see by experience, that even here with us among their few most zealous and voluntary Proselytes, it is but very few that call themselves Roman Catholics, or Papists, that indeed know what Popery is: Nay most of them, if you do but name some points of the Popish faith, will tell you that you slander them; and they hold no such thing. I have talked with many of the Laity, and find very few that will own the doctrine of man's Merits, but profess to rest on the Merits of Christ only: The like I could say of other points: By which it is plain that the Priests do hide from the Laity so much of the venom of their doctrine as they think will prove distasteful to them, and dare not let them know the worst.  
Prop. 8. These persons before described, together with that part of the Clergy, who cast off much of the Roman corruptions, and yet adhere to their party, are not full and complete Papists, but only Papists secundum quid, incomplete, and of a lower sort, and so are not in so great danger of damnation as the rest: even as the Scab is not so bad as the Morphew, nor the Morphew so mortal as the Elephantiasis, or the full Leprosy; though all are of kindred one to another.  
9 Pro. Yet these better sort of Papists are commonly tainted with so much of their corruptions as makes their salvation much more difficult; so that we may well judge that it is fewer by far that are saved among them, then in the Reformed Churches. Even as it is possible for men to scape catching the Plague that live among the infected, and its possible for the infected to escape with their lives, but where one escapes many dye, and it's I think more dangerous to live in an infected house or air then in a sound one.  
Prop. 10, A man that cordially and practically receiveth the whole body of Popery, and so is a complete Papist, is in so great danger of eternal damnation, as that it is a very hard question whether it be possible for him at the same time to hold cordially the fundamentals of Christianity, and so to be in a state of Salvation? Which because it is so hard a question that Protestant Divines are of different opinions about it, some thinking it possible for such to be saved, and some impossible, I will not presume here to determine it, seeing the matter in hand doth not call for the determination of it.  
Prop. 11. Whosoever is saved among the Papists; whether he be more or less tainted with theirs errors, it is not By Popery that he is saved, but from Popery, or against it by the Christian faith. So that if a Papist may be saved, it must be as a Christian, and not as a Papist: Popery and Christianity having some contrariety; so that it must be by the prevalency and predominency of the Christian faith against Popery if ever he be saved. If a liar might be saved it must not be by lying, but by faith in Christ and repentance. If a Leper, or one that hath the Plague, or the like diseases, may live, it must not be by the Leprosy or Plague that they must live; but by natural vigour and the help of Medicine by which they are preserved from the kill power of these diseases,  
And here you may take notice, what a fond and vain delusion it is, by which the Priests do persuade the poor people that their Religion is a safer way to heaven then ours, even because that we confess a Papist may be saved, but they affirm that a Protestant cannot be saved. For 1. Some Protestants think they may be saved, and some deny it. 2. Those that think they may be saved do withal think that it is not by Popery, but against it and fro● it. 3. And they think that its very hard, and therefore that they are very few that are saved among them, in comparison of the number saved among us. And is not this a fair and comfortable encouragement to their poor seduced followers, that some among us confess that as its possible for here and there one to escape of a raging Pestilence, so may some Papists be saved. 4. Their condemning of all Protestants doth make themselves worse, but it makes us never the worse, nor our case ever the more dangerous. Christ hath told us that all men shall know us to be his disciples, by Loving one another, and hath bid us, judge not that we be not judged, for with what judgement we judge, we shall be judged: and Paul tells us, that charity thinketh not evil, but hopeth all things: Is it then a good & Christian arguing to say that they are safer than we, because they are more censorious, and rash condemners of others? Then he that hath least Charity is of the safest Religion. Suppose that a company shut up in a Pesthouse, being raging mad with the Plague, or otherwise distempered in their brain, should cry out, that all the Town are sick and will certainly die, except themselves. Were it wise reasoning now to say [You confess that some of those that are sick in the Pesthouse may escape; but they say that none of you that are out can escape, therefore it is safer to be with them then with you.] Even such is the reasoning of the Popish Priests in the present case. It is the disease of Popery that of its own nature causeth them to condemn all the world except themselves: And it is because we are free from their disease, that makes us not so rash and hasty in condemning them: But yet as charitable as we are to them, we are so charitable withal to ourselves, that we would not be in their case, for all the world.  
Prop. 12. We may well conclude therefore that whether a Papist may be saved or not, that certainly Popery is no safe way to Salvation.  
If a cup of Poison be tempered for the kill of men, and one drinks it all, and dyeth, another drinks almost all, and dyeth, another drinks less, and yet using no remedy dyeth, another drinks but a little, or taking more, yet useth some effectual Remedy, and so with much ado scapeth death. I think, notwithstanding the scaping of these last, we may well conclude that [Poison is no safe or wholesome food.]  
I come now to prove the Proposition last expressed.  
In general 1. Popery is No way to salvation; Therefore it is no safe way. God hath no where prescribed it as a way to salvation; therefore it is not a way to salvation.  
2. It is the way toward damnation, and from salvation; therefore it is no safe way to salvation.  
The proof of all together shall be next fetched from some general reasons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery; For if I should descend to every particular error I must be voluminous, and do that which is sufficiently done by multitudes already.  
Arg. 1. Those doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falsehood, and resolved into it, are not a safe way to Salvation. But such are the doctrines which we call Popery: Therefore.  
For the Minor, They are founded on and resolved into the doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility, or at least his Councils: This the Papists do confess and maintain. But that this is a Notorious falsehood, is evident.  
1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred, and judicially erred, and erred in matters of faith. Bellarmine is put to answer to no less than forty instances of erring Popes; and how shamefully or shamelessly he doth it, any Learned man that will search the records and peruse the case, may soon discover.  
2 It is notorious that Councils have erred. I shall not now intermix my Testimonies to interrupt the plain course which I have begun, but rather give you the proof of all this distinctly by itself in the next disputation.  
3. The Papists themselves confess this that we affirm. I mean, One part of them do confess that the Pope may err (as the French) and the other (the Italians and Spaniards) confess that a Council may err. One saith the Infallibility is not seated in the Pope; and the other that it is not sealed in a Council, particular or general, of which see Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. & 11. In which last he seeks to prove that a General Council may err. 1. When they descent from the Pope's Legates. 2. And when they consent with the Legates, if those Legates do cross the Pope's instructions. 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Instructions, the Council and all they, may consent in error: And he proves the two former by the instance of the second Council of Ephesus, and the Constantinopolitan Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the first, which erred, saith he, because the Pope's Legates followed not his instructions. The third he proves by the Council of Basil Sess. 2. which together with the Pope's Legate did by common consent Decree, that the Council is above the Pope, which now (saith Bell●rmine) is judged erroneous.  
4. Some Popes themselves have confessed that they are not the seat or chief subject of the infallibility: As Adrian the sixth who hath wrote his judgement of it, that the Pope may err out of Council. And in my opinion we shall do the Pope much wrong if we shall not believe him when he speaks the truth, and tells us that he is fallible. Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrian's understanding, than the Pope knew his own? Surely I must do as I would be done by: and if any man should persuade me that I know that which I do not know, or that I am infallible, when I know myself subject to error. I should confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of myself then believe another of me that speaks the contrary: And so will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible.  
But of this more in the next disputation; where you shall have fuller proof.  
Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Christian Religion itself (as held by them) on a foundation that is utterly uncertain, or else certainly false, then is it no safe way to salvation: For it would extirpate Christianity itself. But the Antecedent is true, as I shall thus prove.  
1. They are divided and disagreed among themselves even their greatest Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith, as I shall further show in the next argument: They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church, and they are not agreed what that Church is.  
2. They build the assurance of their faith upon such a ground as none of the common people, no nor any Doctors in the world, can have the knowledge of: therefore their faith must needs be uncertain. To manifest this I shall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this subject in the Preface to the second Part of the Saints Rest.  
It is the Authority of the Church they say, upon which we must believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation, they would not believe it (saith one of them, no more than Aesop's Fables) Now suppose they were agreed what this Church is, and that we now take notice of their more common opinion, that it is, all the Bishops of the Church headed by the Pope, or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope, I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a distance, yea or of any man living, can be sure and sound, when all these following particulars must be first known, before we can have such assurance. 1. It must be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word, and what is a point of faith, and what not: so that that is so to us, which they judge so; or that we are bound by God to believe them. Now which way doth God give the Church this Power? Is it not by Scripture, or unwritten tradition in their own judgement? And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in such determinations? It must be also by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confession: For if they fly to universal Tradition, and natural obligation, they give up their cause, and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation, as from their Roman● Church. So that a man must (according to their doctrine) believe that the word of God (written or unwritten) hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God, or know it to be the word of God: that is, He must know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it. Here is one of the impossibilities that lie at the very foundation of the Roman way of faith.  
2. Before men can know the Scripture to be God's word, yea or their supposed unwritten verities, infallibly, according to the Roman way of believing, they must first know that the Church is infallible in her judgement, and this also must be known by the word of God, which is supposed not to be known yet itself.  
3. They must also know, that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God.  
4. To this end they must know that all those perverted Texts (or some of them) that speak of Peter's own person, were also spoke of certain successors of his, as well as of himself (as that on them the Church shall be built, and their faith shall not ●ail, etc.)  
5. They must know that the Pope is this successor of Peter.  
6. To this end, they must not only know that Peter was at Rome (of which read well Vlricus Velenus in Goldastus) and was Bishop there, but they must know that he was the only Bishop there, or at least the chief, and that Paul was no Bishop there (who is more likely to have been) or else that he was the inferior, and that the Pope is Peter's successor and not Paul's; or else succeedeth them both, and hath his infallibility but from one, unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too.  
7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome, than it must be known why they may not have two successors at once; and if there be two, which of them is to be believed when they disagree. But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome, the one of the Circumcision, the other of the uncircumsion, than it must be known by what right their successors made them one? or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision, when all Jews were banished from Rome, and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing, the Pope be not only Paul's successor.  
8. And it must be known whether Peter were not Bishop of other Churches as well as of Rome (yea of Antioch before Rome) and so whether the Bishop of Antioch be not his successor as well as the Pope of Rome, yea and the chief successor if it follow the right of primogeniture, either as to the Church o● the Bishop; seeing Antioch was a Church before Rome, and Peter was supposed to be Bishop there before he was of Rome. And then if the Bishop of Rome and Antioch differ (as they do) how, shall we know whom to believe, and how shall we know that the Bishop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome?  
9 It must be known what it is that makes a Pope, what is necessary to his being Peter's successor. I● it enough that he step up into the chair and call himself Pope? Or that his party call him so? Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror, though a Lay ma● did so, he should be Pope. And he that conquers Rome may make himself Saint Peter's infallible successor at any time. But if there must be an ordination and Election, than it must be known whether every Ecclesiastical Ordination or Consecration, and Election will serve or not. If it will, then when there have been three Popes chosen and consecrated at once, they were all Saint Peter's infallible successors, though one condemned the other: If not, than it must be known, who it is that hath the power of election (which being the act that determineth of th● person, is the main that must resolve our doubts) and also of consecration or ordination. And ho● shall the people know this, when the Clergy have been so disagreed among themselves.  
10. And here it must be known whether the Cardinals have the sole power to elect? If they have, then how came they by it? And then, whether wer● all those that were elected by the people in the first ages, and by the Emperors in after ages, true Pope●, or not: If they were not, than Saint Peter hath no successors, because of the interruption of the succession so long; and the Church had then no visible head. If they were, than the sufficient power is not only in the Cardinals. And if it be not only in them, then whether are any of those true Popes that have been chosen only by them of late ages?  
11. And so it must be known how a possibility of uninterrupted succession can be proved, when Popes have been chosen three several ways, sometime by the people (or else there had not been so many slain at the election of Damasus, nor had the ancient Canons made this necessary to all Bishops) and sometime by the Presbyters of that Church, and sometime by the Emperors; and now by titular Presbyters, who are Bishops of other Churches, and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome. If all these several ways of Election may make true Popes, than it seems any way may serve, and then the three Popes at once will be all true: If not, then there hath been an interruption of the succession, and so according to their own Principles, there can be now no true Pope.  
12. And here it must needs be known too, whether there be any thing in the person that is a qualification so materially necessary, that he can be no true Pope without it. If not, than a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope. If there be, than it must be known what that is, which few private men at least do know.  
13. Particularly it must be known whether they that are known Heretics, yea judged so by Councils, or by their own successors, and those that were notorious Whoremongers, Sodomites, Murderers, Poisoning their Predecessors to get the Popedom, Simonists, buying the Popedom with money, etc. were capable of being true Popes?  
14. If they are not capable, than we must all know that all the Popes were none such, when the Papists themselves confess they were such, before we can know that they were the infallible successors of Saint Peter.  
15. But if such may be Popes, then must we know why a Mahometan may not as well be a Pope? or how an enemy of Christ and the Church should come to be a Son of Promise, and the Vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church, and whether such were infallible in their judging falsehood to be truth, as they did?  
16. And we must know, that the Pope only is lawless, and under no power of Canons, or Decrees of former Popes and Councils? Or else many such Canons will proclaim their calling null: and so the succession still hath been interrupted. And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe, e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions, then why must not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty, and so null his calling?  
17. Bellarmine saith that it is agreed among all Catholics that the Pope as a private Doctor may err, through ignorance, even in universal questions of faith: Also that many Papists and Pope Adrian the sixth himself taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretic, and reach Heresy, so it be without a General Council: And that most of the rest do only hold, that whether the Pope be a He●tick or not, yet he cannot define any thing here●al, as to be believed by the whole Church: this ●th he, is the most common opinion: Bellarm. de ●m. Pontif. li. 4 cap. 2.  
Now this being so we must be resolved, if a Pope ● a Heretic in heart, and open profession, and 〈◊〉 if a General Council be called, this Pope cannot ●e his sentence in it according to his own belief, ●hether indeed we can prove that God hath promis●● to cause a Heretic Pope to dissemble, and to ●eak against his own judgement, which is to lie, ●ough the thing that he saith be true, or yet to tie 〈◊〉 tongue that he shall not be able to speak that ●hich he believes, and speaks at other times?  
18. And whether the promise which they allege this purpose (I have prayed for thee that thy faith 〈◊〉 not) be indeed fulfilled to a Heretical Pope. If ●t, than its evident that this promise belongs not ● all Pope's. If yea, than the faith of a Heretic ●th not fail; which Bellarmine himself confesseth be false. And here note what a naked shameful ●ft it is that Bellarmine makes about this text? He ●th that [There are two things promised there to Pe●●: The first is that Peter should never lose the true ●ith, though tempted by the Devil; The other privilege is, that he as Pope should not be able ever to teach ●ly thing contrary to the faith; or that in his seat no ●n should ever be found that should teach against the ●th: of which privileges, the first perhaps was not drived to his successors, but the second undoubtedly ●as derived to them] So saith Bellarmine de Rome▪ ●nt. li. 4. cap. 3.  
Now mark how contrary this is to the sense of the text. The promise that Christ made to Peter, wa● not to his tongue but to his heart: not that he should not speak against the faith, for he did deny Christ, and curse and swear that he knew not the man: b● it was that his inward belief should not fail, and ●● that he should not fall from Christ, and consequently indeed that his heart should reduce the tong●● itself. Now Bellarmine confesseth that perhaps th● part of the promise that concerneth faith it sel●▪ reacheth not to Peter's successors, but only th● which concerneth the tongue: which was directly none at all; so that he gives up the true prom● made to Peter, which was that his faith should n● fail, and not that his tongue should not fail, and b● forgeth another in its stead.  
19 How can we be assured that this or any promise belongeth to the Popes, when the Papists themselves say that they were made to Peter before h● was Pope. For so Bellarmine is fain to answer, wh● we say Peter himself erred in denying Christ he saith [Saint Peter when he denied Christ, was ● yet made Pope: For its manifest that the Ecclesiastical supremacy was given him in the last of John, wh● Christ after the resurrection bid him Feed my sheep Bell. de Pontif. li 4. cap. 8.  
20. It is of necessity that all Christians who belie● upon the Pope's authority, must know who it is th● is the true Pope, and to be believed: And wh● there are many Popes at once pretending to that infallibility and authority, how can all Christians resolved which is the true Pope when one Count●● owns one, and another owns another, whom s● the vulgar own that are out of reach and uncapable of understanding the quarrel? And then, w●● knows which of them must be succeeded by the next? Nay can learned men tell? Nay can the Cardinals ●ell that choose them? And are we sure that any of ●he pretenders are true Popes? Shall we hear B●llar●ine in one particular case, that is in his answer to ●he 37. instance of Heretical Popes, to wit, John●3 ●3. who besides open Adulteries, Murders and o●her horrid wickedness, of which no less than fifty ●hree Articles were put in against him at the Council ●f Constance, all confirmed, saith Bellarmine, by ●ertain witnesses, he was moreover accused of most pernicious Heresy, even of denying the Resurrection of the body, and everlasting life. And to this Bellarmine answereth [Joannem 23. non fuisse Ponti●cem omnino certum & indubitatum, proinde non nec●essario esse defendendum, erant enim eo tempore tres, ●ni Pontifices haberi volebant, Gregor. 12. Benedict. ●3. & Johan. 23. nec poterat facile judicari quis e●rum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex cum non deessent ●ngulis doctissimi patroni.] that is [that●ohn ●ohn the 23. was not altogether the certain and undoubted Pope, and therefore he is not necessarily to be defended, for there were at that time three that would ●e accounted Popes, Gregor. 12. Benedict. 13. and●ohn ●ohn 23. and it was no easy matter to judge which of ●hem was the true and lawful Pope, when there were ●ot wanting to each one of them most Learned Patrons.] And yet the same Bellarmine saith, the Concil. li. 1. ●ap. 8. that its almost the common opinion that this ●ohn, Alex 5. were true Popes.  
You see then the case of the poor people according to the Romish Religion: They cannot know the ●ord of God to be his word but on the authoritative determination of the Pope: and who is the true Pope it is impossible for them to know, when even most Learned men cannot know, and Bellarmine himself so long after saith, it could not easily be known.  
21. Moreover, how can all Christians many hundred miles distant know whether indeed the Cardinals chose and consecrated him that is in the seat, or whether he forced in himself, or bribed them to pretend what was not done, and so whether he have all the essentials of his call.  
22. And if a Council must be the determiner either with the Popes, or alone, How shall the Christian world know that Christ hath promised infallibility to a Council, when there is no such promise in the word: much less can Infidels know this in order to their believing the word of God.  
23. And how shall we all know what is a General Council, and when we have one? whether it must be all the Christian Bishops in the world that must meet? or the delegates at least of all? or whether some Countries, or part of all may serve? and than what Countries or parts it must be? Bellarm. de Conc. l. 1. c. 17. Saith, that once the Patriarches must be present, but now it's not necessary because they are all Heretics or Schismatics. And how shall we know that ever there was such a thing as a General Council? For my part I see no probability that ever there were many, if any one such Council, was the Council of Trent General when the greatest part of the Christian world was absent? When all the Bishops of Aethiopia, Egypt, Palestins, Greece, with all the Turks dominions were absent, besides the Protestants, and most of the Popish Bishops themselves.  
24. How shall we be sure that all these, or the greater part of them are true Bishops and lawfully called? If as Bellarmine saith the Concil. l. 2. c. 9 That the contrary be not manifest, be enough, then man's error can make God's promise of Infallibility belong to those that it was never made to; or else God hath promised infallibility to all that may be Popes or Bishops for aught we know: and then it belongs not to the Pope and Bishops, but to all that seem such.  
25. Yea that all those Bishops or most descend by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, which is made necessary, If they plead only the Bishop of Rome's succession to warrant all the rest, before the forementioned particulars be well answered, it will appear that Rome's succession hath been frequently interrupted.  
26. How shall men at a distance be sure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope?  
27. How shall we be sure when all is done that we have the right sense of the Canons or Decrees of such Councils, when they speak as ambiguously as the Scripture, and the Papists think they can have no certainty of the right sense of that without a living judge: And if there be a living judge still of the sense of Councils, either he is as infallible as they, or not: If not, than he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination. If he be, then what need of a Council, when he is infallible alone?  
28. When several Popes and Councils contradict one another, how shall we know which of them to believe? And this is no rare matter among them?  
29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other, how shall the people know which is infallible?  
30. When both Pope and Council contradict the express Scripture, must we take them for infallible, and believe that Scripture only on their words.  
These or most of these must be known by all Christians, before they can believe the Articles of their Creed, or that Scripture is God's word, according to the Romish grounds: When as it is impossible for any man to know them as true; they being either false or not evident and demonstrable. So that it's now apparent that according to the Popish grounds, the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion, and that they shake the foundation of Christianity itself.  
2. And lastly, not only so, but they build on a foundation certainly false, that is, the Pope's infallibility or a Councils: as I shall prove in the next dispute where their fallibility will be further manifested.  
Arg. 3. If the Papists are not agreed among themselves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith (or matters which they make of necessity to salvation) than Popery is no safe way to salvation: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore, etc.  
We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is said already. They commonly maintain that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church: and they are not yet agreed among themselves, nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is. And the difference is not with a few inconsiderable dissenters, but in their main body. The Papists of France maintain that it is a General Council that is infallible, and that the Pope is fallible: The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible, and the Pope is infallible. Some others think that both of them are fallible separated, but both infallible when they concur. And some think that they are both infallible though separated. If the Church be the foundation, and all must be received upon its infallible authority, than no man can be saved that knows not which this infallible Church is: either therefore the French or Italians, one part or the other of them do err in their very fundamentals, when one saith, This is the subject of infallibility, and the other say, This is it. And if a Pope or General Council differ, to whom must the people hearken? One part of them saith that the Pope is above the Council; and others of them say the Council is above the Pope, and of this mind have been General Councils themselves, as the Council of Basil and Constance, and of this mind Bellarmine names, Cardinal Cameracensis, Cardinal Cusanus, Joh. Gerson jac. Almain, Card. Florentin. Panormitan, etc.  
What a strange impudence than is it of these men, to make the silly deluded people among us believe, that they are all of one mind, and it's we that are divided: when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental, Who it is that is the infallible Judge? And till men know Who it is, what the better are they know, that such a judge there is seeing that the species existeth only in the individual, and no man can believe him, or apply himself to him as the infallible judge, till he know that it is he indeed that is such.  
Seeing then according to their own principles, either the French Papists or the Italian and Spanish Papists must be in the way to damnation, how shall we know which it is and which to join ourselves to with any safety? Were it not for weakening the Pope's interest, they would burn the French Papists as Heretics as well as us.  
Arg. 4. If Popery be a new devised way to heaven such as the Apostles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year (in the main parts of Popery) then is it no safe way to salvation: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the consequent.  
The consequence they will not deny, that which the Apostles & the Primitive Churches went in is only the safe way to heaven (for there are not many safe ways) But that which the Papists as Papists go in, is not that which the Apostles and Primitive Church went in: therefore it is not the safe way. And that the Apostles and first Churches knew not Popery, but it is a new Religion, or new corruption of Religion, appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity: For Scripture which is the truest Antiquity, it may give any indifferent man just cause of suspicion that the Papists do so obstinately refuse to be tried by it; which plainly shows that they take it not to be on their side. And for the Councils and Fathers, for the first three hundred years or much more, they ordinarily scorn us for mentioning them to this end, because they say they wrote not of the points now in controversy, and therefore are unfit to determine them. But did not those ages take up their faith on the same grounds as we should do now? And can they be all silent about the only ground of faith? If the Pope of Rome's infallible authority had been the ground, would they not have told us so? How could they convert the infidels, and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith? And what they took for the grounds their writings show. Nay he that shall faithfully and impartially peruse the Writers of the first three-or four or seven hundred years, is blind if he see not the novelty of Popery, and in particular of the Pope's infallibility, universal headship and Episcopacy, and his pretended authoriry to be the Judge of controversies, with the rest of his usurpations. Our Divines, Chamier, Jewel, Usher, Field, and many others have manifested this so largely, that it would be superfluous for me to do it after them, and somewhat will necessary fall in with the next dispute.  
I do not deny but that many ceremonies, and many controverted doctrines were very ancient: as the use of Chrism, and a white garment, and milk and honey to the newly baptised, exorcism, confirmation by imposition of hands, the Memories of the Martyrs, with prayers and praises at their graves, or places of suffering; the oft use of the sign of the Cross, the observation of Lent (as well as Easter and Whitsuntide) not to kneel on the Lord's day, not to eat things strangled or bloody, so the doctrines of the power of freewill, and predestination upon foreseen faith, and the misuse of the terms [Merit and Justification] the denial of the perseverance of all Saints, etc. were too early and commonly entertained. But these be not the things that we call Popery, nor wherein the great difference between us, and the Romanists doth consist. But as for the great points in difference between the Papists and us, it is so evident in all antiquity, that Popery is a novelty, and that they have devised a new way to heaven which the Apostles and the Churches for many hundred years did never know, that only gross ignorance of the Church's records, or a willingness to be deceived, can keep men from the knowledge of it.  
And here I might easily prove what is said of the novelty of Popery, even from the confessions of their own most learned writers, that so they may not say, it is concluded from our own misunderstanding of Antiquity; But that it would swell this disputation beyond the intended bulk and bounds. I shall only give a brief touch in a few points of moment, which may show you what to think of their charging us with novelty, and of their general pretences to Antiquity.  
Of the humane Ordination of Papacy, and its late increase beyond its ancient bounds, and the limitation of Ecclesiastical Power; I shall desire you to see what in the following Disputation is cited out of their Cardinal Nicol. Cusanus, a man so violent for the Eugenian faction, that Aenaenas Silvius, afterward Pope Pius the second lamenteth that so learned a man should be the pillar of that Pope's cause; and a man so close to Papal interest, and so addicted himself to domineering, that he opposed his Prince Sigismond Duke of Austria, and caused the same Pope Pius the second to take his part, and excommunicate Sigismond and all his Counsellors, and his subjects, for taking this Cardinal prisoner by force of Arms; of which see the story in Goldastus, with Gregor. Hemburg's (one of the Princes excommunicated Counsellors) his Defence against the Pope and Cardinal: Yet this man himself in his books de concordia hath confessed enough to destroy the Pope's cause, and take down the Roman tyranny, if they would stand to the principles of that confession.  
Others also in the next disputation are mentioned as to that subject, which I shall therefore now pretermit.  
Polidore Virgil a Learned writer of theirs in his lib. 8. de Invent. R●●. cap. 5. pag. 475.476. Saith [Item ut nullum conventum indici, nullumque a quibusvis actum haberi ratum liceret sine Romani Pontificis authoritate, Marcellus primus omnium sanxit, deinde Julius & Damasus & Gregorius illud idem statuere] [i. e. [Also that no Assembly (or Council) should be called, nor any act of whomsoever be esteemed ratified without the Authority of the Pope of Rome, this Marcellus was the first that did ordain, and afterward Julius and Damasus and Gregory did ordain the same thing] And though this sufficiently proveth the novelty, yet Polidore is mistaken in taking this part of Papal Usurpation to be so ancient. For he took it on the authority of the decretals, which are mere fictions. Of which I refer the Reader to Blondellus de Decretal. 
blondel. de Decret. pag. 397.403.  The sum of whose censure on Marcellus Epistles is this [As the frequent Barbarism show the Author, so the following oft the version of Hiereme, the excribing of divers instances out of Innocent, Leo, Hilary, Gregory, Adrian 1. and Acacius, show that he was many ages later than Marcellus] See also the full evidence that he giveth in his censures against the Epistle of S. Julius and Damasus; and for Gregory, his Epistles to the contrary purpose are well known. So that by Polidorus confession this Papal usurpation is a novelty: but indeed many hundred years nearer than he imagined.  
And what good this usurpation did, himself confesseth in the following words [Though it first broke the conventicles of Heretics— Ita deinceps nihil attulit commodi▪ cum per id jam pene desitum sit a concilis habendis, in quibus cuncta ex aequo traictarentur Pontifice, Romano ejusmodi negotium non magnopere curante] i. e. [Afterwards it did no good, when by reason of this, Councils are almost ceased, in which all things should be equally handled, the Pope of Rome not much regarding any such matter] Where he addeth [That therefore Pope Martin the fifth in the Council of Constance decreed that a Council should be called every tenth year, which hitherto hath not been kept, and therefore Religion grows daily worse] Where by the way we may see what power the Laws of the Pope and General Councils have, and what a Religion Popery is, which sweareth men to believe and obey the Decrees of such Councils, which no man ever obeyed since they were made: For there hath been never since a Decennial Council: And the Pope himself by confirming that Council which decreed that a Council is above the Pope, did show himself obliged to obey it, and so to have called a Council accordingly. But all others must swear to that as God's Word and infallible, which themselves contemn. But to proceed.  
The same Polidore Virgil. lib. 8. cap. 1. g. 456. shows that the beginning of Indulgences was not till Gregory appointed his stations, and made them a reward. And showing that thy were grounded on the Doctrine of Purgatory, he bringeth in Bishop Fisher of Rochester to witness, 1. That Indulgences are lately brought in. 2. 
Roffeus. Cont. Lutherum.  And that even of Purgatory Apud priscos nulla vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio; sed & Grecis ad hunc usque diem non est creditum esse: quan diu enim nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura, nemo quesivit indulgentias, nam ex illo pe●det omnis indulgentiarum existimatio. Si tollas purgatorium, quorsum indulgentiarum opus erit? Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae, post quam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum est] i. e. [With the ancients there was no mention of Purgatory, or exceeding rare: And the Greeks believe not that it is to this day: And as long as there was no care about Purgatory, no man sought for indulgences; for all the estimation of indulgences dependeth upon that. 
See Mr. Sing's rejoinder in Defence. of Bishop Ʋsher p. 78.79, 80, 81, etc.  If you take away Purgatory, what use is there of indulgences: indulgences therefore did then begin, when men had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory] So far Bishop Fisher their Martyr.  
Polidore Virgil reciting these words, next to them addeth [Quae tu forte cum tanti sint Momenti, ut magis certa ex ore Dei expectabas] [Perhaps you expected to have had these things as more certain from the mouth of God, seeing they are of such moment] A sufficient hint that he had more in his mind if he durst have spoken out.  
Yet note that the profit of indulgences is expressly sworn to in the new Trent Creed as part of their Belief.  
This passage of Fishers was alleged by Bishop Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge, and the like from Cajetans' confessing that the beginning of indulgences is not known: What the adversaries can say against these citations, you may see confuted by Mr. Sing in his rejoinder in Defence of Bishop Usher against the Jesuit, pag. 81.82, 83.  
That the use of the Sacrament in one kind is a new invention, is commonly confessed by them. See Albaspinaeus a sober Bishop of theirs in his observations, after his notes on Optatus, cap. 4. de Communione Laica, pag. 10.11. showing the novelty of the now Romish Communion. And Gregor. de Valentia the Jesuit confesseth that minime constat, it is not known when the custom of receiving the Sacrament in one kind only began, but that it was not by any Decree of a Bishop, but crept in by some custom of the people. Of which also see Bishop Usher ibid. and his Defender Mr. Sing p 78.82, 83.  
About the beginning of Monkery, see Polidore Virgil's confess. lib. 7. cap 1. pag. 414.415.416. And that [Monachi primo omnium introduxerunt in Ecclesiant Dei vota sacra, & vestimenta profana simul religi●sa secerunt] [Monks were the first of all men that brought into the Church of God, sacred vows, and made common (or profane) garments become Religious.] pag. 424.  
Of the beginning of forbidding Priests to marry, see the same Polid. Virgil. li. 5. cap. 4. pag. 293, etc.  
Of Peter's supremacy the sam● Polidore saith l. 4. c. 6. p. 240. [Veruntamen existunt etiam nunc, etc. There are some now that contend that Peter had power over all the Apostles: of which it belongeth not to us to determine, who are only enquiring of the original of Priesthood: but some think the contrary, because Paul seemeth to deny it, etc.] Where he addeth more reasons.  
Of the Original of Cardinals, and the changes of the Electors of Popes, see him also l. 4. c. 9 where also he saith pag. 252. [Verum cum postea Bonifacius 3. ab Imperatore Phoea impetrasset ut in omnes Episcopos praerogativam haberet, omniumque caput perpetuo foret, jam tum Romanus Pontifex multo quam antea unam cum suo urbano sacerdotum senatu cunctis sine controversia prestare authoritate caepit, ac simul illi presbyteri quibus Tituli dati, quibus Christianorum animas cutandi munus delatum fuerat, to Cardinalium nomine velut supremae illius dignitatis proprio cum primis honestari caepit.] Here you have a hint of the Original of the very new frame of the Romish Church.  
Many more points of the Romish way doth he in that Book discover to be novel. And in opposition to all their way if you will see how he describeth the Reformed Religion, peruse his narrative of the occasion of the Reformation, pag. 410. cap. 4. li. 8. where he saith [Ita licentia parta loquendi: secta brevi tempore mirabiliter crevit quae Evangelica dicta est eo quod, haud ullam asseveret recipiendam esse legem quae ad animarum salutem pertineat nisi quam Christus aut Apostoli dedissent] i. e. [Having once leave to speak, that sect did marvailously increase; which is called Evangelical, because they affirm that no Law is to be received which belongeth to salvation but what is given by Christ or the Apostles] Thus you see what the Protestant Religion is and whence called Evangelical, and wherein it principally differeth from Popery, from the mouth of a Papist himself (an Agent of the Popes with the King of England H. 7. An Archdeacon, and at last the Dean of Paul's in London, from whence he removed because of the entrance of the English changes under H. 8)  
And though he say that it then begun, meaning Luther's particular Reformation, yet what is like to be the end of it in the next words he subjoins his Prognostic [Mansurum ut videtur quoad Christus ipse populum suum culpâ rectorum ita in duas sectas sejunctum, rursus coegerit, a quo istud optimus quisque maxime petere precarique debet, ut ne major indidem fiat Religionis labes] [It's like to remain till Christ himself shall again bring together his people, who by their Rectors fault are thus divided into two 
* Note that he calls the Papists a Sect as well as the Reformed.  Sects; from whom every good man ought especially to beg and pray for it, lest Religion as daily decay] more and more.  
The novelty of their doctrine de efficacia Sacramenti ex opere operato is not only by subtle Scotus but many more of their own confessed to be new. More of their corruptions are by their own Writers confessed to be novelties; and therefore it is great immodesty in the Papists to pretend the Antiquity of Popery, though we easily grant them the Antiquity of their Christianity. In so much as they agree with us they may prove their Religion to be ancient: but its new in ●he points wherein we differ, and most new in the greatest differences. Bishop Usher in his Answer to ●he Jesuits challenge, and in his book de Statu & ●uccessione Ecclesiarum, hath proved the novelty of ●he main body of their corruptions, especially the points of whose antiquity themselves most boasted of, and this distinctly and fully to their perpetual confusion, beyond all reply.  
If therefore the Romanists would have us return ●o their communion (not to their subjection; for that we never owed them) let them but cast off their novelties and return to the ancient faith and practice of the Roman Church, and we shall do it speedily ●nd do it gladly: They shall see that we are so far from affecting an unnecessary separation, that we ●ill embrace them in a lawful communion with all our hearts. I cannot better express my hearty de●ires of this, then in those hearty words of Hier. Zanchy Vol. 3. Thes. de Eccles. Milit. Thes. 19 Col. ●40. [Non enim ab Ecclesia Romanâ simpliciter & ● omnibus defecimus: sed in illis duntaxat rebus in ●nibus ipsa defecit ab Apostolica, atque adeo a seipp, veteri & pura Ecclesia: neque alio discessimus zimo, quam ut si correcta, ad priorem Ecclesiae for●am redeat, nos quoque ad illam revertamur, & ●mmunionem cum illa in suis porro caetibus habeamus: Quod ut tandem fiat, toto animo Domino Jesum pre●mur, Quid enim pio cuique optatius, quam ut ubi ●r baptismum renati sumus, ibi etiam in finem us●u vivamus? modo in Domino? Ego Hier. Zanchius. Cum tota mea familia testatum hoc volo toti Ecclesiae Christi in omnem eternitatem.  
Arg. 5. If Popery do make a new Catholic Church, which was never known for many hundred years after Christ, then is it no safe way to salvation. But Popery doth make a new Catholic Church that was never known of many hund●ed years after Christ: therefore it's no safe way to salvation.  
The consequence of the Major will not be denied; for they confess that Christ's Church is but one; He had not a Church of one sort for the first ages, and a Church of another sort since: though its accidents may vary, yet so doth not its essence. The Minor I prove thus, That which the Papists make to be the Catholic Church, is only all those Christians that acknowledge the Pope to be the universal Bishop and head of the Catholic Church, having universal supreme jurisdiction, and the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches, and its only a Catholic Church convertible with the Roman Church. But such a Catholic Church as this was never known by the Apostles, or of many hundred years after Christ: Therefore Popery maketh a new Catholic Church, which the first ages never knew.  
It's true that when Rome being then the ruling City of the world did come to own Christianity, that the Glory of the Empire occasioned the Bishop to be called Primae sedis Episcopus, as one that was to take place of the rest of the Patriarches, who had their several orders or places assigned them (as Alexandria to be the second, Antioch the third, etc.) which Bellarmi●● confesseth might be after lawfully changed: but as Alexandria had not the Government of Antioch by that predecency, so neither had Rome any government, of the rest: And as Constantinople was afterward set up above Alexandria and Antioch (and claimed to be above Rome) so might it as lawfully have been set up above Rome But what ever be said about their quarrels of precedency, which pride begun and cherished, yet it's most evident in all antiquity, that of many hundred years after Christ, there was no such Catholic Church in being, or known, as was centred in the Pope as the head or universal Bishop or Governor, or in Rome as the Mistress of the rest. We have long ago challenged them to give us the least proof of such a Church in all antiquity, and they give us nothing, but such forced passages that are nothing to their purpose, that its hard for the most charitable rational man to believe that they do indeed believe themselves, and do not know that they hypocritically endeavour to cheat poor souls by their vain cavils. All the Papists on earth will never be able to answer what our Divines have said already to prove the novelty of their Papal headship: nor can all the Pope's servants in the world bring us one word of currant antiquity for many hundred years after Christ, to prove that ever such a Church was once dreamt of, as they now call the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed Rome was called then, a Catholic Church, and so was Alexandria, Antioch, and all that held the Catholic faith, and were not heretical: but it was never known till Boniface had usurped the Title of universal Bishop above 600. years after Christ (which he procured by Phocas a Murderer that usurped the Empire when he had slain the Emperor Mauritius) that the Roman Church and the Catholic Church was all one, or that it was necessary to make any particular Church or person Catholic, that they acknowledge the universal headship and jurisdiction of the Roman Pope, much less his infallibility.  
To heap up Records here would but stop the plain Reader in his course; and somewhat shall be s●id of it in the next dispute: Only I now say, that if any one question whether indeed the Roman Catholic Church as now constituted be a mere novelty, I here offer myself to the fuller proof of it, and shall desire no better recreation of such a sort then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papists that will undertake their cause.  
And here I must needs annex this observation; What a shameless cheat it is by which the Papists do delude the ignorant, persuading them that theirs is the old Religion, and the ancient Church which hath continued from the Apostles without interruption; and that we are men of a new Religion, and of a Church that had never a visible being till the days of Luther, Costerous the Jesuit in the Preface to his Enchiridion instructeth his deluded novices how to deal with the Protestants by urging them with three Questions (which we shall resolve anon to his shame) and the last of them is a challenge to us [To name one man before Luther that agreed with us in all things] But we challenge, and most confidently challenge all the Papists on earth to name one man for three hundred years after Christ (I might say six hundred years) that agreed with them (not in all things but) in their very Articles of Faith, yea in thei● Church fundamentals, yea in the very definition of the Catholic Church: We challenge them to name us one man and (prove it) that ever knew or owned such a Church as Catholic that is now so called and owned by them. We confidently affirm (and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us) that their Church as Popish, is a new thing, unknown to our forefathers of the first ages; that Popery is a fardel of new doctrines, unknown to the first Churches We admire at the immodesty of these men to ask us where our Church was before Luther, and to call it a new Religion which we profess, and to ask us whether we think ourselves wiser than all the world was heretofore in the purest times? We do most confidently return on them their own demands? We would know from any of them where their Church was for three hundred (yea for six hundred) years after Christ's birth? And we wonder how they can think to be saved in a way that was not known for so long time? Do they think themselves wiser than Christ and his Apostles, and all the Christian world for so many hundred years. Again we challenge them to show us the least proof that ever there was such a thing for so long time, as a Catholic Church convertible with the Roman, and headed by the Pope as the universal Bishop having a universal jurisdiction over the rest, or an infallible Judgement in determining of controversies in matters of faith. It is none of the least of our Reasons why we dare not be of the Romish faction or opinions, called by them their Church and their Religion, because it is so new, and we dare not venture our souls upon new ways, nor dare we believe that Christ hath two sorts of Churches essentially different since his Resurrection; one sort before the Pope's universal headship, and the other since: nor dare we once imagine that Christ had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the universal Bishop, or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now usurp. I desire no better issue than this of our difference: Let any Papists living bring out their cause to the trial of antiquity, and let them that are of the most Ancient Church and Religion, carry the cause. If we prove not theirs new and ours the most ancient, or if they prove theirs more Ancient than ours (as since Christ's Resurrection) than we are contented to be of their Church and way.  
Arg. 6. If the Papists be the greatest Schismatics upon earth, most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the main body of the visible Church, than Popery is not a safe way to salvation. But the Papists are the greatest Schismatics on earth, most desperately rending the Church, and separating themselves from the main body thereof: Therefore Popery is no safe way to salvation.  
The consequences of the Major will be confessed by themselves. It is only the Minor, therefore that is to be proved: which is too easily done, being a matter of fact.  
First, The Papists do actually rend themselves from the greatest part of Christ's Church on earth, condemning all others to everlasting fire: 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual schism, in making a new centre of the unity of the Church: of these two in order.  
1. He that shall consider of all the Christians in the world at this day, who subject not themselves to the Pope of Rome, and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholic Church, will see that the Papists are but a small part of the Church: But especially if we consider them as they were not many ages ago, much more numerous than now they be. The Grecians, the Syrians called Melchites, the Moscovites and Russians, the Georgians, all of the Greek Religion besides the multitude of the same Religion dispersed throughout the Turks dominions; also the Abassins', Egyptians, Armenians, Jacobites, who are near of a mind, and differ from the Papists, and submit not to their authority: Besides all the Reformed Churches in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Transylvania, Britain, Ireland, France, Belgia, Helvetia, and other parts with those in the Indies; I say consider of all these Christians together and it will appear that the Papists are but a few to them, or not near so many as they. But if you further consider of the state of the Christian world not many ages ago, when the Turks had not yet subdued the Eastern parts, and when the Abassian Empire was much more large, and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted, it will appear that we may well say that it was but a small part of Christians comparatively that did acknowledge the universal headship and jurisdiction of the Pope, or submit themselves to him: besides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him. I know that the Papists say, that these are all either Heretics or Schismatics, and so no part of the Catholic Church. But the accusation of Schism is the mere voice of Schism, and for Heresy, its true that all men and Churches have their errors, which yet deserve not the name of Heresy: The Jacobites and the rest that are near them, are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Christ, lest it lead them to make two persons with the Nestorians; but yet they are not plain Eutichites: and both they and the Nestorians acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect man; only the Nestorians do amiss have these two natures, two persons; and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures, though they confess the Godhead and Manhood to be really distinct; yet they say that both are as it were conjoined or coupled into one Nature: so that wise impartial men think that the Eutichites (or at least these Christians that are so called amiss by the Papists) do but misuse the term Nature for the term Person, and so deny two Persons only in sense, and two Natures only in name, and that by the same misuse of the terms the Nestorians do affirm two Natures only in sense, and two Persons in words only. Of this I desire the Reader to consider What Luther hath said the Conciliis This I must needs say, that if I did not exercise the same charity in judging of the Romanists, as I do in this excuse of the Jacobites, and other Christians that are not of their Communion, I should be forced to censure the former much deeper than the latter, and if by all their errors I must hold the rest to be Heretics or Schismatics, I must by the same measure judge the Romanists to be doubly Heretical, as I certainly know them to be most notoriously Schismatical. For though I know that they are not so barbarous and unlearned as most of these forementioned Christians, and also that they are free from many of their mistakes, yet withal they have many more in stead of them which the other are free from. And for the Protestants they are Heretics only on this supposition, that the Pope be Judge.  
By this time than it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Christ the Papists do differ from.  
But yet this is not all, nay the smaller part. For if you will but consider the state of the Church of Christ for the first three hundred, yea five or six hundred years, you will find that the Papists do differ from them all, even from the whole Church. For then the Pope's universal Episcopacy and jurisdiction was not known in the world (as is said before.)  
All these doth the Roman party now separate themselves from: All these they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Christians, but Heretics and Schismatics: All these do they condemn to the pit of Hell. They have now concluded that only those are of the true Church, that acknowledge the Mastership or universal Headship of the Pope, and the Mistrisship of the particular Roman Church which none of all those forementioned did. They now conclude that none can be saved but who are of this (new-framed) Church of theirs.  
Now I do appeal to any reasonable impartial man alive, whether there be any more notorious Schismatics on earth, than these men; that dare unchurch the far greatest part of Christ's Church on earth at present, & the far purest, and renounce communion with them all, and proclaim them Heretics or Schismatics, and sentence them all to the flames of Hell: Yea that dare do the like by all ages of Christians that have gone before them; yea that dare unchurch and damn to Hell the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years! For what do they less when they unchurch and damn all that acknowledge not their new made universal Bishop which the Primitive Church never did? And when they make that to be essential to the Catholic Church which the first Catholic Church did never know? I know there be some Enthusiasts and Anabaptists and such giddy persons, that do as the Papists do, condemn all the Churches of Christ except themselves. But yet the Schism that they have made hereby is nothing to that which was made by the Papists, who have set the Christian world into a flame of dissension, and make it their very business daily to b●ow ●t up; and do nourish so many Colleges of Jesuits and other orders to that end.  
What notorious impudence is it then in these men to tell us that we are schismatics, & separate from them and ask us, how we dare judge all our forefathers to damnation, and why we will not be of our forefather's Religion? and do not observe how they condemn themselves by all these questions. What more evident than that the Papists have separated from all other Christians in the world? How dare they condemn the far greatest part of Christians on earth to eternal torment? yea and (by plain consequence, though they will not acknowledge it) the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years? were it but one soul that they should presume to censure, they might well bethink them of an answer to Paul's Question. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master doth he stand or fall, When Paul wrote that to the Church at Rome, he knew of none then that would justify the judging of all the world, and say, They are my servants, or subjects, and therefore I must judge them. Do the blind Papists think that any sober considerate impartial Christian can be of their mind, and damn the most of Christ's Church on earth, merely because they will not be subject to the Pope of Rome. If this Article be so necessary to salvation, Why do not we find it in any ancient Creed? Why must we not say [I believe in the Pope of Rome] as well as [I believe in God?] Or if indeed it be the Pope and Romanists that is meant by [the holy Catholic Church] why would not the composers of the Creed tell us so? And why did none of the ancient Churches understand and expound it so? And why did no age add the word [Roman] and call it [the holy Roman Catholic Church.]  
2. And then withal, besides the present Schism which they have made, they have laid the ground of a perpetual schism. For they have made a new definition of the Catholic Church, and made it another thing than it was before, and they have made a new head and centre of its unity; so that all the old sort of Christians to the end of the world, that cannot change their Church and unite to the new head and centre, must needs be of a different body from the Romanists. And if these men say that it is the rest of the Christian world that first withdraws from them. 1. Let them prove that the Greek, Abassins' & the rest of the Christian world that deny subjection to them, except these in the West, were ever under them. 2. And as for the Reformed Churches if they were drawn in heretofore (I mean their forefathers) to countenance the Romish usurpation & tyranny, they withdraw only from that usurpation, & separate from Rome only as it is a faction & not as from a Church. If we be drawn into a schism & separation from all the Christian world, by the fraud of Rome, is it unlawful for us to repent & return to the unity of the Catholic Church, and to renounce the Schism that we were guilty of? This is our great sin? we are schismatics because we will not continue schismatics? we are Schismatics by casting off the Schism of Rome, because we will not be Schismatics by continuing to separate from all the Churches else on earth.  
3. But let us come to the trial with them who laid the first Schismatical Principle? Was it not they that first defined the Catholic Church as equipollent with the Roman? and first made the universal Headship of their Pope to be the centre? Did ever Peter or Paul or any Apostle do so? Did they give us such a definition of the Catholic Church? Or did the Church do so for many a hundred year after them? Prove this well, and take all; and we promise to turn Papists without delay. The plain truth is this. The Catholic Church for many hundred years after Christ was that Body of Christians who were united or centred only in Christ the head, and held communion in the fundamentals or great and necessary points of faith and worship: and had no mortal head or Centre: But the worldly greatness of the City of Rome, occasioneth the inflation and proud usurpation of her Bishop, and he will needs make himself the Centre of union and universal head, when there was no Centre or head, but Christ before: And is not this the vilest Schism that men can tell how to be guilty of? suppose that the King of Spain having his Dominions remote one part from another, some in Europe; and some in the Indies, that for five or six hundred years the Indies should acknowledge no other head but the King of Spain, and the Governors of each Province should receive their several Commissions immediately from him, and stand in no regimental subordination to one another, but only be bound by the King to have communion and hold correspondence for their mutual safety and the common good: If now after so long time the Vice King of Mexico, shall by Degrees make himself the sovereign of the rest, first claiming only the first place in their Assemblies, because he is Governor of the greatest City; and then requiring them to do nothing without him, or his consent, and at last proclaiming himself the head of the Indies under the King of Spain, and that none are subjects to the King but those that profess themselves also subjects to him, but all the rest are rebels and traitors, and to be used accordingly; exhorting and commanding all to fall upon them and use them as such: And all this upon pretence that Spain is so far off, that the King there is invisible and inaccessible to them in the Indies, and therefore the King hath given him a Commission to be his substitute, as being more visible and accessible. If now the rest of the Precedents, Governors, and Provinces, shall refuse to acknowledge the Headship of this man, and shall declare that they dare centre to no head, but the King of Spain without his express Commission manifested, and the Provinces of Mexico and the adjacent parts only shall be otherwise minded and subject themselves to the usurper, who is it that causeth the Schism in the King of Spain's dominions? And which party is it that holdeth to the ancient terms of unity? and which are the dividers? I need not stand to make a particular application: It is even so, between us and the Pope with his Romanists. The Church of old was centred only in Christ and headed only by him: At last the Pope pretending Christ's distance and invisibility, and a Commission that he hath from Christ to be his Vicar General (written in letters that none can read but himself and his party) will needs become the visible head and centre: and whereas before those only were the rebels that rejected Christ, now all must be rebels that are not subject to the Popes.  
And to aggravate the crime by the addition of hypocrisy, all this Schism and separation must be carried on by a pretence of unity: They make the poor simple people believe that the Pope being the Head and centre, there is no unity to be held but in him, and that we must all be guilty of Schism that unite not in him, and that all our divisions are caused by our departing from this centre of unity: when it is himself that hath divided from the rest of the Christian world, and would drown the infamy of it by accusing others of the same sin that he is so notoriously guilty of. By which we may well see, that accusing others is none of the surest signs of innocency, but too common a trick to divert the suspicion from themselves. When the Papists that are the greatest Schismatics on earth, do make such an outcry against us as Schismatics, because we have repent of our joining with them in their Schism, and will not confederate with them in evil, against the Laws of Christ, and the necessary means of the unity of his Church.  
Arg. 7. If the faith of Papists as Papists, which is it that we call Popery, be a merely uncertain, changeable thing, so that a man can never tell when he hath it all then is it no safe way to Salvation. But the faith of Papist● (as such) is such a merely uncertain changeable thing: Therefore it is no safe way to Salvation.  
The consequence of the Major, I suppose they will grant. For how can that be a safe way, 1. which is uncertain, 2. and changeable; when the true way to salvation is one and the same, and changeth not since Christ had established and sealed his Laws.  
All the question therefore is of the Minor: which I prove, 1. From the Popish principles, 2. From their Practices, both which do plainly show that their new Religion is a mere Weathercock that must fit with the wind of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy. Even like the Religion of the Enthusiasts that wait still for new Revelations to be superadded to the Scripture.  
And first for their principles, one is that [The Scripture is not the whole word of God, or sufficient rule of faith or manners, but only a part of the Word and Rule, and that unwritten Traditions are the other part: Yea rushworth's Dialogues, Bellarmine, and the rest of them ordinarily, tell us that Scripture was not chiefly given to be a Rule of faith at all: saith Bellarm. de verbo dei li. 4. cap. 12. [Finis Scripturae pracipuus non est, ut sit Regula fidei, sed ut variis documentis, exemplis, adhortationibus, nunc terrendo, nunc instruendo, nunc minando, nunc consolando adjuvet nos in hae peregrinatione.] that is [The chief end of Scripture, is not to be a Rule of faith: but that by divers documents, examples, adhortations, sometime by affrighting, sometime by instructing, sometime by threatening, sometime by comforting, it may help us in this our peregrination.] It is then unwritten Traditions that are part of God's Word, and at least part of the Rule of faith: And where these Traditions are to be found, and what they are, and how many, and by what notes they may all be known, either they dare not tell us, for fear of bringing men's faith to a certainty, from under the lock and key of the Pope, or else in telling us they do but cloud the business with general terms, or else disagree among themselves. That the Scripture itself is delivered to us infallibly, we doubt not: and thereby we know the Canonical books: But this may be done without another word of God: The act of Delivery from the Apostles is not a new Revelation or Word of God, but the natural means of conveying the word to those for whom it was intended: And the object of that Act of Delivery was not another Word of God, but all and only these same Canonical Books: so that I know which is the Canon (among other reasons) because I can prove (not by another Word of God, but) by infallible humane Testimony (such as I have of the Laws of this Land) that the Bible, and these particular books in it were actually delivered by the holy Writers to the Churches. If God write the two Tables of stone, and therein make known that they are his Laws, and then Deliver these to Moses, this Delivering is not a new Word of God, but a necessary act for the promulgation of the Word: So that if you ask an Israelite how he knows, whether only the ten Commandments and all those ten were contained in the Tables? He can prove it to you by the Tables Delivered, and by proving the Act of Delivery, though he could bring no other word of God which told you what was in those Tables. And indeed, if these must needs be another Word of God, besides the Delivering Acts to prove the former to be the Word of God, and tell us its parts, than there must also be another word to discover that second Word to be the Word of God, and another to discover that, and so in infinitum. Our acknowledged necessary Tradition, therefore is not another materia tradita, or Word of God, but only one of the actus tradendi, and act of delivering the same matter or word.  
But for the Papists that will have another part of the Rule of Divine faith, they will never be able to tell us what it is, and where, and to let us understand when we have all. Bellarmine de verbo dei non Scripto li. 4. cap. 9 lays down five Rules by which we may know the true Traditions. The first is [When the whole Church embraceth any thing as a point of faith, which is not found in the Scriptures of God, we must needs say, that this was had from the tradition of the Apostles.] The second is [When the universal Church keepeth somewhat which none could constitute but God, and which is not found written, we must needs say, that this was delivered from Christ and the Apostles.] The third is [That which is kept in the universal Church, and through all times past, is deservedly judged to have been instituted by the Apostles, though it be such a thing as the Church might institute.] The fourth is [When all the Doctors of the Church do with one consent teach that such a thing descended by Apostolical Tradition, either Congregate in a General Council, or writing it apart in books, this is to be believed to be an Apostolic Tradition.] The fifth Rule is this [That is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition, which is held for such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is entire and continued.] These are Bellarmine's five Rules.  
But 1. What the particular Apostolical Traditions are which are God's Word according to these Rules, he had more wit, or less honesty then to let us understand. Is it because the word of God is indeed yet unknown? or cannot be known? or because it is not fit to make it known? or because the Pope must pretend to the keeping of these hidden Laws, that so the world may receive them at his mouth?  
2. And I would fain know whether these Rules of Bellarmine's to know the unwritten word by, are themselves the Word of God, or not? If they be, are they written or unwritten, and how known to be so? If not, than it seems we may have Rules and means which are not the word of God, by which we may infallibly know which is the true word of God? And then there needs no unwritten word to deliver or prove the written word.  
3. And why may not another Doctor by these Rules, know the unwritten word, as well as the Pope, and another Church as well as the Roman?  
4. And why may not the Christian people through the world procure from some one charitable Pope, through so many hundred years, a Catalogue of those unwritten verities, that the word of God may be once commonly known, and men may know when they have all, without uncertain dependencies on the Pope, or travailing in vain to Rome to know.  
5. And for those few that Bellarmine hath instanced in, viz. The perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary, The Baptism of Infants, the validity of Heretics Baptism, the fast of Lent, the inferior orders of the Clergy, the veneration of Images. To the first, I say, It is no Article of Divine Faith, but of humane Ecclesiastical: The second is proved fully out of Scripture: And so is the third, if you take it of such Heretics (in a larger sense) as expressly exclude nothing essential to baptism, but expressly include it all: But for the rest, Bellarmine should remember how elsewhere he defendeth the Council that required the rebaptising of those that were baptised by the Paulinists, because they were Antitrinitarians. For Lent, I say, no more can be proved of it, but only that it is an ancient Ecclesiastical constitution. And the inferior orders are apparently novelties, introduced after the first age, if not the second too, and not mentioned in any of the first writers, but the sum of Church Officers enumerated without them. Much more novel is the unlawful use of Images in Churches or as immediate instruments to excite devotion in prayer, and for other lawful use, we deny it not.  
6. But principally I would entreat Bellarmine and the Pope that hereafter they would obtrude no unwritten word upon us, but what is proved to be such, at least by his own Rules. Let us have some proof that it proceedeth from the universal Church, and not their naked word without evidences. And then we must entreat them to be so honest, as not to unchurch the Greeks, Abassines, Armenians, Protestants, and all the Christians in the world except Romanists, that so they may be the whole Catholic Church, and then prove any thing to be the word of God by their own Testimony alone. Nor yet to persuade us that such a Council as theirs at Trent contained the whole Catholic Church real or representative: nor yet to bring us two or three Fathers, and say that those were all the Doctors of the Church.  
More particularly I answer to his Rules in order. To the first I say. 1. That prove if you can that ever the whole Church embraced any thing as a point of Divine faith which is not contained in the Written Word. 2. If the whole Church embrace it, than it is no secret, and therefore we all may know it, yea and actually do know it as well as the Pope.  
To the second Rule I say, You may prove a mistaken observance of rites by the greater part of the Church, but prove that the whole Church kept any thing unwritten, which none could constitute but God: But if they did, still it must needs be known to all, and therefore not controvertible, or locked up in the Pope's closet. Prove also that the universal Church may not err in some lesser matters about Christ's supposed constitutions.  
To the third I say, If by [all times passed] you include the Apostles, than we grant your Rule: but mere Ecclesiastical Canons may be observed through all times shortly after the Apostles, and yet not as Apostolical, but Ecclesiastical: Yet when you come to try your Traditions by this Rule, I am not out of doubt that you will but disgrace them, and fail your Readers just expectations.  
To the fourth I say, 1. I will believe you, if you speak of all the Doctors of the Church next to the Apostles, or so near as that the danger of mistaking was not great. 2. But I do not believe that you will find any of your Traditions asserted to be God's Word, by all the Doctors of the Church (not near all) in any one age: unless you make your faction to be all.  
The last Rule is but a mere trick of wit to get the key into the Pope's hand alone: To which I say, 1. A Church that hath had an interrupted succession of true Pastors from the Apostles, may fall into many errors in process of time, which in Tertullias and Irenaeus days, when the memory of all the Apostles practices were so fresh, they could not fall into so easily. 2. Those Churches have received their unwritten verities, either by writings from their predecessors or without: If by writings, why cannot others find it there as well as they? If without, it must be an uncertain, and mutable means; or by a means so public still that all as well as they may know of it. 3. And we undertake to prove that the succession of true Pastors of the Romish See hath been long ago, and often interrupted. And therefore this Rule will not serve your turns.  
But though I have been long upon this principle of the Papists to prove the uncertainty of their faith, yet the next is the chief that I intended, which also proveth the mutability of it.  
2. The Papists ordinarily hold that as to us, that is God's Word which the Pope with his Clergy say is God's Word; and that his determination or Declaration that this or that is a point of faith, doth make it to us a point of faith, and necessary to be believed to salvation, which before was not so; So that according to the Papists, the Church's faith must alter at the Pope's pleasure (at least with his Clergy) And by new declarations and determinations, he may make them a new Article of their Creed, when he will: so that their faith is as mutable and fallible as their Pope; and this they are themselves aware of: and therefore feign him to be infallible that they may prove their faith infallible: which if they could do (as they never can) yet still their faith is mutable by their own confession, if not by revocations, yet by new additions as to us: so that their Religion is in continual progress or flux, and groweth in quantity as every Pope doth add his Determinations. Now I would know of any Papist in the world, or of the Pope himself if he would condescend to such considerations, whether they are sure that yet they have all that is made necessary to be believed to salvation, upon supposal of their determination? How can they tell but that their successors may make the Creed as long again as it is, and make their Religion another thing? I know they will say, that as to them no more is de fide than the Pope determineth to be so.  
But then, 1. If he would not determine it, no man should be bound to believe in Christ, and so none be damned for unbelief.  
2 If it be a benefit to have all points of faith determined, Why are they not done, but one Pope must add one, and another add another to the end of the world (if Christ should let them go on.)  
3. Sure the preaching of any one Apostle or other Preacher of the Gospel in the first age did leave the unbelievers without excuse; and not only the Cathedral Determination of Saint Peter And why then doth not any Preachers Revelation of Gods will from his Word, oblige men now to believe as well as it did then?  
And 3. It is evident and undeniable that their practice is according to their principles. The Popish Religion changeth so fast by the new additions of several Popes, that it is not the same thing now, as it was heretofore. Look but into the Oath, or Trent Confession which I recited in the beginning, and you may presently see how their Religion is swelled bigger than it was. All the Pope's Decretals, or at least all the Canons of Trent, and every General Council (at least, confirmed by the Pope) do enlarge their faith, as they add any thing to what went before. What a multitude of things are de fide now, that were not so within a thousand years? What man can give up himself to such a growing Religion, where we must wait on the Pope, as the Enthusiasts do on God, for new Additional Revelations? And cannot know when we have all or half. How can they tell but their Creed may fill more volumes yet before that all their Popes have done with it?  
Nay further note, that the Pope can make not only new ways to Heaven, but several ways to Heaven at once. He could once dispense with the Bohemians for receiving in both kinds, and yet make it necessary to the salvation of others, to take it but in one, because he so decreed it to be given. So that there shall be one Creed in one part of the world, and another in the rest.  
It is a damnable Heresy in parts that are absolutely under his power, for the vuglar to read the Scripture in their own Tongue. But in England, he can make it Lawful, lest it hinder his designs, though his Doctors have long determined that it is the Mother of all Heresies.  
So that Popery is not the same thing in one Country as it is in another; nor the same thing at Rome itself in one age as it is at another.  
To give you a fresh example: How long have the Dominicans and Jesuits, the Jansenists, and the Molinists been in contention about Predestination, Freewill, Predetermination, Universal Redemption, etc. and one party condemned the other, professing their opinions to be heretical, and destructive to the Catholic faith? as is to be seen in the writings between Petavius, Ricardus, and Vincentius, Lenis, alias Fremondus, with many more before them: But when they speak to us about these matters they persuade us that it is only about certain Shool points that they differ, and not about any points of faith: For they are not points of faith to us till the Pope have determined them. And while the eager contenders on either side endeavour to have the Pope determine the controversy on their side, no Pope durst do it for fear of losing the reputation of his infallibility with the adverse party; and so the unmerciful Popes have long suffered their Doctors to live in contention, and to write voluminously against one another, and their Roman Church to be broken into parties, because they would not once open their mouths to decide the difference. But now at last it pleased Pope Innocent the tenth (though he durst not touch the principal points) to favour his Jesuits so far as to determine five of the controverted points for the Molinists against the Jansenians (when Pope Clement was once about determining all for the Dominicans as they thought) Mark here the agreement of the Papists, and the stability of their faith. Before the determination each party maintained their way as de fide, and accused the other as Heretical: some boldly prognosticated (as our Thomas Anglus alias White) that the Pope would never determine the controversy about Predetermination. And now the Pope hath tried the stomaches of his Dominicans with the Determination of these five Articles. First, to see how they will digest them before he went further: And he pronounceth them to be Heretical, and some of them temerarious, impious, and blasphemous too, condemning them with Anathema: Now those become points of faith on one side, and Heresies on the other which were none before. Till this Determination the Church of Rome wanted five Articles of their Creed, or had five fewer than now they have: A man might have been saved before, that had believed, that [Liberty from necessity is not necessary to Merit] with the rest of them, but now all of that belief must be damned. And was not the Pope unmerciful to the poor Dominicans, to send them all to Hell, that cannot change their belief, knowing how hard it is for a learned Tribe, especially so countenanced by Augustine, and Thomas, to alter their minds unfeignedly at a word. And yet in the Trent Confession they must all solemnly swear and vow that all things delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred Canons and Ecumenical Councils, especially that of Trent, they do without doubting receive and profess: though no man had ever heard the Pope's Reasons, yet if he do but see the Determination of their Church, he must presently not only believe the contrary to what he believed before, but do it also without doubting; though they'll confess millions are saved that believe Christ to be the Son of God, though not without doubting. Well: but see what unity is procured by the addition of these new Articles to their Creed? The French Doctors ascribe to his holiness that the said Articles may be taken in several senses: The one sense is Heretical, Lutheran or Calvinian, but that is a sense, That the words lawfully used will not hear, but only may malignantly be fastened to them (say they) The other sense (which is genuine and proper) they Def●nd themselves, as true, and as pertaining to the Belief of the Church, as the Doctrine of Augustine, and as defined by the Council of Trent, and the contrary Opinion of Molina and the adversaries others maintain to be Pelagian or Semipelagian. See here what the Papists themselves now do implicitly charge upon the Pope; That he (by his express unlimited condemnation) doth malignantly fasten an Heretical sense on the words, which properly they will not bear, or else that he contradicteth Augustine and the Council of Trent, and Anathematizeth the Christian faith, and maintaineth the Semipelagian Heresy of Molina. And yet must we judge either their Pope to be infallible; or their Church to be at such unity in faith as they would make the ignorant vulgar believe? More of the like contention about his holiness Determinations you may see in Tho. Whites Appendicula ad sonum Buccinae, and Franscus Macedo his Lituus Lusitanus: In all which you may see that all the comfort that the poor Dominicans have left them (even their hope of salvation if they be Papists indeed) consisteth in this, that the Pope speaks one thing and means another, and that (as White so merrily saith, in so sad a matter) The wise father of the Church was necessitated for the appeasing of contentions, to grant the more turbulent party their words, and the more obedient party their sense: so that when the Pope hath done all that he can to determine their controversies, they will still say, that he determineth but the words (nay he doth but grant one party their words) and not the meaning: and so not only sense, but bare terms must be made Articles of faith.  
And here you may see the great force of the Papists arguing for a necessity of a living Judge to determine of the sense of Scripture, because the Scripture is so ambiguous that each one will else wrest it, his own way: And do we not see, that the Pope cannot, after so many years' deliberation, determine five short Articles so expressly and plainly, even when he doth it of purpose to decide the controversy, as to make his learned Doctors understand him? but that each party doth take his words to be either for, or not against their opinions, and hold their opinions as fast since his determination as before: And so they do by Augustine, Thomas and the Council of Trent: each party confidently persuading the world that they were of their side. And may not God have the honour of speaking as plainly as the Pope or Thomas or the Council of Trent? and cannot we well be without the Decision of such a Judge, as cannot speak so as to be understood by his greatest Doctors himself.  
So that the Principles and Practices of the Romanists do assure us that their faith is unfixed, growing and mutable; they may be one year of one Religion, and another year of another, as please the Pope: A Dominican might have been saved at any time since the creation till May 31. 1653. when the Pope's Determination was dated: but now they must all be damned for heresy. There is a new way to heaven made 1653. that never was before: and for aught they know to the contrary before their Popes have done Determining, there may be five hundred Articles more in their Creed. So that for my part I desire not either to be shut out of heaven at the pleasure of every new Pope, nor to be of so uncertain and changeable a Religion: And I cannot think therefore that Popery is a safe way to salvation.  
Arg. 8. That Doctrine which derogateth from the written Word of God, and setteth the Decrees of men above it, enabling them to contradict its most express institutions, is no safe way to salvation: But such is the Doctrine of Popery: therefore it is no safe way to salvation  
The Major is unquestionably true among true Christians. For the proof of the Minor I shall only give you three instances of the Popish Doctrine, because I intent not to be too particular, left I be too large.  
The first is, their affirming the Scripture both to be insufficient to discover the whole doctrine of faith, as being but one part of God's Word, and Tradition the other part, and also to be no Word of God at all to us, till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it so to be; or that we cannot know the Scripture to be God's word, but upon the Authority of the Church's determination. But of this I have spoken before, and shall do more in another dispute.  
The second instance that I give is, Their changing Christ's most express institution, by withholding the Cup in the Lord's Supper from the people, and giving them but half the Sacrament. I am not now disputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half, so delivered; but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papists that dare set up the will of man above God's Word, and give power to the Pope to change Christ's Institutions; and not only to add but to diminish, and expressly to contradict Christ, and forbid what he commandeth. I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apostles that Christ gave the Cup, and not to the Laity: True, nor the bread neither: but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup, why may they not as well say so of the Bread? But do not these deceivers know? 1. That Christ gives this reason of his administering the Cup [Drink ye All of it: For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of sins?] So that if this reason hold to others, if his blood be shed for the sins of others as well as for the Clergy, than the command extendeth to others [Drink ye all of it.] And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Christ [This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you?] So that those whom it is shed for (and we may discern to be Believers) it may be applied to. 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup, as from the Lord, to the whole Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. and not only to the Clergy? Is it not all that he expressly commandeth to [Examine themselves, and so to eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup?] Alas, they know all this: they cannot but know it, and yet they will contradict the express word of God: God saith [Drink ye all of it] and [Let a man examine himself, and so drink:] The Pope saith, Let none of the people drink of it, but the Clergy only. What is this but to abrogate God's Laws, and set up the Popes above and against it? Yea unless it were to show the world their Power to contradict Christ and destroy his word, who can imagine what should move them to this attempt? If there were any temptation of profit or honour in the business (as there is in the maintaing of the Pope's supremacy, Purgatory, Indulgences, Pardons, etc.) we should not wonder at it: But what profit, or honour, or pleasure is it, thus to contradict Christ? and for them that add such a multitude of their own Ceremonies, to affect so to cut off one half of the Sacramental Rite and matter which Christ ordained.  
Nay thirdly, Do not these men know that the Bread and Cup were both given to the people by the Primitive Church? and that it so continued for many hundred years? and that their alteration is a mere novelty. Yes, they know all this: For the matter is so far past doubt that they cannot but know it. And yet these deceivers would make the people believe that they are of the old Religion, and our Region is new. These are they that cry out against our casting off Apostolical Traditions, and the Church's constitutions and customs, and going in new ways which our forefathers knew not: These are they that make it a mark of an Apostolical Tradition, that the whole Church hath received it, and that as from the Apostles. And yet these men dare cast off, not only that which they know the whole primitive Church received and practised as from the Apostles (as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and all antiquity profess) but also is expressly contained in the Scripture. With what face can these that exclaim against novelty, introduce such a palpable novelty into the Church? with what face can they that so cry up antiquity, gainsay all antiqiuty? and they that cry up the whole Church's consent, so go against the consent of the whole Church for so many Ages after the Apostles? They dare not deny but this part of Popery is utterly New, against the constant practice and Canons of all Churches.  
The third point which I shall instance in, is, Their performing Gods public service in Latin, and forbidding the people to read the Scriptures in their known vulgar Tongue; when as the Apostle Paul hath written the greatest part of a whole Chapter, 1 Cor. 14. expressly against this opinion and practice, and for using of a known tongue that others may understand and be edified. The evasions by which they would elude that part of Scripture; are so senseless that I think it not necessary to recite them: but rather suppose that they need no other confutation than the bare considerate reading of the Text; and therefore I shall venture the Reader (if he have common capacity and impartiality, and be but willing to know the truth) upon any thing that the Papists shall be able to say, for their Latin Service, and locking up the Scriptures, so be it he will but read that Chapter considerately. And are not these good Teachers in Christ's School that will lock up the Grammar from their Scholars, when it is the very office of the Presbyters to teach it the people? And to hide from them that word of the living God, which he hath given the world to be their Directory to salvation? The Prophets, and Christ and the Apostles did speak and write this word in a know● tongue to the people to whom they did immediately direct it: And must All hear and read it then, and only the Learned now? Are not these the men that take away the Key of knowledge, and will neither enter in themselves, nor suffer others to enter? They do expressly contradict the Commands of God, and bid the people not read the Scripture, when God hath charged them to write it on the very posts of their houses, and on their doors, and that it be as a frontlet between their eyes, and that they teach it their children, speaking of it lying down and rising up, at home and abroad, Deut. 6 & 11. God makes it the mark of the Blessed man, Psal. 1.2, 3. To meditate day and night in his Law, as making it his delight: and the Papists commonly maintain in their writings that to have the Scripture in the vulgar tongue is the root of all heresies. God maketh the study of his word the duty and mark of all his Disciples, and the Papists make it the mark of a Heretic, and have burned many a one for it here in Queen Mary's days and tormented and burnt many by their bloody inquisition for it abroad. The very Pharisees thought that their vulgar were cursed that knew not the Law, and the Papists will not let it be made known to them lest it make them accursed. God saith [To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, Isa. 8.20.] The Papists cry out precul— hinc away: let it alone, meddle not with it, it will make you Heretics: And indeed they have had large experience that the way which they call heresy, and contradicteth their impieties, is most effectually promoted by the word of God: and therefore they think they have some reason to speak against it. Saint John saith [These things are written that ye might believe, and that believing ye might have life throagh his name] Joh. 20.31. The Papists say, Read not these holy writings, lest they destroy your faith, and bring you to damnation. When the man Luk. 10.26, asketh Christ [What shall I do to inherit eternal life?] Christ answereth him thus [What is written in the Law? how readest thou?] directing to the course which the Papists do forbid. The Apostle saith, that [Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our Learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope] Rom. 15.4. But the Papists will not have men learn that, which was written for their Learning, Comfort and Hope. Joh● wrote to fathers, young men, and children, 1 John 2.12, 13, 14. God's anger against the Jews was that [He had written to them the great or wonderful things of his Law, and they had accounted them as strange things] Hos. 8.12. And the Papists will force people to be strange to these writings. Yet how familiar (comparatively) they were to the vulgar Jews and their very children ●s known and acknowledged. Is it not a high advancement of the Gospel Church, above the legal Jewish Church, which the Papists do vouchsafe it? That we may not have the same liberty or means of knowledge as the very children of the Jews had? Their children must be taught the Scripture, lying down and rising up, and our eldest people even to the least breath must not read them, unless they can learn the tongues which they were first written in. The Jews had the Septuagints Translation (or that so called) when the Hebrew grew strange to them, which the Apostles used in their ordinary citations; and they heard the Gospel preached in the Syriack, which was then their vulgar tongue: But we may not read the same in our Vulgar tongue by the Papists consent, Moses, Joshua, Josiah, Nehemiah, Read the Scriptures to all the people, Exod 24.7. Josh. 8.34, 35. 2 King. 23.1, 2, 3. Neh. 8.3.8.18. & 9, 3 & 13.1. And it was their custom to read Moses and the Prophets to the people every Sabbath day, Act. 13.27. & 15.21. 2 Cor. 3.15. Luke 4.16. And Christ useth to reprehend their strangeness to Scripture passages, as if they had not read them with such words as these [Have ye not read, & c?] and [Have ye never read, & c?] Mat 12.3.5. & 19.4. & 21.26. & 22.21. Mark 12.10.26. Luke 6.3. Luk. 10.26. And Moses commandeth Israel, the Priests, Levites and all the Elders thus, Deut. 31.11, 12, 13. [When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this Law before all Israel in their hearing; Gather the people together, men and women and children, and the stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this Law; and tha● their children which have not known any thing may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long a● ye live in the Land etc.] It was therefore in a known tongue that it must be read; And when the people understood not the old Hebrew tongue in which the Law was written, by reason of the change of their speech in the captivity, Nehemiah caused them to understand the Reading, Neh. 8.8. No doubt, by expressing it in the language which they understood. And yet the Papists forb●d the unlearned, that have most need of teachings, the use of the holy Scriptures in a known tongue, and make it the mother of all Heresies. How impiously against God, and how cruelly against men, is this committed? Must the God of heaven send down his Spirit to dictate an illuminating Doctrine to his Prophets and Apostles for the world? must he give them a perfect Law, by which Truth and Heresy must be discerned? Must he send his own Son to preach the Gospel? and cause his instruments to write it, in a language best known to those that they conversed with, or to the world that was to be converted by it? And must this Doctrine now be made the mother of Heresies, and kept from the eyes of the people that should learn it? What, must the only rule that condemneth Heresies, be made the cause of them? Must the light which God hath given the world, be blamed for all the Darkness of men's errors? Or must men be kept from the light, for fear lest it lead them into Darkness? This is the Popish Piety and Charity: In stead of helping to Illuminate the dark world, as all preachers of the Gospel should do (Act. 26.17, 10.) they ●ust have all the unlearned to put out their eyes, ●d be led by their guides, and trust their souls with them, for fear lest if they have any eyes in their heads, and any light to walk by, they should stumble or err through the imperfection of their sight.  
And yet the Papists, who so much pretend to unity, are various and changeable in this high point of their abomination, as well as in other things. For when they once see that they cannot keep the Scriptures from the people, because the Protestants Translations are among them, than they will permit them to read their own Translations: And upon this account the Rhemists translated the New Testament into English, when they saw they could not wholly suppress and hide that light: And on this account it is that our Papists in England, and some other parts where the Protestants abound among them, are permitted by their Priests (with some warnings of the needlessness, and the danger of it) to read the Scripture in their Country tongue: When as to a Papist in Spain or Italy it is no less a crime then to merit the Rack or Strappado of the Inquisition, and its strange if they be not burnt for it at a stake. So that I have met with some seduced Papists in England, so ignorant of their course abroad, and so gulled by the lies of their companions or Priests, that they would not believe that they do any where forbid the vulgar to read the Scripture in their own tongue; but were confidently persuaded that it was our slander of them: so that these poor people believe that the Sun is not set in Spain at midnight, because it shines at noon in England. Let them read but Joh. Arboreus Theosoph l. 8. c. 9 Andradius Defens. Concil. Trident. l. 4. Petrus Lizetus Dialog. de sacris libris in vulg. Floq non evertendis. Hosius Dialog. de Communion. etc. Petrus suitor de Translatione Bibliae: Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 2. c. 15. & 16. Salmeron. in 1 Cor. Disp. 30. Bellarmine himself mentioneth the Index librorum prohibit. of Pope Pius 4. Reg. 4. which forbiddeth the reading of the Scripture, in the vulgar tongue, except only to those that the ordinary shall think will receive good and not harm by it, and so shall have a licence from him in writing, and they pronounce that the common permission of the Scriptures thus doth more harm then good: The same Index was after increased and approved by Pope Sixtus 5. and Clemens 8. And how few they are that their Ordinaries will grant Licences to, for the reading of Scripture, is too well known by common experience. The Kings of Spain forbid all Translations of the Bible into the vulgar tongues; and Alphonsus a Castro commendeth them for it: and many a one hath been burnt to ashes for selling, keeping, or reading such Bibles, in Spain, Italy, and Savoy. And Bellarmine mentioneth the Sess. 22. cap. 8 and Can. 9 of the Council of Trent forbidding both the Common reading of such Bibles, and also the public use of them in the Churches, in both which we must have them only in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Bellarm. ubi supr. If these be not notorious enemies of the Light, who are? David faith, Psal. 119. That the word was a Lantern to his feet, and a Light to his Paths. Isaiah sends us to the Law and to the testimony, saying that if they speak not according to these it is because there is no light in them, Isa. 8.20. And the Phpists say (as Arboreus ubi supra) that the reading the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue is the Rise or Root of all Heresies: And so the Sun must be taken out of the firmament as being the fountain of all darkness, or at least the cause of men's wander. Only where they cannot help it (or as Stapleton saith, where Heresies are most common) there they will permit or connive at it, for their own ends. For Necessity hath no Law.  
I conclude therefore, and confidently conclude, that Popery is not a safe way to heaven, because it doth 1. both vilify God's Scriptures as an insufficient Rule, and but part of his word: And 2. presumeth to alter its most express institutions (as the Cup in the Lord's Supper) And 3. expressly contradict it, in forbidding the Prayers of the Church to be in a known tongue. 4. And forbid the public reading of Scripture in a known tongue. 5 And forbid the translating of Scripture, and the reading of such translations even by any private man, unless he have the Ordinaries Licence, which he may get in those Countries where there is no remedy. The Kingdom of the Devil is called in Scripture the Kingdom of darkness; and Christ's Kingdom is called, a Kingdom of light: and when ever God converteth a sinner, he translateth him from the Power of Darkness into his marvellous light, even into the Kingdom of his dear Son, Act. 26.18. Col. 1.13. 1 Pet. 2.9. And God is the father of lights, Jam. 1.17. And Satan is the Prince of the powers of darkness, Luke 22 53. Rev 16.10. And Christ hath told us, that he that walketh in darkness stumbleth and knoweth not whither he goeth, Joh. 12.35, 46. And that every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth tru●● cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God, Joh. 3.21. The Papists therefore give us reason to think they have not the truth, were it but in this enmity which they bear unto the Light.  
Arg. 9 That doctrine which teacheth men to worship the creature with Divine worship, is no safe way to salvation. But Popery teacheth men to worship the creature with Divine worship: Therefore it is no safe way to salvation.  
The Major will not be denied by Papists: The Minor I prove by one instance only (at this time:) and that is, their worshipping of the consecrated Host or Bread in their Mass, and at other times. He that worshippeth the consecrated Bread with Divine worship, doth worship the creature with Divine worship: But the Papists worship the consecrated Bread with Divine worship therefore. They deny the Major, and tell us, that it is no longer Bread but the Body of Christ: But that they worship that thing which we call Bread, and they call Christ's Body, with Divine worship, they do not deny. Only some would excuse them from the guilt of Idolatry (which is a worshipping the creature instead of the Creator) by this, because they think it is Christ that they worship, and so interpretatively it is he in deed and the worship right. But if they will think that to be Christ which is not Christ, and then worship it, that will not excuse them from being some kind of Idolaters: What if they will think a Ranter or Quaker to be Christ, who call themselves Christ? are they therefore excusable if they worship them? Then why might not the old Pagan Idolaters be justified, or thus excused, seeing they thought that the Sun and Moon had been Gods. And when they worshipped an Image, they thought that some Deity had affixed this special presence to that Image: What if an Egyptian thought that an Ox was God, or that a Deity did dwell in him, were they therefore no Idolaters? And then, how heinously God taketh the sin of Idolatry, the Scripture fully witnesseth.  
That which we have to do, therefore is only to inquire whether indeed it be bread or Christ's body, a creature or the Creator which they worship? Concerning which there is so much said by Doctor Featly against Fisher, and by Peter Martyr against Smith, and elsewhere, and by Jewel, Fox, and abundance more, that if people would read it, I should think it vain to say any more. I shall only annex ●hese Reasons (very briefly) which come first to my thoughts to prove that the Bread is not turned into the very body of Christ, but remaineth Bread still.  
1. If the Bread were Christ's real Body, than Christ had two real bodies: for he had one sitting at the table, which delivered the Bread, and if the Bread were another, he had two: or else the body that Christ sat and lived with, was not a whole body, but a part: But Christ had but one body, and that was entire.  
2. It would follow also that Christ had a living and a dead body, a sensible and insensible body both at once.  
3. It would follow that the Apostles did tear Christ true flesh, and draw out his blood as well as the Jews did.  
4. Yea and that they began to the Jews, and did it before them: And therefore why should the Jews act, and theirs be so much differenced?  
5. It will follow that either Christ had one body torn by the Jews, and another by the Disciples, or else that one part of his body only was crucified and not the whole: for the other part was eaten and drunk by the Disciples before.  
6. Also either Christ had one body that did Rise again and another that never rose, or else it was but one part of Christ's body that rose from the dead; for the other part was eaten and drunk before.  
7. The like may be said of his ascension; Then it is not Christ's whole body that ascended up into heaven: for part of it was eaten before by the Disciples, and digested by them.  
8. It will follow that Christ's glorified body is corruptible, and may be digested by a man's stomach, and turned into dung: For so is that which is eaten.  
9 It will follow also that Christ's body may become an integral part of our very natural bodies, and so his body is become sinful, as being a natural part of a sinner: for the Bread and Wine do nourish us, and turn into our substance.  
10. Yea it followeth that Christ doth thus turn into the substance of every child of the Devil that eateth the consecrated Bread, and drinketh the Wine. For they certainly nourish him and turn into his substance: A most horrid consequent: For what communion hath Christ with Belial?  
11. Nay (which is in some respect more horrid and abominable to imagine) it will follow, that the Glorified body of Christ may turn into the substance of a mouse or a Dog: for if they eat it, the bread will certainly nourish them, and become their substance.  
12. It will follow that either Christ hath an insensible body, or else men hurt him by eating him in the Eucharist.  
13. It followeth that Christ hath as many thousand bodies, as there be consecrated hosts, or else that by continuation of parts it is every where, and filleth all the world (which the Papists disavow.)  
14. It followeth that Christ's body admitteth of augmentation, and either daily or weekly receiveth new made parts, or else that he hath new bodies made daily.  
15. Also it followeth that a creature (either the Baker or the Priest) may make God, or make his Saviour, at least instrumentally: which is a horrid imagination.  
16. It followeth that either Christ's body hath the accidents of colour, taste, dimension, etc. which are there sensible, or else that those Accidents have no subject, which is a contradiction.  
17. It followeth also that Christ hath not indeed a true humane body, if it be such as is before employed.  
18. And it followeth that the body of Christ is (part of it) condemned, hated of God, and tormented by the Devil. Because his body was turned into the bodies of many millions of wicked men, which must be so condemned, hated and tormented.  
19 Also it followeth that the Scriptures are not true, which tell us that the heavens must receive him (in that humane nature which ascended from earth) till the times of the restitution of all things, Act. 3.21. and that he shall come again to judge the world.  
20. Lastly it will follow that a man must not trust his senses: that though my eyes, my smell, my taste, my feeling, tell me that this is Bread and Wine, yet they are all deceived: and not mine only but all the senses in the world, to which they are objected. And if that be true, 1. What reason have I to trust any Papist living? For all my good opinion of him must be ultimately resolved into something that I see or hear of him: And it seems, I am uncertain whether I see or hear him indeed or not. 2. And then how can I tell that I or any man is sure of any thing? For if the senses of millions in perfect health may be all deceived in this, why not in other things, for aught we know? 3. And then how can any Papist tell that the Bread is turned into Christ's body? If he say, because the Church or the Scripture saith so; How knoweth he that, but by hearing or seeing? and therefore for aught he knows his senses may be deceived when he thinketh he heareth or readeth such a thing, as well as when he thinketh that he seeth, feeleth, smelleth, and tasteth Bread and Wine.  
And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impel them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture, sense and reason? And what is the ground of their contrary belief? Not the Ancient Church (unless they wilfully or negligently deceive themselves) for the stream of antiquity is full against them: so full that its hard to believe that any of them that's versed in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them, if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read. What is it then that bringeth them to this belief? Is it the Scriptures? That's not likely, because they make so light of it, and swear to take it in the sense of the Church, or ancient Doctors (in which last they are here and oft most desperately forsworn) It must be then upon the Authority of the present Church, that is, the Pope and his Clergy, that they entertain this hard belief. That is, The Pope and his Clergy believe it, because they say it themselves, and the rest believe it because the Pope saith it. And is it truly possible that any man should have so good a conceit of himself, yea or any other think so well of him, as to believe unfeignedly so great a thing upon so weak a ground? Can the Pope therefore believe it because he doth believe it? Or is it not too probable that thousands of them are of that Belief which Melancthon sometime told them of very smartly [You Italians (saith he) Believe Christ is in the Bread, before you Believe that there is any Christ in heaven] while they pretend to a faith above men (that is, to believe Impossibilities upon the Pope's credit) I wish they prove to have the common belief of Christians; and that in heart they do not (as once one of their Popes did) account the Gospel but a commodious fable. But let us suppose that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their strange belief, and that [Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my body] is the very word that doth convince them, as some of them do pretend. I would here be bold to ask them that say so, a Question or two. 1. What, if the Ancient Church had intecpreted this Text as we do, against your Transubstantiation? would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text? What need I ask this? Your own Oaths and Profession saith, No: It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief. And let me add, that if I prove not (in a fair debate upon a just call) that the ancient Church for many hundred years after Christ, was against Transubstantiation, I will give all the Papists in England leave to spit in my face (for all the high expressions of the Eucharist that some fathers have.) 2. What is there in those words [This is my body] that can persuade any sober Christian to their strange belief? What is it, because that they are properly and not figuratively to be understood? And how is that proved? Is it because we must not force the Scripture, but take it in the plainest, obvious sense? I easily grant it. But who knows not that both in Scripture and in all our common speech, the figurative sense is oft the most plain and obvious, and the literal the most improbable? What three sentences do we use to speak together without some figurative expression? I will appeal to any unprejudiced man of reason, whether a Christian that should newly read those words of Christ, and had never heard them or read them before, would not sooner take them in our sense, then in the Papists? They may easily try this upon a new convert, if they please: and I dare make their own consciences judge, if they have any left to befriend a common truth. What is there more in [This is my Body] being a Sacramental business, then for a man that is in a room among many Images, to say [This is Peter or Paul, or this is Augustine or Hierom or chrysostom?] And would not any unprejudiced slander by suppose that the most obvious sense of those words is [This is the picture of Peter, Paul, & c.?] Or would a man easily believe that it was the meaning of the speaker, that this Picture was the very real flesh and blood of Peter and Paul, and all other Pictures that ever should be made after the same exemplar, should be so transubstantiated? So what is the obvious signification of those words [This is my body] but [This is the Sacrament or Representation of my Body?] Especially when his real body was distinctly there present, and he expressly biddeth them [Do this in remembrance of me.] 3. I would desire any Papists living to tell me, why the Text doth not as much oblige him to believe that [The Cup is the New Testament] substantially without a figure, as that [The Bread is his Body] For the Text as expressly saith one as the other, Luk. 22.20. This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood.] Yet I suppose they will be content to say that by [The New Testament] is meant, the Sacrament or Seal of the New Testament. 4. Why will not these blind wretches believe the Holy Ghost, who calls it Bread at the eating after the consecration? 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. three times together; and tells us that the use of it is to remember and show the Lords death till he come.  
I might here add to this in the next place their worshipping o● Saints, especially of the Virgin Mary, with prayers to her as the Queen of Heaven, to forgive their sins, and to command her Son to forgive them, with abundance more of such impious, idolatrous or sacrilegious expressions, as might make the ears of a sober Christian even to tingle. But these things have been so oft told them, and are so visible in their Offices and other writings that I shall pass them over. As also their worshipping of Images, and public using them to that end in their Churches: Though most of their Laity that I have met with, say that they use them but for a remembrance of the Saints and do not worship them (and that's bad enough in such cases) yet their learned Schoolmen and Doctors tell us another tale, as is too visible in many of their writings.  
Arg. 10. That Doctrine which teacheth men to turn the most of God's worship into mere unreasonable ceremonies and vain formalities of man's dev; ising, is not a safe way to salvation. But such is the doctrine of Popery: Therefore, &c  
The Major is certain: For 1. God hath taken down the ceremonial Law which he himself had made, and therefore will not give leave to man to set up another in its stead, and to burden his Church with unncessary things. 2. It is contrary to the freedom and spiritual state of the Gospel Church. The Apostle bids us stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free: And Christ saith, that God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and Truth: for such worshippers the Father seeketh: And he telleth the formal ceremonious Pharisees, that they worshipped God in vain, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men, Mat. 15.6, 7, 8, 9 Joh. 4.23, 24. Gal. 5.1.  
As for the Minor, it were tedious to recite but half the Romish ceremonies and formalities with which ●hey both delude and burden poor sinners. For the word of God in a tongue which they understand, they must hear a sound of a strange language which they understand not: Instead of singing praises with the heart (as David) and with the understanding (as Paul requireth) they sing over prayers and Scriptures and other things in uncouth notes and in the Latin tongue, which the people understand not: The Eucharist or Lords Supper is also celebrated in Latin and the prayers and praises adjoined; and the Cup taken from the people: and all turned into a mere show, by elevation of the host, adoration of it, gaping while the Priest doth pop the Bread into their mouths. Prayers also are used in Latin, so that the substance of public worship is thus made a very Picture, or unreasonable service: Yea, they teach them to pray partly in Latin in private, and partly with vain repetitions, multiplying over the name Jesus, nine times together, and rehearsing over their canting shreds, and numbering their prayers on their beads to keep tale, and observing such and such hours, and praying to Saints, to one Saint for this and another for that, giving the eulogies and prayers and praises to the Virgin Mary, that are due to God alone: Sacraments they multiply: even Marriage which in the Clergy is a deadly sin, and the avoiding it by the Laity is a work of supererogation, yet must it be a Sacrament. The Rules of their several Monastical orders, were tedious to recite: Touch not, taste not, handle not: such meats must not be eaten on such a day: such orders must use such meats, and forbear such: other Orders forbear other meats: some must be thus shorn, shaved, clothed; and some thus: Much of their Devotion consisteth in being sprinkled with Holy Water, anointed with Chrism: creeping to the Altar; striking 〈◊〉 the breast; making and wearing the Cross; setting it up, and worshipping it in high ways and Churchyards, worshipping Crucifixes; and bowing before the Images of God, the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, and of the Saints; travelling to certain Images and shrines in Pilgrimage, offering to them, especially to our Lady at some famous places; compassing the Church so oft; formal penances: observing multitudes of Holidays for the Saints; hearing so many Masses, saying such or such words, carrying Palms, taking ashes, carrying banners, following the Cross, and host in processions, and worshipping it, bearing candles: In Baptism, salting, crossing, spathing, exorcizing, washing hands: Also baptising bells: Ceremonious consecrations; saying Dirges, and Masses for departed souls: forswearing marriage: renouncing propriety: pardons and indulgencies from the Pope; with abundance of the like delusory carnal formalities in which much of the Popish devotion doth consist. And how can any unprejudiced man, that is but possessed with the Spirit of God, and truly knoweth what it is to worship him, imagine that God is pleased with such histrionical gandes, and childish things? I confess the reading of their very books of devotion, their offices to our Lady, and others the like, which are stuffed with such superstitious and unreasonable passages, seems enough to me to turn the heart of a sober man against their way. For who can think that the Holy and Blessed God will be delighted in their vain babble and childish canting, and affected ropetitions of words, and saying, and hearing we know not what? would any wise man regard such expressions of love or honour? If your friend or your child should express his Love and respects to you by mimic gestures, and gambols, and making strange faces, or repeating over your name nine times in a breath, or ridiculous canting, compliments and actings like a Stage Player, would you applaud, or delight in such expressions of love and honour as these? Or would you not rather say as the Philistine King of David, when he spit, and scraped on the Wall, Have I need of mad men? It is sure a carnal unreasonable doctrine, that leadeth men to such carnal unreasonable services, of that God who will be served reasonably in spirit and in truth. They that have but an Image or shadow of Faith and Grace, and can expect no more of Glory, are like enough to be well pleased with these Images and mere shadows of God's worship: But its like to be otherwise with him that hath a spirit of supplication and holiness within him, and hath known by experience what it is to walk with God, and offer him acceptable sacrifices, and to receive the tokens of his acceptance and approbation.  
Arg. 11. If Popery be maintained commonly by most wicked and abominable means, and so by the Devil, than it is no safe way to Salvation. But the Antecedent is too true: Therefore, etc.  
I speak not here of the mere miscarriages of some of their party; but of the Pillars by which the Pope's Kingdom is supported; which that it is by abominable wickedness, I shal● give you but these few instances following.  
1. The very business or prize which they so much contend for, is Pomp, Greatness, Dominion, yea Tyranny in the world: so that it is evidently Pride, Vainglory, and Covetousness that sets them on, and is the Spring of all their contests. What's the chief part of the quarrel, but whether the Pope and Cardinals of one City, even Rome, shall be the Rulers and Masters of all the Christian world, and all Princes and People obey them? What unprejudiced man can be so blind, as not to see that this contest is Tyrannical, and that their Dominion is their Religion, and their Pride is their faith, and that the question is but that which one would think Christ had once sufficiently determined, Who shall be the greatest? Did not Christ chide his Disciples for this contest? and say, With you it shall not be so? But the Papists, having no better way to prove the Scripture a nose of Wax, and as flexible and multiform, as they accuse it to be, then by making it so to themselves by abusive violence and perverting it, putting by the plainest words that Christ can speak, and will take his Decision for no Decision, when it makes against the Decisive Power of their Pope.  
2. And this is yet further manifest, in that such a multitude of their Popes have been Whoremongers, Murderers, Heretics, Simoniacal, buying the Popedom with money, and poisoning one another to obtain the Popedom, and living in it liker beasts than men? Of all which I only appeal to Platina and other of their own Writers.  
3. Another Pillar of Popery is most unconscionable impiety: They can dispense with the vilest sins for the promoting of their Kingdom. They can dispense with Oaths and with obligations of subject's to their sovereigns, with leagues of Peace and amity among Princes, yea they can themselves actually promote and execute the most abominable impieties, that will but help them to attain their ends. I will now only instance in that which is fresh before our own eyes in England. The Papists know that Anabaptists and Separatists are erroneous; they know that Ranters and Quakers are abominable; and yet for their own ends, dare they here in England, put on the vizard of Anabaptists and Quakers, and with all possible subtlety and zeal, and unwearyedness, go up and down to seduce the people to be Anabaptists and Quakers, as they did a while ago to be Seekers, if not Infidels. This is sufficiently known and proved not only by the Popish pretended Jew that turned Anabaptist at Hexham, and was taken at Newcastle, and others of them taken, but by many other Testimonies, some upon oath of those that have heard such confessions from their mouths; and many have known them in the Quakers Assemblies, that have seen them before elsewhere: And all this is done by them that they divide us and break us in pieces, and steal a credit to their pretended unity and Church Government, and turn the hearts of the people from our Ministry, and unsettle them, and make them more capable and receptive of their own opinions, and that they may make others abroad believe that we are all running mad. And can that doctrine be of God, which teacheth men to do such abominable things? Or is that like to be the cause of Christ that must be thus upheld? Is that person guided by the Spirit of Christ, that dares draw others to the vilest blasphemies and wickedness in a dissembling garb, that so he may promote his own cause? certainly Christ needeth not such hypocrisy, and wickedness for the promoting of his Kingdom; but it seems the Pope doth need it for ●is.  
4. Another of the Pillars of Popery is most gross and impudent lying. Did I not know it to be true, I durst not accuse them of it. I will give you but these three instances following.  
1. They do raise and with greatest confidence propagate, most shameless lies of those whom they take for their leading adversaries. We read them in the open writings of Cochlaeus, Bolse, Staphilu● Thyraeus, and many more. What abominable stories have they of the Death of Luther, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Calvin, and others; which it is very unlikely that they can be so blinded with mali●e as to Believe themselves? What conference do we ever manage with them which they do not misreport? Witness the late ridiculous passage after the conference between Fisher and Doctor Featly and Doctor White, when they boasted beyond Sea of the number of Converts, and in particular of two Earls, and this to the Earl of Warwick himself (not knowing him) who was feigned to be one of them, and who had been a witness of their weakness. And how poorly doth Weston in his Pamphlet put this off.  
2. The next instance I will give is their abominable lying legends, by which they have befooled the people, and made themselves ridiculous to the world, and occasioned others to question their reports in other things. I shall give you a taste of some of them, as Doctor Featly hath gathered them to my hand in his Epistle to the foresaid conference, yet with the Authors that report them, that you may try whether they be wronged. As that Saint Brigit laid her wimble, and Saint Aldelme his chesible upon a Beam of the Sun which supported them (vit. Sanct. Brigit. & vit. S. Aldelmi.) That Saint Nicolas while he lay in his cradle fasted Wednesday and Friday; these days he would suck but once a day (Festivale de Sancto Nicol) That Saint Patrick caused a stolen Sheep to bleat in the belly of him that had eaten him (Legend. de St. Patricio) That the Corpse of Saint Laurence at the coming of Saint Stephens●ody ●ody smiled for joy, and turned himself to the other side of the Sepulchre to make room for him (Legend. de S. Steph.) That Clemens wrote a letter to Saint James seven years after he was dead (Clem. Ep. ad Jac. in Ep. Pontif.) That Saint Denis carried his head in his hand three miles, and rested at each place of the posts, that are set between Paris and Saint Denis (Breu. & pictur. Dionys.) That Saint Dunstane held the Devil fast by the nose with a pair of Tongues (Leg. de Dunst.) That the chamber of our Lady was carried by Angels through the air from Palestine to Loretto in Italy (Hist. de Nostre Dame de Lor●tto.) That our Lady helped Saint Thomas Becket to mend or stitch his haircloth (Annot. in Clemanges ex Caesario.) That a Parrot crying out, Saint Thomas help me, was delivered from a Hawk (Legend. de Thom Cant.) That Saint Lupus did shut up the Devil in a Tankard all night (Legend. de Lupo.) That Saint Dominicke made the Devil hold him the candle till he burned his fingers (Legend. de Domin. vid. Melch. Can. loc. Theol.) That Saint Francis swallowing a Spider in a Chalice, it came whole out of his thigh (vid. Franscis.) That Friar Andrew to correct his appetite of eating Birds at the Table by the sign of the Cross, commanded them to fly away after they were roasted (Sedu●● Francis.)  
I will not trouble you with the recital of more, nor do I say that their Councils have made these Articles of faith, but their Church doth indulge and make use of such lies for the beguiling of the vulgar.  
3. The third instance that I give is, their abominable forgeries, and depravations of ancient writings: Feigning Decretal Epistles of their Popes, and many other writings under the names of ancient Fathers: and presuming to expunge, alter, and falsify the true writings of the Fathers, and of the better sort of their own, as is proved already against them by many, and I need not here recite: (See Doctor Featlyes' aforesaid Confer. Append.) Which hath done us so great a mischief, by making much if not most of the writings of the Ancients uncertain to us, as is scarce easily expressable nor are they ever able to repair (as the late King of England told the Marquis of Worcester in the beginning of their conference.) See more in Doctor willet's Tetrastilon Papismi.  
5. Another of the principal props of Popery, hath been most horrid inhuman bloodshed and cruelty. How many thousands of the Waldenses and Albigenses they cruelly murdered in Savoy and France, since the year One thousand one hundred and sixty. How many in Bohemia! How many in other Countries, who can possibly enumerate. Cesarius saith, The Waldenses had infected a thousand Cities. Parson's saith, That they were so numerous that they had an Army of seventy thousand men to fight for them, and that they were so spread even in Germany that they could travail from Colen to Milan in Italy and every night lodge with Hosts of their own profession. Yet did the Papists by fire and sword disperse destroy them, from the year 1206. to 1228. they had so filled their prisons with those that they had left, that the Archbishops stay it, because it was impossible to defray the charge of their food, or to build prisons for them (as they themselves speak) yet after this 1260. Morrel in his Memorials saith, p. ●4. That there was above eight hundred thousand persons that made profession of the faith of the Waldenses: (And some of their own Popish writers say, that it was so ancient that they affirmed themselves to have thus continued successively from the Apostles: And yet the Papists would make men believe that Luther was the first founder of the Reformation) I desire the Reader that can have it to read Mr. S. Clarks general Martyrology of the persecution of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and also of the Spanish Inquisition, the Bohemian, and French cruelties, and the Irish of late to spare me the labour of further recital. The very perfidious French Massacre at once was thought in a few day's space and a little room to murder about thirty thousand persons, and this in a pretence of peace and quietness. So many bloody bouts hath that Nation had, that it is not like to be still unavenged. The cruelty of the Inquisition in Spain another parts, will hardly here be believed. The most horrid cruelty of the Papists in Ireland lately were beyond all the rest. The number that they murdered in time of peace by a sudden insurrection is almost incredible. In the very Province of Ulster alone, about a hundred and fifty thousand were computed to be murdered. But God hath gone far in avenging their blood already. What should we mention such lesser matters as the burning so many in Queen Mary's days, the Powder Plot to have blown up King and Parliament; with many such fruits of the Roman fury? In a word I conclude, that it is not like to be the cause of Christ that hath been so long upheld by such Devilish inhuman bloody means; nor is it like to be true Doctrine which possesseth men with such a bloodthirsty spirit; nor is it a safe way to salvation to swim thither through the blood of Saints: nor is it any better than a cruel scorning of Christ when they have persecuted him, to murder Christians by thousands for seeking Reformation, or not yielding to the Romish errors, and then to challenge us to name or show our Reformed Church before Luther, or to accuse us of Schism for separating from them: These Wolves will accuse, where they cannot devour.  
Arg 12. If Popery do add to all these abominations impenitency and uncurableness, than it is certainly no safe way to Salvation: But Popery doth add to all these abominations, impenitency and uncurableness: Therefore it is no safe way to Salvation.  
I do not mean that the persons are simply uncurrable; but while they are Papists, or go according to their fundamental principle, they are utterly uncurable and impenitent. For their Principle is that their Pope or Church cannot err, but is infallible: And so they are bound to stand to all their Determinations right or wrong: For if they should repent of any, and we return from any small or great, they should in so doing proclaim that they were fallible, and so let go the principle of their profession. So that there is no hope of repentance and amendment of any error once determined of, but only by recanting the point of their Infallibility, to make way thereto. If therefore repentance and amendment be of necessity to Salvation, what Will become of these men that suppose themselves so infallible? and how can that be a safe way to salvation that locks up the door against repentance and amendment? Popery therefore is no safe way to salvation.  
Arg. 13. That profession which plungeth men into certain perjury, and engageth them to impossibilities, and contradictories, is no safe way to salvation. But such is the profession of Popery: as I shall prove even out of the Trent Oath or Confession, which I recited in the beginning.  
1. They vow and swear that [All other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and Ecumenical Councils, and especially the Holy Synod of Trent, they do without doubting receive and profess] When as many of these Canons and Councils are contrary each to other, one undoing what another did, as shall hereafter be shown: and yet they swear to receive them all. 2. They swear to receive them even [without doubting] when as they are thus contradictory, and when they confess that a true faith even in the written word of God, may have doubting mixed with it. 3. They vow and swear that [They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures, but according to the unaniomous consent of the Fathers.] When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimously consent among themselves concerning the sense of the greatest part of Scripture▪ and so they are sworn to take it in no sense, because the fathers are not unanimous. 2. He that knows not the unanimous sense of the Fathers, where they are unanimous, is sworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No sense. 3. If by [The Church] whose sense they also swear to admit, be meant the present Roman Church, than that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures: so that in one Article they must needs be forsworn. 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popish faith, yea which in this oath they swear to, which are against (much more without) the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The Fathers never consented to this very Article, that we must take and interpret the Scripture only in the unanimous sense of the Fathers: They never consented that the Bread and Wine are truly really and substantially the whole Body and Blood of Christ by Transubstantiation? Nay the consent of the Fathers is against these: And yet these wretches swear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous sense of the Fathers, and withal swear the contrary in particulars; even that they believe that which the Fathers never consented to, but against. Never did the Father's consent that [There are seven truly and properly Sacraments Instituted by Christ.] Never did the Father's consent (who lived a thousand or fourteen hundred years before) that the Council of Trent did not err, or could not err: Nor [That in the Mass is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead] Nor that the Eucharist may be taken under one kind, and the Cup withheld: nor [That there is a Purgatory, or the souls there holpen by the suffrages of the faithful] nor [that the Saints with Christ are to be prayed to] Nor that Images were to be worshipped] nor the power of Popish indulgencies left by Christ in the Church, and the use of them wholesome: Never did the Father's consent that the Roman Church is the Mistress of all Churches: or that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over them: nor that all Christians or Bishops or Pastors should swear true obedience to the Pope as Christ's Vicar? Let these proud deceivers show us if they can when the Fathers, or any one of the Ancients, did ever take any such oath himself, or persuade others to it? Yea or that they have consented to any one of these Articles of the Romish faith, and Trent oath? What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers, then that these wretches do here most palpably forswear themselves? Even as if they should swear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed, and withal swear to believe that Christ never died, rose, or ascended, or that there is no resurrection, or everlasting life. Certainly if the very faith of Papists be contradiction, and the profession of it plain perjury, than Popery is not a safe way to Salvation.  
I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument: That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors, formerly called Heresies; which the ancient Church hath testified against; and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation: And here I should have tried their particular errors not yet mentioned, or insisted on, as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby, Satisfactions, and many Semipelagian errors, Image-worship, with many the like: But that this is beyond my present intended scope, and purposed brevity, and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines.  
Let us next here what is said of most moment, to prove Popery to be a safe way to Salvation.  
Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apostles to this day without interruption, is a safe way to Salvation (For it is the same that the Apostles and all the ancient Christians were saved in) But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apostles: Therefore, etc.  
Ans. 1. There is a change of the very subject of the question. It is [Popery] that we are disputing of; and this argument instead of Popery speaks of [The Religion of the Church of Rome.] The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts; First, the Christian Faith: Secondly, their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith: The first as it standeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which ●e profess: The second is it that we call Popery, and ●ay, It is no safe way to salvation. 2. And of this I deny the Minor, and say that Popery is not the ancient Religion, the Apostles and Primitive Church never knew it: There was no such creature as a Papist known in all the world till six hundred years after the birth of Christ: It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did first claim his universal Papacy and Headship: and after that it was not till about one thousand years that the usurpation and Tyranny was consented to any thing generally in th● West: And even the multitudes, still dissented, and some opposition was still made against it; and all the Eastern Churches and the rest of the Christian world did descent. Of these things there is enough said to silence all the Papists on earth in Bishop Usher de contin. successione & slatu Eccles. Occident. and his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge, and by Bishop Jewel, and Doctor Field, and in many of the old Treatises against the Pope published together by Goldastus, which show us that he settled not his Kingdom without continnual opposition and contradiction. We affirm that Popery is a mere novelty, and challenge all the Papists in the world to prove the Antiquity of it. When they have once arrogated to themselves the name of the Catholic Church, and taught the people to believe as the Church believes, that is, to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themselves, it is then an easy matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn: then they may say, The Fathers are for them, and that they have their Papal sovereignty from St Peter, when there is never a true word in it. Then they may frame and forge new Decretals, and cut out of the Ancient Writers th● which is against them, and bring forth spurious writings under their names; and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther: for its easy to prove any thing, where themselves are the Judges, and no witnesses but their own must be heard: But if they dare leave that hold, and come into the light, its easy to evince the novelty of Popery (though not of every particular error they hold.)  
Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church; then Popery is a safe way to salvation: But the Church of Rome is a true Church: Therefore, etc. The Antecedent is granted by most Protestant's: ●he consequence is good; for it is the true Religion that maketh a true Church and Popery is their Religion. If their Religion be not true, their Church is not true: If their Religion be true, than their Church is true: and if Church and Religion be true, than they are in a safe way to salvation.  
Answ. 1. The word [Church] doth usually signify among Christians, a Christian society, or a company of Christians associated for God's worship and mutual edification: sometime any company of Christians whether so associated or not: sometime those are called [Christians] as distinct from Infidels, who profess most of the substance of Christianity, but deny some part, or who profess the whole substance or the fundamentals, though they contradict it again by plain consequence in other superadded points: Though these as compared with the Orthodox are wont to be called Heretics. We deny not but that the greatest Papists are such Christians, and that as the word [Church] is applicable to combinations or companies consisting of such materials, so far the Roma●●sts are a true Church; supposing that we only speak of Metaphysical Truth. But as the word [Christian] is taken for one that so holdeth the fundamentals of Christian Faith, as not to subvert them by plain consequence after he hath professed them, so it is yet under dispute whether the Romanists be a true Church, and therefore not to be taken as granted. However those Protestant Divines that grant them to be a true Church, do say that it is but by a Metaphysical verity, convertible with the essence; but that Morally it is a false Church and not a true; as a thief is a True man, that is, truly a man, but he is not a true man, that is, not an honest faithful man.  
2. The thing called [The Church of Rome] consisteth not of Homogeneal parts: or at least that word signifieth several sorts of persons. There are some that with the Pope and his Cardinals entertain the full body of Popery, and enslave the rest: There are multitudes of the people, that silently live under them, and let them alone, and are defiled by them in many things, but receive not the great and most dangerous part of their corruption. These are not equally to be called the Church, nor are they equally in danger of damnation.  
3. I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition; For if the Church of Rome be a true Church it is because they are true Christians, and not because they are Papists: so that to argue [The Church of Rome is a true Church, therefore Popery is a safe way to Salvation] is as unsound as to argue [Gebezi the Leper is a living man: Therefore the Leprosy is a thing safe or profitable to man's life] Popery is the disease of their Church, and Christianity is it that makes them a Church: You may well therefore conclude that Christianity is a safe way to heaven; but not that Popery is so.  
To the confirmation I answer, That the Religion of Papists hath two parts: The Christian Religion, as they are Christians, and that maketh them a true Church if they be one. And the Popish corruptions, which denominate them Papists, and that makes them not a true Church, nor is a safe way to salvation.  
Obj. 3. If Papists may be saved, than Popery is a safe way to salvation. But Papists may be saved: Therefore, etc.  
Ans. To the Antecedent or Minor I answer, that Papists be not all of a sort: some may be saved, and some cannot, if they so live and die. If you ask who may and who may not? I answer, that all those of them that hold the substance of the Christian faith, and that practically, notwithstanding their errors; or that hold no errors but what consist with the Practical holding of the Christian faith, these shall be saved: But all those that finally hold any error which for matter or manner is inconsistent with the Practical holding of the Christian faith, shall be condemned.  
2. To the consequence of the Major I answer, by denying it; and that on the aforesaid account. If a Papist be saved, it is not by Popery, but from Popery. It is therefore no better reasoning than to say [If a Leper may live, than the Leprosy is wholesome, or a safe to preserve life] I have already spoke more to this. If such do live, it is with more trouble, and less comfort, and it's fewer that live long with it, then of other sounder men: Men should not cast themselves into a course of great doubt and difficulty as to their salvation, and when they have done encourage themselves in it, because other men of moderate and charitable minds are afraid to conclude that they shall certainly be damned? Is it not a great probability or danger of damnation very terrible, though you were not certain to be damned.  
Obj. 4. There is but one true Church, and consequently but one safe way to Heaven: That one Church is the Roman Church: And therefore they and only they, are in the safe way to Heaven.  
Answ. If you speak of the Universal Church, which is Christ's body, there is but one and that is all true Christians. But if you speak of particular associations of Christians called particular Churches, there are many thousands: And so we say that the Church of Rome is (at best) but one particular Church, or one combination of some particular Churches under the Bishop of that City: But that Rome, or the Roman party, are the whole of the Catholic Church of Christ, we do with abhorrency deny.  
2. If the Church of Rome be any part of that Universal Church, and so in a state of Salvation, or way to it, it is not as Papists, but as Christians, as was said before. And therefore though there be but one safe way to Heaven, yet that one being not Popery, but Christianity, why may not other Christians be in a safe way to Heaven, as well as the Papists? especially who are free from those dangerous diseases wherewith the Papists Christianity is corrupted.  
Obj. 5. That Church which hath Unity, Universality, Antiquity, and unintterupted succession of Pastors and Apostles, is the only true Church, and consequently only in the safe way to Salvation. But such is the Church of Rome: therefore.  
Answ. 1. This concludeth not the point in Question [That Popery is a safe way to Salvation.]  
2. We deny the Major, and blame them that they still thrust it on us without proof. To the particulars, 1. If Mahometans have unity, or if Satan be not divided against Satan, it doth not follow that they have the true Church; men may agree in evil. 2. where was your universality also, when there were scarce seven Bishops left that were free from the plague of arianism? Universality absolute (so that all errors or other parties should be excluded) the Church hath never had the happiness to enjoy since the beginning of its flourishing in the Apostles days. Universality comparatively, that is, the greater part the Arrians had, at least of the Bishops. The doctrine of the M●llenaries, with many such like may plead more antiquity than Popery can: And as for succession, there is no doubt but a Bishop or Church in the line of succession may turn Heretical, and have successors in their Heresy. Have none of the Greek Churches, nor Alexandria, Antioch, etc. had a succession till it fell into the hands of a Heretic? and it would have been no good plea for the first Heretical Bishop or Church to plead such succession. If there be not a succession in Apostolical doctrine, the succession of persons will be no proof of the truth or soundness of the Church.  
3. And for the Minor of your Argument, I answer. 1. The Ethiopian, Alexandrian and other Churches can as truly boast of these qualifications as Rome. 2. The Papists lay a higher claim to them then they can make good. As 1. I have showed already how far they are from unity, who are not only of so many Religions or ways of Discipline; and of so great distance in many doctrinals, as the controversies among themselves do manifest, but also are so disagreed about the very centre of their union, their infallible sovereign Power, whether it be in the Pope, or a General Council, or both? Besides their unity is but of their own party, the Romanists: And so all other parties are at some unity among themselves: or many at least. If John of Constantinople had prevented the Pope, and got the Title of universal Bishop, or Pope, as he did (by composition) of universal Patriarch; and had pretended that this would have united the Churches, I think it would not have justified his cause.  
2. How can the Papists for shame pretend to universality either as to the present or former ages? Is it nothing that all the Ethiopian, Greek, and Reformed Churches are not of their party, besides many a thousand more? Or will they arrogantly condemn all the rest of the Christian world as heretical, and then say that they are the whole Church? Did they not learn this of the Donatists? But what is become of their modesty who pretend to an universality, for the time past, when all the Christian world was against their present belief, and there was not such a thing as a Papist known (and revealed to us) in the world of six hundred years after the birth of Christ.  
3. And for their succession, we undertake to prove it interrupted long ago, and that there were no true Bishops at Rome of a long time: Though men have sat there that were chosen by Cardinals, and call themselves Bishops or Popes, yet if according to the Scripture and ancient Councils, they were matter utterly uncapable of that form, than its plain that they were but Statues, and had but the name without the thing, i. e. the office or authority, and therefore are unworthy also of the name itself. Let me name two or three of their own Writers that bear witness of this. And first their great parasite Cardinal Baronius saith (add an. 912. §. 8.) [What then was the face of the holy Roman Church? how exceeding filthy, when the most potent and yet most sordid Whores did Rule at Rome? by whose pleasure Sees were changed, Bishops were given, and which is a thing horrid to be heard, and not to be spoken, their sweet hearts (or mates) were thrust into Peter's chair being false Popes, who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Roman Popes, but only for the marking out of such times.] And after he well adds to show that the interruption was not like to be only in the succession of true Bishops [And what kind of Cardinal Priests and Deacons think you we must imagine that these monsters did choose? when nothing is so rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like] See more in Baron. ibid. Platina speaking of the evil of those times (the Benedict. 4.) saith that [By ambition and bribery the holy chair of Peter was rather seized on, then possessed.]  
Genebrard (in Chronolog. l. 4. secul. 10.) speaking of the great unhappiness of that age, saith, that [In this one thing it was unhappy that for near one hundred and fifty years about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the virtue of their ancestors, being Apotactici, Apostaticive potius quam Apostolici, Disorderly and Apostatical, rather than Apostolical.]  
What shall we think of all those that murdered their predecessors to obtain the place, were they capable of being true Bishops? What shall we say of Pope Silvester the second who was a conjurer, and agreed with the Devil to help him to be Pope, and by the deceit of the Devil was again deprived of it by sudden death? Doth the Devil make true Bishops of conjurers? I know the deceiving Papists would make the simple people believe that all these things that we say of their Popes are lies of our own forging: but men that have eyes in their heads may see who are the liars Their own Writers do commonly affirm the same that we affirm. A Cardinal of their own (Benno) in vita Hildebrandi, affirmeth this of Pope Silvester: and he lived in the times next him, and therefore might know. Platina another of their own affirms (in vita Silvest.) that [Gesbertus impelled by ambition, and devilish desire of rule, did first by bribery (or Simony) get the archbishopric of Rheims, then of Ravenna, and at last of Rome, the Devil giving him more of his help, but on this condition, that after his death he should be wholly his, by whose deceits he had obtained such dignity.] The like hath Lyra in Gloss ad cap. 14. Maccab. l. 2. and a multitude of their Hystorians unanimously confirm it. Yea Aeneas Silvius who was a Pope himself (de gest is Concil. Basil. l. 1.) saith [We are not ignorant that (Pope) Marcellinus did at Caesar's command offer incense to Idols, and that another, which is a greater and more horrible thing, did come to be Pope of Rome by the fraud of the Devil.] In a word if Murderers, Adulterers, Conjurers that come in by the Devil, and Heretics, may be true Bishops of Rome, and yet a man that believeth not the Pope's Univerversal Vicarship can be no true Catholic Christian; than it seems, it is a greater sin not to Believe in the Pope than not to Believe in Christ, or then it is to bargain with the Devil, or be a Murderer or Adulterer? Certainly these men were as uncapable of being true Bishops when these things were once publicly known of them (at least) as a Mahometan would be: And therefore there hath been many an interruption in their succession. And many a schism there hath been wherein two or three Popes have reigned at once, and he that had the greatest strength hath carried it, when his Right was not the greatest.   

QUERY. Whether the Infallible Judgement of the Roman Pope, or his Clergy must be the Ground of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine, or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God? N.  
HAving already enquired whether the Romanists or the Reformed Churches are in the safe way to Salvation; we shall now more particularly inquire whether their faith or ours be built on the surer grounds. Our Belief is thus resolved: we believe the Christian Doctrine to be True, because the True God is the Author of it. We discern that God is the Author of it, both by his Intrinsicke and Extrinsicke Seals or attestations of it: in that it beareth his image and superscription, and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles, and other effects which lead us to the cause. The revealing containing signs or characters are the the holy Scriptures. That these Books were written by the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, and were confirmed by Miracles, and are uncorrupted in the main, we are infallibly assured of, by the evident certainty of the historical attestation and Tradition: For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man (such as is the Pope of Rome) or of any fallible society of men; but on such History as we can prove by plain reason to be infallible, containing in it, besides the Testimony of the Pope and all his party, the same Testimony also of all the rest of the Christians in the world, yea and of the very Heretics who were enemies to much of the truth; and enough also even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us: so that by this infallible history, and universal Tradition, we have a fuller discovery that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles, etc. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth, are the same that they pretend to be: And to a man that heareth not God himself or the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, and hath not their immediate inspirations, we know not how the Laws of heaven should be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way, nor what surer other means such as we can expect, who live at such a distance from the first receivers of it: unless we would have God to speak to every man as he did to Moses, or have Christ or Apostles still among us, or unless God must make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inspirations. And lastly, the true meaning of this word we understand as we do the meaning of other Laws or writings having moreover the assistance of the spirit, which is necessary because of the sublimity and spirituality of the matter, and the necessity of the great effects upon our hearts: Our Teachers by Translation and further instructions are our helpers (as they must be in other things that we would learn) and by the help of them without and of the spirit within, we are able to understand the meaning of the words (especially comparing text with text) and so receive the sanctifying impress upon our hearts. And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholic Resolved. He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers (and perhaps first believeth them fide humana, that it is God's Word:) He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greek by the Prophets and Apostles, by Infallible History or Universal Tradition. He knoweth that they did it by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, by the Image of God which he findeth on it, and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they sealed it. He believeth it to be True, because it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghost, and so is the Word of God who is most True.  
Of the Resolution of our Faith according to the Protestant Doctrine. See L. du Plessis of the Church. cap. 4. Translat. pag. 121.122, 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol. Can. p. 208.209, 210. Disp. 2. §. 125, 126. To this same sense. Vid. & Sibrand. Lubbert. Princip. Christ. Dogm. li. 1. pag. 20 etc.  
What the Resolution of the Roman faith is, the Question which we are now to discuss doth intimate in part, for it cannot be laid down in one proposition, because they are of so many minds themselves. Indeed we may see in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon; for the builders of this Babel are all in confusion at the laying of their first stone. Yet this much they seem to be mostly agreed in: 
a Bellar. de Verbo Dei li. 1. cap. 2.  That the Scripture is the word of God, and part of the Rule of faith and duty, 
b Bellar. ibid. l. 4. cap. 3.  but not the whole Rule, nor the whole Word of God, but that unwritten Traditions are the other part, 
c Bellar. ib. l. 3. c. 10. Grets●r. de Agnosc. Script. cap. 7. Col. 1908. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. §. 23. But say plainly that the judgement of the present Church is God's word. vid. Melcb. Ganum. li. 5. c. 5. q. 3. Turnbull. in Tetragonis. cap. 7. & 8.  and the judgement of the present Church is God's Word after a sort (as they speak) That the Scripture hath its Authority in itself from God the prime truth, but quoad nos, as to us, it hath its Authority from the Church: That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of God's word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God, or a Divine Revelation. 
d Vid. Malderum 22 aequ. 1. Art. 1. Sect. 6. Stanlet. princip. d●ct. li. 8. c. 21. & li. 9 c. 3. respons. ad arg. 5. Et in controv. rel. Contr. 4. q. 3. are. 2. & Denfens. author. Eccles. l. 3. c. 16. §. 4. & Turnbull. Tetragonism. c. 6. § 2.3. & ● 8. §. 3. Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. Gretser Defence. istius capi●is col. 1575., 1576, & Defence. c. 10. de Verbo Col. 1451. sed è contra nelius scribentem leg. Peter. de Alliaco insent. 1. qu. 1. art. 3. litera E E. & Lyranum Prologue. in Biblia.  And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture; as also to decide all controversies in Religion, and to judge which is the true sense of Scripture: and that this Church must be one only, visible, infallible, authorized thus to judge by Christ; and this is only the Roman Church.  
Thus far the most of them seem to be agreed. But when these mysteries of iniquity come to be opened, they fall all to pieces. For 1. Sometimes they say that the judgement of the Church is God's word after a sort: sometime that it is some middle thing between a Testimony Divine and Humane. 
e Vid Turnbull. Totragen. c. 2. a § 5. ad sinem. suarez. Disput. 3. de fide sect. 2. §▪ 5 & Disput. 2 sect. 4 § 5. & Disput. 3. sect. 12. § 4. Bellarm. li 3. de Verbo Dei c. 10. ad arg ●3. & 15. Et Lib. de libero Arbitr. c. 3. § At Catholici. Gretser● in Defence. c. 10. li. 3. de Verbo col. 1437. estius in sent. 3. dist. 23. § 4. Malde●. in 22ae Thom. q. 1. a 1. sec. 3.  2. And what the formal object of faith is, they are not all of a mind: whether it be only the Prime Truth, or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal: (But I confess this controversy is more verbal than real.) 3. 
f Lege Riveti nostri Isagog. sac. script. cap. 20. suarez Disp. de fide 5. sect. 7. § ●1.  And what place here to assign to the Testimony of the Church, they are not agreed neither. 
g Vid. valent. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. § 12. Bellarm. l. 2. de Sacram. in Genere cap. 25. suarez Disput. 5. de fide sect. 5. §. 5. sed contra Melius Waldenfis li. 2. Doctrine. fid. of't. c. 19 operum. Tom. 1. etc. 27. sic Alphons. a Cast. adu. haeres. li. 1. c. 2. Melch. Can lib. c. 3. & li. 2. c. 1. petr. Trigos. in summam Bonaven. qu. 1. ar. 3. suarez (contra scipsum) de fide. Disp. 5. §. 3. Bellarm. (contra scipsum) generalia controv. fine. vid. & Durand. in 3. sent. dist. 24. qu. 1. & ●erson. de vita spirit. an. lect. 2. Coroll. 7. & è contr F●ann. Driedon. li. 1. de Eccl. Script. & dogmat. cap. 1. & Waldens. li. 2. doctr. fid. antiq. cap. 19 & 20. Melch. Canum Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. p. 26, 27. etc.  4. Especially they are divided in the main, viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge, and into whose judgement their faith is resolved, whether it be the present Church or the former Church? Whether it be the Pope only (at least in case of difference between him and his Council) or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not (as the French and Venetians say?) 
h Vid. Mel. Canum. ib. pag. 27. 28, etc. contra. Th. Waldensem.  Yea whether it be the Clergy only, or the Laity also that are this Church? Nay some of them plead Universal Tradition (as Holden, White, Vane, and divers other Englishmen of late) as if that were the same with the Roman Tradition, or as if it were the point in controversy between us and them. And ordinarily they use to tell us of [All the Church] and [All the Christian world] and to mouth it in such swelling words, that the simple hearer would little think that by [All the Church] they meant but one man, or at the utmost, him and his factious Clergy? So also they are disagreed among themselves whether 
i Melc. Canus Loc. come. l. 5. c. 5. fol. 162.163.  the Bishops in a General Council are Judges with the Pope or only the Pope's Counsellors? Yea or what a General Council is? Though they all agree that it is not necessary that it be out of all the Christian world, much less the Bishops of all Churches, but only some of those that adhere to the Pope of Rome, yet they agree not whether it must be freely elected by all the Bishops of the Romish faction, or only so many and of such Countries as the Pope shall choose? and whether the major part of the Council must concur with the Pope, or the Pope and the Minor part may not serve turn 
k Mel. Canus l. 5. c. 5. fol. 164.  5. So also they are exceedingly disagreed about the nature and extent or pretended infallibility of the Church of the Pope in judging. 
l Staplet. relect. contr. 4. qu. 2. in ●xpl. art. ●otab. 2.3.4. Valen●a Tom. 3. Disput. 1. punct. 1. §. 5.  Some say that the Church judgeth de mediis discursive, sed de conclusione per doctrinam propheticam & Divinam: And so these men may affirm (agreeably to this principle) that the Pope's Definitions are part of the holy Canonical Scripture, as Melchior Canus affirmeth he heard a most excellent Divine confess, and citeth Gratian and Innocent also as of the same mind. 
m Canus l. 5. c. 5. fol. 164, 165.  And thus all the most wicked Popes are made Prophets, and speak by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But others of them 
n Mel. Canu● ubi sup. & l. 2. c. 7. f 27. Bellarm. de Council l. 2. c. 2. suarez T●sput 8. de fide sect. 5. §. 4. Alphons. a Castro adv haeres l. 1. c. 8 Waldensis doctr. fid. l. 2. c. 22. & 23. Becanus Tra●●. ●● fide c. 2. qu. 5. §. 4.  do deny this: Though yet they know not how it is that the Pope is infallible, without declaring themselves Enthusiasts. Also (though saith Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 2. all yield that the Pope may personally err through Ignorance, yet) they are disagreed among themselves whether he may be a Heretic. Some 
o Pighius li. 4. Hier. Eccles. c. 8. Bellarm. li. 4. de Pont. c. 6.  say he may not, and others that its most pious and probable to think he may not: Others reject that as false 
p Staplet. contr. 3. qu. 4. concls. 2. Canus li. 6. c. 8.  and say he may: And one would think it should have been out of question by long experience before this time? And Bellarmine confesseth that three General Councils did believe that the Pope might be a Heretic (ubi sup. c. 11.) some say 
q St●plet. Contr. 3. qu. 4 Concl. 2. Rhimensin Luc. 22.31. Hart. in Conf. with Reignolds c. 7. sect. 3.  that when the Pope is consulted and giveth his judgement in matters of faith, he cannot err (though in matters of fact he may) and that he is Infallible in his Courts and Councils, though not as a private Doctor. Others 
r Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif c. 3. § ●. suarez de fide Disp. 5. sect. 8. § 4. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu. 1. p 7. § 40.  say that he cannot err when he intendeth to bind the whole Church to receive his sentence, or when he teacheth the whole Church. 
s Turrecremat. li. 2. sum. de Eccles. c. 12. & li. 4 part. 2. c. 16. Valent. ubi sup. c●l. 233  Others say that the Pope may err even defining in Council; but not in errors manifest to the Church but only in new or not manifest points. 
t Vid Alphon. a Castro li. 1 adv. haeres. c. 4.  Others come yet nearer the matter, and tell us merrily, that the Pope cannot so err in judgement about matter of Faith, because when he first erreth thus, he ceaseth to be Pope: but this is a hard conclusion in the eyes of their brethren.  
The like disagreements there are among them about the Infallibility of a General Council: some will make it the proper seat of Infallibility, and say that the Pope cannot err if he be guided by the Council; else he may: Others 
u Bellarm. de Concil. li. 2. cap. 2. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu 1. p●●ct. 7. § 45. Col. 274 suarez. Tract. de fide Disp. 7. sect. 7. §. 10. Bellarm. de Concil. li. 2. cap. 1●.  say that a General Council may err, if it be not confirmed by the Pope, yea though the Pope's Legates did consent: or if they do not follow the Pope's instructions; But that they cannot err if they follow them, or be confirmed by him. So Bellarmine, Canus and the late champions. And if the Pope and Council differ (as they have shrewdly done, when Councils have deposed Popes for heresy and wickedness) some 
x Turrecrem. sum. li. 2. c. 64. Andrad. defence. fid. Trident. li. 1. pag. 86.  say, that we may more safely follow the Council then the Pope. But others 
y Vid. Bellarm. de Pontif. li. 4. cap. 3. Staplet. Con. 6. qu. 3. art. 5. Valentia. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. §. 45. So Canus and others.  say the clean contrary, and place the Infallibility in the Pope only, and make it his work to reclaim the Council.  
Though they are thus all in pieces among themselves even about these their fundamentals, yet is it the custom of their deceitful Writers, to make the simple people believe that they are all agreed, and to tell them that they have the [Consent of the Universal Church, and of all the Christian world, and they have Universal Tradition] etc. that by the noise of these big words, they may do that which they cannot do by argument. Thus Doctor Vane their late proselyte, and divers others do in their writings overlooking all their own disagreements, and passing on as confidently in their boasts of the [Universal Consent] as if they were either such Novices as understand not their own Religion, or such hardened seducers, as are not willing that others should understand it.  
Here are in this our Question contained three of the greatest controversies between us and the Papists. 1. Whether it belong to the Pope or Roman Church, to be the Judge of Faith and Scriptures to all the world? 2. Whether the Pope or his Clergy be in●llible in judging of matters of Faith? 3. Whether our Faith must be resolved into this infallible judgement of theirs? Our intent in this present Dispute is to deal most with the second, yet so as it is connexed with the other two; and therefore shall take them in on the by, but say less to them distinctly; and the rather because there is so much said already by our Divines, as all the Papists on earth will never be able solidly to answer: To let pass all those beyond Sea that have effectually confounded them, we have Britain's enough to hold them perpetual work: as Jewel, Reignolds, Whitaker, White, Field, Usher, Camero, Baronius, Davenant, Chillingworth (to whom they have lately lost their cause, by showing in a vain and frivolous Reply, how little they have to say against him) with many more, who will either remain unanswered, or the answers will be worse to the adversaries cause, than silence itself; which we have sufficient ground already to foretell.  
As to the first of these controversies (to dispatch it in short) as we distinguish between Judicium Descretionis, Directionis, & Decisionis, a Judgement of Discretion, of Direction, and of Decision, so we kn●w that it is only the later that properly denominateth a Judge in the public and ordinary sense. Take our doctrine in these few Propositions.  
1. We say that every Christian hath a judgement of Discretion, to know that the Christian Faith is true, and Scripture is the word of God: Or else he were no Christian, or faith were not an act of judgement, or Reason, but a brutish thing. This therefore we confess the Pope either hath or aught to have.  
2. Every Pastor of the Church hath a judgement of direction; that is, it belongeth to him by office to be a Director of the people, and to teach those the Christian Faith, that yet receive it not, and to confirm those in it that have received it: And they ought to have abilities for the work of this office. If therefore the Pope were a true Pastor, Bishop, or Preacher, this power we should confess to be in him, as in others.  
3. It belongeth to these Teachers also, to be specially careful to preserve the sacred Scriptures from corruption, and to deliver them down to posterity in the purity as they receive them, and to translate them into known tongues, that the people may understand them. Though others also have a part in this work, yet the Pastors of the Church have by Office the chiefest part.  
4. It belongeth to them also to be witnesses and informers of the people, how themselves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Ancestors, and to show them how it came down to our hands by certain Infallible Tradition from Age to Age.  
5. The Church guides they are both Preservers of the Scripture, Witnesses of the Tradition, and Teacher's of the truth, and have such a power of judging a● belongeth to all these three.  
6. In these acts of their office they ought to be Believed, and that on a threefold account. 1. Because of the evidence which they show to prove the truth of their Assertions: Though strictly this is rather to be called Learning, and so Knowing, then Believing: and is common to Teachers with any others that show the same proofs; Yet it being supposed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have, therefore we may well say that it more belongeth to them to convince, and more efficacy is in their Teaching because of their proofs, and better entertainment is due to their Teaching. 2. Such a Belief also is due to them as all men should have in their own procession, wherein they have long studied and laid out their time and labour, and wherein they are commonly known to excel other men. Every man that is less studied in Law, Physic, or any other Science or Art is bound in reason to give some credit to Lawyers, Physicians and others that Study and Practise those Arts. This is but a humane Faith. 3. Besides this credit before mentioned which Infidels themselves may give to the Ministers of the Gospel (according to their capacities) there is a further credit due to them from professed believers, and that is, as they are officers authorized by Christ, and have a promise of his assistance to the end of the world: which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith, yet doth it assure them of a more than common help of Christ, if they are his servants indeed.  
7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Pastors (caeteris paribus) than to one, and to the whole Church than to any part.  
8. The credit of the Church or any Pastors in witnessing to the faith, dependeth on their competency for such a Testimony; which consisteth in their sufficency or Ability, and their fidelity, which they are rationally to manifest that it may gain credit with others.  
9 In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of, they have a Decisive Power. 1. For the Time or Place, or the like circumstances of God's worship they are necessary in General (viz. there must be some Time, Place, etc.) but not in specie (such a Time, such a Place is not necessary, unless it be some that God hath already made choice of) Here the Church guides must Authoritatively Determine, whereupon the people are obliged to obey; unless in some extraordinary cases, where the Determination is so perverse and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it, that it would overthrow the substance of the duty itself. 2. And in case of Church censures, when any man is accused to deserve Excommunication; the Church Governors have a Judicial Decisive Power, as to those ends, though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent, yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the person whom they Excommunicate; except in such palpable maladministration and evident contradiction of the word of God, which may nullify their sentence (for even here their Power is not unlimited.)  
10. No man or company of men (much less the Pope) hath a proper Decisive Judicial Power in matter of Christian faith, or whether the Scripture, or any part of it; be the word of God or not?  
For the opening of this, understand what we mean by a Decisive Judicial Power: to wit, such as a Judge hath in a controverted cause, where the Plaintiff and Defendant must stand to his Judgement, be it right or wrong: so that though the sentence be not just, yet must it be Decisive and obligatory: so that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem, on either side, and the judgement must be valid. Such a Decisive power no creature hath in these cases that we have now in hand.  
Where let it be still remembered, that it is not the name, but the Thing that we contend about. If they will call that a Decisive Judicial Power, which is so limited to one part, or side, that it shall not be valid or obligatory to the subject if it err, or go on the other side, concerning which all men have a judgement of Discerning granted them by God (so far as they are able to Discern, they have leave and authority) than we easily grant, that every Pastor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture: That is, if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God, and ask a Preacher or Bishop, he hath Power to say, Yea: but not to say No: But this is no Judicial Power: but a Teaching and Witnessing act: For the people are bound to disobey them, if they err, and therefore bound to ●ry whether they err or not; and not to follow their judgement further than it is right and sound: therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power: which I prove thus.  
Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power, then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God, that Christ is not the Redeemer, that Scripture is not the word of God, and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church: But this is false and abominable; therefore the Pope hath no such Power.  
For the consequence, it is manifest, supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God, Christ, or Scripture, than men must (by this Doctrine) be bound to obey it, and forsake God, Christ, and Scripture for the Pope.  
Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity: Then either such as renounce God, Christ, and Scripture may be saved, or else God bindeth men (by the Pope) to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation. But both these consequents are false and abominable: Therefore.  
I know they will here reply, that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement, and therefore being infallible, he will certainly make no such false Decision. To which I say, 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem, on either side? Doth God give a man Authority to do that, which he hath promised him and all others that he shall never do: But he will keep him from? This is to make God's Commissions to be impious, and his Grace to the Pope only to hinder the execution of them in an impious way. Who dare say openly that [God hath given authority to the Pope to judge decisively and obligatorily that there is no God, Christ or Scripture, though he will graciously hinder him from so doing] If the Papists say that they do not say so, I would know then what their judicial power in these matters is? Is it only this, that the Pope hath Power to judge, that there is a God, a Christ, a word of God? etc. Why so have others as well he? If they shall dare to say, that matters of faith are not such to us (that is, we be not obliged to believe them) till the Pope have determined them: I answer, What! is no Heathen or Infidel bound to Believe that there is a God, a Christ, a Scripture, till the Pope tell him so? Shall all Infidels be excused in judgement, that had the Gospel preached to them by any other Christians except the Pope or others in his name? Is no man on earth bound to believe in Christ that knows not the Pope's mind in the matter? And must men believe in the Pope before they believe in Christ? And must they believe in Christ only because the Pope bids them, or because they first believe in the Pope? I do not think that either the ears of Good Christians, or rational Infidels will relish such doctrine. And what is this Believing in the Pope that must go first? Is it not to take him to be Saint Peter's successor, and that Saint Peter was Christ's Disciple, who had a promise of infallibility, which is now devolved to the Pope: And must this be believed before men believe in Christ? We must believe what he promised, and who were his servants, before we believe in himself? This is a ground too like the Popish superstructure.  
But perhaps, they may in time grow moderate, and tell us, that it is not in all points of faith, but some only that the Pope is made Judge: He may not judge about Christ himself▪ whether he be the Messiah, but about his Doctrines?  
Answ. 1. By what warrant will they distinguish, and claim power in one, which they have not in the other? 2. Is it all, or some of Christ's Doctrines that the Pope is Judge of? If all, than it seems he must judge whether he that Believeth shall be saved, or not? Whether we should love God or hate him? Whether we should seek first Gods Kingdom, or worldly vanities? And whether a man should commit Murder, Adultery, Theft, etc. or not? May he decide these on either part? or on one only, as others may do? May he judge that there is no Judgement, Resurrection, or life Everlasting? I know they dare not say it: If it be but some of Christ's Doctrines that the Pope is made Judge of, then let them tell us which it is, and give us their proofs, and they shall hear more from us. Let it be the smallest point they will imagine; Hath God given power to the Pope to contradict him and give him the Lie? If God saith, It is so: May the Pope say, It is not so? What if the Pope say that the Gospel of Matthew or Luke or John is no part of God's word? Must we believe him? What if he tell as that the world was made in five days and not in six? Must we believe him? 2. If they yet fly to his infallibility, I shall speak more to that anon (though the former answer may well suffice them) But to another.  
Arg. 3. The Scripture is Gods Law. The Pope is not the Judge of God's Law: therefore he is not the Judge of Scripture.  
The Major I hope no Christian will deny. The Minor is evident from the nature and use of Laws and Judgements: The Law is Norma judicis in judicando: the Judge's Rule: He is not to Judge the Law, but the cause of particular persons by that Law. Indeed as to the right guidance of his own act of Decisive Judging the cause of the person, he hath a Judgement of discretion concerning the sense of the Law; but, as if he Judge upon a false exposition of the Law, the party may appeal from him, so (which concerneth our present case) he hath no power to Judge the Law itself: As he cannot make a plain text to bear a false sense, or oblige the subject to believe a false sense: so in a doubtful case it belongeth to the Lawgivers only to interpret their own Laws. Only a sentence of a lawful Judge grounded upon a false exposition, may sometime be executed among men where justice cannot be had: but no man is bound to Believe that it is true and just: James tells men what it is to pretend to be a Judge of the Law, in stead of doing it, and leaving that to the one Lawgiver, Jam. 4, 11, 12. And if the Pope be made Judge of every controverted difficulty in Scripture, then why is he so unfaithful that he hath not hitherto written us an infallible Commentary on it? and why doth he not determine all the controversies about it, that among his own followers remain yet undetermined? (of which more anon.)  
Arg. 4. If the Pope be made the Deciding Judge of Faith and Scripture, then either of the plain points, or only of the controverted difficulties, or of both: But not of the plain points: For 1. That which is evident and not under controversy, needs no Judge: To the ignorant there may be need of an interpreter and teacher, but not of a Judge: 2. Such texts of Scripture do oblige us whether the Pope Judge of them or not: Therefore there is no need of his judgement that they may oblige us. Who dare think that a man is not bound by the word of God, to love God above all, to believe the Resurrection of Christ, and of us, to love Christ's disciples, etc. unless he know the judgement of the Pope. Do not all Laws of the Land oblige the subject upon the bare legislation and promulgation, before the Judge meddle with them? If they did not first oblige us to duty, there were no place for the Judge to sentence us to punishment for disobedience. It is the Legislator that obliges to duty by his Law, proclaimed or any way published in his name▪ But judgement interveneth to oblige men to punishment, and bring it to execution, and to help them to that which by the Law is their right. If therefore it be evident in the very nature of Laws and judgement, that we are obliged by God's Laws to Believe and obey them in the several particulars before any judgement of the Popes; it is then but dotage to talk of a Judicial Decisive power in the Pope to oblige men to Believe those same doctrines, and obey those same precepts of the word. And for the dark and controverted texts. 1. Those are not of that moment, as that men's salvation must lie upon the exposition of them. The points absolutely necessary to salvation are plainly delivered. 2. Obscurity shows the need of a Teacher, but not of a Judge. At least its plain, that when any Teacher shall remove the obscurity, those texts oblige us as well as the plainest. 3. As I said, If the Pope be Judge of all difficult controverted texts, he is an unfaithful Judge that will not expound them to us, and decide so many controversies as yet depend. What good will it be to the Church to have such a Judge of difficult controverted texts of Scripture, as in the consciousness of his ignorance dare not give us his judgement? but hath left them undecided these fifteen hundred years? This dumb Oracle that hath eyes and sees not, and a mouth but speaks not, is not a fit foundation for the Churches Faith. 5. Where God calleth men to Office and Power, he accomplisheth or fitteth them in some measure for the performance of it: but God hath not fitted all Popes, no nor any, to judged Decisively of all controverted difficultyes in Scripture, and Religion: Therefore he hath not made them Judges of them. The Minor shall be further proved anon: Many Popes have been ignorant, and unlearned; many Heretics, unfit to decide all such controversies; and they have showed their unfitness by their non performance or ill performance.  
The great Objection of the Papists is this.  
Obj. 1. What! Shall every one be the Judge of Scripture? and take it in what sense he please? shall every unlearned man or woman expound it according to their own fancies? then we shall have variety of expositions. Whether is it fitter for the Church or every simple fellow to be Judge?  
Answ. 1. Neither? Hath God made subjects to be Judges of his Laws by which they must live, and by which they must be judged? Neither they nor your Pope, must be Judges of the Laws, in a proper sense, but obeyers of it.  
2. We say not that the people should expound the Scriptures as Teachers of others (unless in their own callings, as to the children servants, etc. when they are able) This we reserve to the Officers of the Church.  
3. Nor do we say that any people must expound Scripture according to their own fancies or misguided conceits, but according to the true meaning of them. 4. Nor should they in difficult cases which are past their understandings, presume of their own wit to know the right meaning; but have recourse to the Teachers that God hath set over them, that so by their help they may learn the meaning of that word which they understood not. 5. And if their Teachers be singular, or give them just cause to suspect their skill or fidelity, they have more reason to regard the Judgement of the Judicious, then of the ignorant, and of the whole Church then of any one or few; so far as the credit or authority of men, must support a learner while he is a learning. 6. But what! Is it indeed such a monstrous heretical conceit in the eyes of a Papist, that every Christian should have a Judicium discretionis, a Judgement of discerning to perceive and discern which is truth and which is falsehood? Good Lord, whether will the heat of contention carry men? Why if they must not have this discerning judgement. 1. Then God doth bind them all to be fools, and ignorant. 2. And then Religion and the Christian Faith, are the endowments of bruits that know not what they hold or do, and not of Reasonable men. 3. Or else they that will be Christians must have no Faith or Knowledge; which is a contradiction. Is not Faith an act of discretion? Must not he that believeth the Resurrection, and Everlasting Life, believe them with his own understanding? And doth he not in believing them, Judge them to be True, and Judge the contrary doctrine to be false? 4. Why will you read, or preach Scripture to the people, if you would not have them receive it, by a judgement of discerning? would you not have their judgement discern the Truth of what God hath written, or the Priest shall preach to them? 5. Doubtless you will allow them a judgement of Discretion, about the Pope's Decrees and Canons, and your own Determinations. How can they believe you, if they do not by judgement discern the things you say to be true? And why will you not allow them the like towards God and his Word? Will you say, It is their duty to believe the Pope, and their sin to believe God? Or it's their duty to understand the Pope's Laws, and their sin to understand God's Laws? Why? what do you say less when you yield them a judgement of discretion as to the Pope or Church, and deny it in Respect to the Word of God? If you say that they will misunderstand the Scripture▪ I ans. 1. So will the Pope and the best and wisest man on earth in some part: because while we are here, we know but in part. 2. Their error is their sin: But doth it follow that they may not see at all, for fear of missing their way? Must they put out their eyes, and be led by the Pope, for fear of erring? Must they not know or labour to know, for fear of mistaking? Will any Master take this well of his servant, to put out his eyes, or do nothing, for fear of doing his work amiss? Or refuse to go his journey, lest he miss the way? Then we must not judge of the Pope's Laws neither, and consequently, not judge them to be true, for fear of erring in our judgement. When you prove that the Church of Rome is the true Church, would you not have the people judge of your proof for fear of erring? This is even to make beasts of Christians. 3. What are Teachers for, but to guide them, and help them to understand. If you are afraid lest they should err, be the more diligent in instructing them. But this is the difference between the work of a Popish Teacher and ours. They make it their work to put out men's eyes that they may have the loading of them, because they are troubled with an imperfection in their sight, and therefore will err if those imperfect eyes be left in their heads: we make it our work, by all means we can use, to cure their eye sight that they may be able to see themselves, in the mean time advising them, while their eyes are under cure, not wholly to trust to them, but to use the help of others, to show them the way, and to tell them of dangers. The Protestant will set his Child to School that he may learn to know, that which through childishness he knows not: But according to the Popish way, we should forbid them all books or learning, lest they misunderstand them; and let them never know any thing lest they know amiss. The next step, is to send them to Bedlam. The Apostle would have men have their senses exercised to discern Good and Evil, Heb. 5.14. The Papists would not have the people to have a judgement of Discerning: If they must not Discern, they must be ignorant: When God so much requireth and extolleth knowledge.  
But I'll leave this Question, and pass to the next.  
Qu. 2. Whether the Pope be Infallible, in this Decisive judgement which he pretendeth to? Which we deny.  
But before I come to give the reasons of our denial, I shall further declare our judgement about the whole matter of the Church's Infallibility, that the true state of the controversy may appear.  
And 1. We easily grant that as there is an Objective certainty in all points of the Christian Faith, and in the very truth, so the Pope is infallible while he believeth and declareth nothing but the truth. He and every man else that speaks according to God's word, is so far infallible, because that word is infallible. They need not thank us for this concession.  
2. We grant that neither the Church of Rome (if a true Church) nor any other particular true Church can err in fundamentals, or in points of absolute necessity to salvation, in sensu composito; that is, while they remain a true Church, they never deny the essentials of a true Church: For if they once deny the essentials, they do eo nomine cease to be a true Church.  
3. We grant that Christ's universal Church shall never deny any one point of Faith essential to Christianity, or absolutely necessary to Salvation: For then Christ should have no true Church on earth (when the whole should thus Apostatise or turn Heretics) and all the then present world should be damned.  
4. The Church as Reasonable sensible men are infallible in many matters of fact, of which they may give us unerring reports: as that, This Bible was delivered as the word of God by their Ancestors, as they might testify it was delivered to them: and that this Creed or sum of Faith also was thus delivered in the words now in use, etc.  
5. There is an infallible certainty in the evidence which the former Church hath left, and the present Church possesseth to prove that this same Scripture was written by the Apostles and Evangelists, and was delivered to the first Churches, and from them, down to us: and that multitudes of miracles were wrought for the confirmation of the Doctrine contained in them.  
6. An illiterate person may have an infallible certainty that all points necessary to salvation are expressed in certain translations of Scripture, and that so far, and much further, they are truly translated, and that such things there are in that Book as the Readers affirm there to be, though himself cannot read them. For all this is infallibly discovered by common consent, and especially of adversaries: When all men that are certainly able to judge, and are honest and impartial, affirm it without doubt, and those that would gladly contradict it, as being by their interests carried thereto, yet cannot do it, or at least not with any considerable pretence: This gives men as infallible a proof, as the common testimony of men doth, that there is such a City as Rome or Paris which we never saw.  
7. And we further grant, all that Teaching and Witnessing power to the Church officers, which was expressed under the last Question; and all that dueness of Belief and obedience to them, which was there asserted. So much for our Concessions.  
But we deny, 1. That either the Pope of Rome, or a General Council are naturally or supernaturally privileged from all error in matters of Gods revealed will, or that they are privileged from the danger or possibility of teaching these their errors to others, even to the Church. 2. We deny that the Pope or the Roman Clergy are secured from the danger of Apostasy or Heresy: They may fall so far as to deny the Fundamentals or Essentials of Christianity: though the Universal Church shall never so fall away.  
We shall first speak of the Pope's Infallibility, and afterward of a General Council, that we may speak to the several parties among the divided Papists herein.  
And against the Pope's Infallibility we thus argue.  
Argu. 1, They that lay claim to this Infallibility, do give us no proof of their claim: Therefore they cannot expect that we should believe them. The proof lieth on the pretenders, who give us no proof.  
If they can prove it, it must be either by his natural perfection, or some supernatural endowment, by which the Pope must be more Infallible than other men: The former they pretend not to (and no wonder) The later they do pretend to: But, if God supernaturally have ascertained all Popes of an Infallibility in matters of Faith, than he hath done this either by his written Word, or by unwritten Tradition, or both: by which it must to us be proved: But he hath done it neither by his written Word, nor by unwritten Tradition. For Tradition they must show it us, either in certain monuments of the Church which are in stead of writing (but that they cannot do) or else in the minds of all the members of the Church. For that which concerneth all their Salvation, must be delivered to all: But this they cannot show: Nay we show them the contrary: that is, the greatest part of the present Church on earth denying any such Tradition: and the most approved Writers of the former Ages, telling us the contrary, and all taking the Pope as fallible, so that they cannot give us one line of any one Father or Council for many hundred years after Christ, that ever had such a conceit as theirs. And if they will pretend to a private Tradition which none but themselves have received and are entrusted with, and so make themselves the absolute Judges of their own cause, and give us no proof but their own words, we will believe them as fast as we can, but we must desire them not to be too hasty with us.  
And for the written Word they cannot thence prove a grant of their infallibility. 1. Because they tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God, but by their infallible judgement: Therefore we must know their judgement to be infallible first; and therefore it is first to be known some other way, and not by Scripture. Indeed here they have long tired themselves in their Circle, which some of them would hide by vain words if they could, but Holden and others of them are forced to confess it, and that they have no way out but by retiring to the universal testimony or tradition as an infallible evidence, in stead of the Authoritative judgement, or infallibility, or private Tradition of the Church of Rome. They tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God, but by the infallible judgement of their Church (And that is in the Issue of the Pope) And when we call for the proof of that infallibility, they refer us to the Scripture. So that this is plainly to say that neither Scripture nor Papal infallibility can be proved; and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity: Then it seems, no man can know the Pope's infallibility but upon the authority of God's word, which cannot itself be known till that infallibility be known. It must be Gods Grant, written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility: But that word or Grant, written or unwritten, cannot be known to be of God, till we first know their Authority to judge, and infallibility in judging: It evidently follows therefore according to them, that neither one nor the other can be known, because no one of them can be known till the other be first known.  
But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be God's Word, before we know their infallibility in judging, yet we cannot know the true sense of that Scripture (as they confidently tell us) first: Well then, I am one that doubt of the Pope's infallibility, and demand his proof: Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not. I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture (which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye) He hath nothing to tell me, but that the Church saith so: And how shall I know that the Church is in the right? Why because it cannot err. And how shall I know that? Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle, past recovery. For they expressly and frequently tell us, that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded: and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church; and so the Pope's infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it; and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known, till their infallible judgement be first known: What follows therefore, but that neither of them can be known? The true product of Popery. This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause; to overthrow both the cause and argument: so do the Papists as much as in them lies overthrow both Christ's Doctrine and their own.  
3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof (lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3.) is from Luk. 22. [Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired, etc. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.] Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible? Yes, if you will take Bellarmine's word. And first he tells us that (among themselves) there are three several expositions given of this Text; and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn: Good still! And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on, is the right? Let any impartial man peruse his reasons, and make his best of them: For indeed there is no reason in them. But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them, why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Pope's infallibility. 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope, or of Rome, or of Infallibility. 2. Because the thing here promised is expressly restrained to one individual person, Simon. 3. The thing here promised was about Peter's personal Faith, and not about infallibility in judging. For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter, in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith. But it was in respect of his personal Faith, and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him: Therefore, etc. 2. It is expressly said to be [his Faith] that should not fail: But his Faith, is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence: words be not Faith.  
4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon: but he only prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome, foreseeing that it would shake, and that he would deny him: So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue.  
5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing: Therefore he was not exempted from it: And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to. Therefore it was not, that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations; for he was not converted from such. Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peter's conversion from any sin, but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them; as if it were [When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren, strengthen them] Nothing but the Pope's infallibility, or the gross fallibility of common reason, could make a learned man think that this is the sense of the Text.  
6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of: But that is not so: For, if it were (as it was) that he should not Apostatise: the same was given to them all (except Judas) If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church, so were the rest too as well as he. The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular, was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oaths: from which he had need of a special conversion, that God might not forsake him and give him up to a total failing of his Faith.  
7. Two things, saith Bellarmine, are here obtained for Peter: 
See Bannes in 2.2. q. 1. a. 10. p. 149. restraining the text to Peter alone.  The one is that he himself should never lose the faith, nor fall as to his faith. The second is, that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith, or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do: Of which privileges (saith he) perhaps the first did not descend to his successors, but doubtless the last did.  
But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to. 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two: Faith is one thing, and Cathedral determination is another. Doth Christ mean both, when he names but one? Expressly it is only the first privilege that he promiseth Peter, and saith not a word of the later: It was his Heart, and not his tongue that was the seat of faith, and that Christ establisheth: which is also evident by the issue: for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith, when he cursed and swore that he knew not the man. 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this privilege [that his own faith should not fail] extendeth not perhaps to the Popes: so that for all this their faith may fail: If so 1. Then the only privilege mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them: For it speaks of no more: The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope, but what it never promised to Peter. 2. And if it did promise both privileges to Peter (that neither Faith nor tongue should fail) how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope, when he confesseth the other doth not? The Text speaks but to the same person, and not in one half to one, and in the other half to others. I may well argue therefore in this manner: To whomsoever Christ here promiseth that his faith shall not fail, to him only doth he speak in this text: But he promiseth only to Peter here that his faith should not fail, therefore it is only Peter and not the Popes that he speaks of. The Major is clear according to the intelligible sense of the words (and Bellarmine hath not yet proved a mystical sense) The Minor is confessed by himself.  
Lastly Bellarmine saith (de verbo dei li. 3. c. 3.) that [Only out of the literal sense of Scripture, effectual arguments are to be fetched] Butler this great argument of his for the Pope's infallibility is not fetched out of the literal sense of Scripture: therefore by his own confession it is uneffectual and unjust.  
The second Text which he citys to this use, is Mat. 16. [On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it] A double argument he would fetch from hence. One from the Name Rock, the other from the nature of a Foundation, which both imply firmeness. Ans. 1. Note that here is in the Text not one word of the Pope, of the Church of Rome more than any other, or of infallibility. 2. How doth he prove, that by the Rock is not meant Peter's Faith, or that Doctrine which he confessed but Peter himself? 3 If he had proved it, are not all the Prophets and Apostles as well as Peter called the foundation? Eph. 2.20. So that here is no more promised to him, than what was elsewhere promised and given to the rest: Only his present confession, occasioned the promise to be made expressly and particular at that time to him. 4. As the rest of the Apostles were the Foundation on which we are built, and yet their successors are not so: So though Peter were the Foundation, it followeth not that all or any of his successors are so.  
The third text which Bellarmine citeth is Joh. last [Feed my Sheep.] Where note again, 1. That here is not a word of the Pope, or Rome, or infallibility. 2. Did not Christ bid the rest of the Apostles Feed as well as Peter? Sure Mat. 28. He bid them all, Go teach all Nations, baptising them, and teaching them to observe all things whatever he commanded them. And what could Peter do more in Feeding? Yea thirdly, Are not all Pastors, though inferior to Apostles bound to Feed the Sheep of Christ? and yet it follows not thence that they are infallible.  
4. Bellarmine would next prove this from [The High Priests wearing the Urim and Thummim, Exod. 28.] When he first confesseth that it is not agreed among Jews or Christians what these are: And yet it will serve him for a proof. 2. The Priests were not infallible for all their Urim and Thummim: therefore no more is the Pope. They judged Christ not to be the Messiah, and therefore crucified him. They lived and died Infidels, and hardened the people in the same Infidelity, for which they were broken off and unchurched.  
3. And whereas he argueth that the High Priest was infallible because the people were to go to him for resolution of difficulties, and obey them, Deut. 17. I must say that Bellarmine had some fault in his eyes that caused him to overlook the Judge, and name only the High Priest. God sendeth them to the Judge, who was the chief Magistrate in those days, as well as to the High Priest; as any man that will read the text may see. If therefore the one of them be infallible, because of this, why is not the other so too? But perhaps they will make the Pope to be the successor both of the Magistrate and Priest, and so to be the universal Emperor as well as the universal Bishop; and use both his swords, that so this promise may belong only to him: For he will hardly grant every King or Judge to be infallible.  
4. By this rule the rest of the Priests also should be infallible: For the people were also to receive the Law at their mouths.  
5. When was there ever one Priest in any age so impudent at Bellarmine and his faction are, to plead for or pretend an infallibility in themselves? Let them name one Priest or person if they can, that ever had such a conceit of themselves, except it were Gods Prophets in the matters of their Prophecy.  
6. What if the Jews High Priest had been infallible? What's that to the Pope of Rome any more than to another man? Hath he indeed yet proved himself successor of the Jews High Priest? Except as a corrupter of the Law, and a persecutor of the Church of Christ.  
Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring (for he brings no more) to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope. May I not well say that it is no marvel that they are such ill friends to Scripture, who have no more Scripture (that is, none at all) to befriend the very foundation of their cause? And may I not justly recite again Bellarmine's own conclusion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence show them that their cause is built upon confessed fraud and vanity [It is agreed between us (saith Bellarmine) that only out of the literal sense of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetched:] But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Pope's infallibility out of the literal sense of Scripture: therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture.  
But yet one other Argument he hath, though not from Scripture, and no more: and that is from a double pretended experience: And his first experience is [That in all the other Patriarchal seats there have been Heretics, but not in that of Rome.] But here 1. Bellarmine must be judge, or the Pope who is a party, before all the Patriarches can be thus condemned. 2. And what if that were true? Can he say the like of all the Bishops, as well as Patriarches? If not, they may as well hence prove themselves infallible, as the Pope can do. 3. Whether ever there were in the chair at Rome either Pope Liberius an Arrian, Pope Honorius a Monothel●te, Pope John denying the immortality of the soul, with abundance more such like, we shall have fitter opportunity to open anon, to the shame of this experinemt of Bellarmine's.  
His second experiment is that [The Pope without a Council hath condemned many Heresies, which upon that very account have been taken for true Heresies by the whole Church of Christ] Ans. But you must first unchurch the greatest part of the Catholic Church, and damn most of the Christians on earth, the Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, etc. and make your own faction, to be the whole Church of Christ, before you will ever give us the least proof of this. All the Church doth not do that which your flatterers do. Nor did the ancient Church do any such thing. As other Bishop's condemned Heresies as well as the Pope, so many a Heresy was judged such by the faithful, without any more interposition of the Pope than another Bishop.  
Having seen thus how little their great Champion hath to say for the Pope's infallibility, I could willingly have looked about me into some of the rest of them, to see if they can say any more; but that it's known that most of them tread the same path Only I may not over pass the new way that some of them have taken up of late, to prove their infallibility, and to avoid their common Circle. And this you may see in the Jesuits late superficial answer to Chilling worth. Forsooth, they tell us, that when they prove the infallibility of their Church from Scripture, it is but for our sakes because we confess the Authority of Scripture, but not of their Church. But when they go according to the true nature and order of the matter, than they set the Church before the Scripture, and independantly of it.] The reason of this Jesuit (supposed to be Knot) is this [Because the Church is before the Scripture, and because the Miracles wrought by the Apostles did first prove their own infallibility, and from thence secondarily the infallibility of their Doctrine. And when we are in high expectations of the proofs of the Roman infallibility by his Arguments which are Independent of Scripture, and before the belief of it, he tells ●s that it is by the like Aaguments as the Apostles proved their infallibility, which he thus enumerateth So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes, of many great and manifest Miracles, Sanctity, Sufferings Victory over all sorts of enemies, conversion of Infidels, all which Notes are daily more and more, conspicuous and convincing, and shall be increasing the longer the world shall last] And withal he tells us, that [These Miracles, etc. prove them to be infallible in All things, and not only in some, or else we cannot know which those some be, and what to believe and what not.]  
Thus you have the sum of the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith, and of the famous confutation of Chillingworth. But all these Knots are easily loosed without cutting; yea shake them only, and they fall loose like Juggler's Knots.  
1. We easily grant that Christ the head of the Church was before the Doctrine by himself delivered in the flesh, as it containeth many things superadded to the old Testament and the doctrine of John, Baptist.  
2. It's evident that Christ himself gathered his first Gospel-Church by preaching his Doctrine, that is, he drew them to be his Disciples, by convincing them that he was the Messiah, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world; so that this his Doctrine was before this his Church.  
3. We grant that the Apostles were Apostles before themselves did preach the Gospel as Apostles: But it was the Gospel, and preached by Christ, before they preached it.  
4. We easily grant that both Apostles and Gospel were long before the writing of this Gospel, which we call the holy Scriptures.  
5. We grant that the Apostles Miraculous works did sufficiently prove, not some only, but all the Doctrine which they delivered to the Church or any part of it, in the name of Christ and as his: For though they confirmed only those Doctrines which were delivered in execution of their Commission, yet seeing God would not have set to this seal, if they had gone beyond and against their Commission, therefore it also assureth us that they kept close to it. But this proved them not infallible before they received that Commission, nor afterward in any point which they should deliver as their private opinion, which they fathered, not on the Inspiration of the Spirit. The Apostles were not infallible about Christ's Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, when they understood them not: The Disciples were not infallible about the Acceptableness of Infants to Christ, when they forbade them to be brought. Thomas was not infallible about Christ's Resurrection when he believed it not. Peter was not infallible when he gave Christ that Satanical council, for which he was ●antum non (almost) excommunicated, Mat 16.22, 23. Even presently after the great promise to him; Nor when he denied that he knew Christ, with curses and oaths; nor when he dissembled and Barnabas with him, Gal. 2.  
6. We maintain that the Apostles Doctrine thus sealed by Miracles, and Delivered in Writing to the Churches, doth carry with it an Attestation from God of its infallibility, if there be never more Miracle wrought in the world. For the proof of this I refer the Reader to my Determination in a Book Entitled, The unreasonableness of Infidelity.  
7. It is this sealed Doctrine contained in Scripture, and preached by Ministers, which converteth men to Christ, and maketh them christian's, and therefore it is in order before the present Church and the cause of it.  
8. We deny and confidently deny that God hath Commissioned the Pope to do the work which he Commissioned the Apostles to do, and gave them the power of Miracles to confirm, that is, to Attest the Works, Sufferings, Resurrection, and words of Christ as eye or ear witnesses of them from himself: and to be the first promulgators of some of his Laws to the universal Church, and to deliver down an infallible sealed Scripture, to all succeeding Ages, and by the ordinary working of Miracles to convince the unbelieving world. Let him show his Commission for this Apostleship if he would be believed.  
9 We as confidently deny that the Pope is a Prophet, or is inspired by the Holy Ghost, as the Prophets and Apostles were, that so they might infallibly deliver us Christ's doctrine.  
10. And they cannot expect that we should believe till we have some proof of it, that the Pope, or the Church of Rome hath the Power of working Miracles, or are endowed with a spirit of Miracles, or that they can convince those that deny the Scriptures by their own Miracles that they are the true Church, or that ever they confirmed those points by Miracles, which is, now called Popery.  
Thus much to let the Jesuit know where we differ from him: And now to the point. We call for his proofs, which he here mentioneth to us in general names Non esse & non apparere; are to us all one. Give us sufficient proof of your sealing the Doctrine of Popery by Miracles, or the Pope's Infallibility by Miracles, as the Apostles did the Scriptures, and their preaching, and then you shall carry the cause, and we profess that we will rejoicingly pass into your Tents, and proclaim you Prophets or Apostles of Christ: But when we live among you, and so did our Fathers before us, and hear you prate and boast of Miracles, when we cannot see that ever you did so much as make a dead flea alive again, nor cannot see the least Miracle from you, if we would ride or go as far as our horse or legs can carry us, to see it, what can we take you for but the most shameless sort of cheaters?  
If you could accuse us of negligence, as if we might see your Miracles if we would but travail for it, or of unbelief, as if we denied that which we have evidence of, we might bear the blame: but there's no such thing. I profess as weak as I am, I would go many a hundred miles to see such Miracles as you boast of, if I had sufficient ground of expectation that I might not lose my labour. And I would read over any Volumes that I were able to find suciffient Testimony of them. But where is this testimony? Knot refers us to Brierly, and others to such like reciters of their Fables. And when all is done, there are three sorts of Miracles that they speak of. 1. The Miracles of the Apostles and first Church's mention in Scripture, and these are against Popery; so that we may well say that the doctrine which contradicteth Popery is confirmed by Miracles in that the Scripture is so confirmed. 2. The Miracles of the following Churches till six hundred. These were comparatively few, and less certain, and fabulous mixtures in many of the reports of them. But whatever they were, they were no confirmation of the Pope's Infallibility, or universal Episcopacy or Jurisdiction, which neither the Instruments of those Miracles, nor any man else on earth, as far as can be proved did then believe. And whereas there were some Ceremonious fopperies that were then used, which the Papists do yet use, and would persuade us that these Miracles were confirmations of them, we deny it, and profess the nullity of their pretended proofs. They say, [If they be not infallible in all things, how can we believe them in any thing?] I answ. Because that 1. Their Miracles are expressed Attestations to some thing, that is, to Christianity, but not to all things that they may think! Nor could they ever work a Miracle to confirm such private opinions. 2. And the substance of Christianity which their Miracles do attest, were more unquestionable before attested by Scripture and former Miracles; whereas the errors which they introduced are contradicted by Scripture and the Miracles that attested it.  
And whereas they would make the Apostles case to be like that of the Fathers: It is very much different. For though the Apostles Miracles were attestations to all their doctrine, as well as to some part; that was because they were Officers Commissioned by Christ to that work, to deliver his doctrine first to the world, as inspired infallible men, and to seal it to posterity for future certainty: But the Fathers had no such work in Commission; but only to preach the doctrine thus sealed and delivered them by the Apostles, and therefore their Miracles were to another more private, and restrained use, according to their Commissions and work; that is, to convert those persons to the faith that knew of them, by a subservient attestation, so that it could oblige none to believe them in other things, much less in their mistakes.  
3. The third sort of Miracles are those of later times contained in their Legends. And seriously, would the Jesuits persuade us that these are of equal authority with the Miracles mentioned in Scripture? or any whit like them? I have given you a taste of some of them in the former Disputation: more you may see of their ridiculous vanity in Doctor Franc. Whites Defence of his Brother, pag. 147.148. [We must believe 
a Baron. an. 1028. c. 5.  Baronius that Saint Fulbeck sucked our Lady's breasts: And Antonine 
b Antonin. sum. hist. p. 3. tit. 23. c. 4. § 6. etc. 7. § 8. etc. 1. § 4. Math. Paris hist. Angl. in Henric. 2. pa. 92.  that Saint Dominick walked in the rain and was not wet; and his Books lying all night in the river, were taken out dry and without hurt: That the same Friar spied the Devil sitting in the Church like a Sparrow, and calling him to him, deplumed him, and so put him to a great reproach: And that he made the Devil hold him the candle in his bare fingers till they were burnt: that a lecherous Priest by kissing his hand, was cured of incontinency. That Saint Bernard by blessing their Ale, and giving it some lewd persons to drink, caused God's Grace to enter into them; That he made an old Grandam of above fourscore years old to give suck to the Infant, when the mother was dead: That he killed Flies by Excommunication: and excommunicated the Devil, and thereby disabled him from lying with women: 
c Vita Bern. prafixa cj●● qaribu●▪ Surius & Bonavent & Antonin. & Legend baec recitant  That Saint Francis turned a Capon into a Fish, and water into wine: made the Rock send forth water, and Anchors to swim; Preacheth to Birds and Beasts, to praise God, till they were so attentive to his doctrine, that they would let him touch them, and would not depart till he gave them leave, and had blessed them with the sign of the Cross: converted a cade Lamb by preaching to him, so that he would frequent the Church of his own accord, and kneel before the Altar of our Lady at the Elevation of the Host: By which example, Surius calleth on the Heretics to learn to worship the Blessed Virgin, and to adore the Sacrament. Also, that he caused Swallows, Grasshoppers and a wild Falcon to join with him in the Praises of God.] Abundance more of the like, more foppish, and too many to be here meddled with, their Legends are full of; And these are their proofs of their true Church and infallibility by which they may be known by them that believe not the Scripture, I think indeed that these proofs are well said to be Independent of Scripture; for the less a man believes the Scripture, the more he is like to believe these  
But by what certain or probable Testimony shall we know that ever such things were done? What! must we needs believe every doting Friar that gives us but his bare word, and that many a year (if not age) after these Miracles are supposed to be wrought: Must we believe them that so shamefully contradict one another? Math. Paris 
d Hist. Ang Henr 3 p. 329  saith that Saint Francis was branded with his five wounds fifteen days before he died: But Bonaventure, Vincentius and Surius say he had them two years before he died.  
Nay must we believe as the very foundation of our Faith, that which the Papists themselves believe not? How commonly do they among themselves deride these stories, as pious frauds, and some of them sound chide the Authors, I will at this time cite but the words of one, and that is no Babe, even Melch. Canus, whom Bellarmine referreth us to so oft.  
[Lib. 11. cap. 6. pag. (mihi) 33.34. Quidam enim corum aut veritatis amore inducti, aut ingenu● pudoris, etc. That is, Some of them (the Heathen Historians) either induced with the love of Truth, or in ingenuous modesty, did so far abhor a lie, that perhaps we should be now ashamed, that some heathen Historians were truer than ours. I speak rather with grief then in reproach; the Lives of the Philosophers are much more severely (that is, truly) written by Laertius, than the Lives of the Saints are by Christians: and Suetonius did far more incorruptly and more entirely set forth the affairs of the (Roman) Caesars, than Catholics have set forth, I say not the affairs of Emperors, but of Martyrs, Virgins and confessors. For they— But ours do for the most part either follow their own affections, or else of set purpose forge so many things, that indeed I am not only ashamed of them, but also weary of them. For I know that these have brought to the Church of Christ small profit, but much disprofit: I spare (mens) names because— It is certain that they who write Church History feignedly and deceitfully, cannot be good and sincere men; and that their whole Narration is invented, either for lucre, or for error, whereof one is filthy, and the other pernicious. The complaint of Ludovicus is most just of some feigned Histories in the Church. He doth indeed prudently and gravely reprove them that take it to be a matter of piety to forge lies for Religion. A thing that is very pernicious and no whit necessary. For we are wont not to believe a Liar, even when he tells truth. They therefore who by false and lying writings would stir up the minds of mortal men to worship the Saints, these seem to me to have done nothing else, then to make men deny belief to truths, because of falsehoods— To what purpose is it to pretend the name of History to fictions and fables? As if the holy men of God did need our Lies— But while some do too much indulge their own affections, and write those things which the writer's mind, and not the Truth doth dictate▪ they make us such Saints, sometime, as the Saints themselves would not be, if they could: Can any man believe that Saint Francis was used to take the Lice on him again which he had shaked off him? The Writer thought this was part of the man's holiness, but so do not I, who know that the holy man was pleased with poverty, but not with filthiness. And how ridiculous is this, that the Devil raging on a time against our father Dominicke was constrained by this Saint to hold the candle so long in his hands, till it did not only trouble him, but incredibly pain him. Such examples cannot be numbered: but in these few most of the rest may be understood, which have darkened the histories of the most famous Saints— They do therefore exceedingly wrong the Church of Christ, who think they do not well set forth the excellent deeds of the Saints, unless they adorn them with feigned Revelations and Miracles Wherein the impudence of men hath neither spared the Holy Virgin, nor the Lord Christ— Of late years when I was at the Council of Trent, I heard by some that Aloysius Lippomannus was healing this disease, by writing a history of the Lives of the Saints in a constant and grave speech: But I could never yet see this, nor any other which I could allow, of all those that have come into my hands. 
☜  So far for Melch. Canus.  
And do their own most Learned and Judicious Writers cry out of Lies, and Histories so much more false than the Heathens, and impudent forgeries, and say that, they never saw any of these Histories which they could allow of; and yet must we needs make these the Foundation of our Faith, instead of the sealed Word of God? What a Religion have the Papists that is built on such a foundation!  
Yea of the reports of some of the late Writers that were next before Popery, I will add a few more words of Canus, ib. li. 11. pag. 337. [Cicero thought Demosthenes nodded sometime; and Horace thought so of Homer himself. For though they were excellent, yet but men: And the same perhaps may I say justly and truly of Beda and Gregory. One of them in his History of the English, the other in his Dialogues, do write certain Miracles, talked of and believed by the vulgar, which the critics of this age will judge to be uncertain. I should have more approved those Histories, if their authors had according to the aforesaid rule, to severity of judgement, joined more care in their choice—] And how he lets fly at the lies of Antonius and Valvacen: The next page shows: And page 338.339. how he censures Eusebius himself. But I must forbear more such citations lest I weary the Reader.  
It is now long since Doctor John White told them of their 
a Opuscul. de ●oncep. Virg. c. 1.  Cajetans words, who saith [It cannot be known infallibly that the Miracles upon which the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints, are true] And their 
b ●art. 1. t●t. 8 c. c.  Antoninus Florent saith of the visions of Bernard and Brigit about the Virgin Mary's conception [They are fantastic visions and men's dreams] And their Claudius Espeucaeus 
c 2 Tim. 4 Digr. 21.  saith [No stable is so full of dung, as the Legends are full of fables— Yea very fictions are in their portesses] And Gerson 
d Part. 1.  [All these the Church receives, and permiteth them to be read, not as certainly true, but more attending to what might be in pious recogitation, then to what indeed was done] And Doctor White then made a challenge to them, that we will admit of all those Miracles, which are reported by such men, as some of their own Writers do openly Note for Liars. 
e Whites Works fol. pag. 158.  Which challenge the Popish Replyer had no mind it seems to take up.  
But though it belong to the Romanists to prove their Miracles (which prove their Infallibility without Scripture) and not to us to prove the Negative, yet I shall try to shame their confidence by a few pertinent Questions, when it shall appear how little they have to say in answer to them.  
Q. 1. And first I desire to know of them whether the Miracles that prove their infallibility without Scripture are wrought by the Present Church, or by the Church of former ages only? If by the present, why cannot we see them? Why are we still sent to Saint Brigit, or Saint Francis, or Saint Somebody that is long ago dead and gone? We thought once we had had one near us here, I mean, the Boy of Bilson, who did wondrous things in favour of the Papists; but in the Issue, by the industry of Bishop Morton he was proved to be a counterfeit, and confessed himself trained up by the Papists for the cheat. But if it only the Generations that are dead and gone that wrought Miracles, than I would further ask. 1. Doth it not seem then that your Church is Apostate, in that it hath lost the gift of Miracles, which you suppose so necessary? And how will the Gifts of your predecessors prove your present infallibility, any more than the Gifts of the predecessors of the Greek Bishops will prove their infallibility that now are? 2. If past Miracles may serve without present, then what need any more than the old Miracles of the Apostles? And then why are not all the Apostles successors infallible as well as the Pope? Seeing all the Apostles had the gift of Miracles (and many thousand more) Therefore those past Miracles should prove all Bishop's infallible that succeeded them.  
2. Quest. I desire also to know whether it be your Pope himself that Works these Miracles, or some other persons? And if others, whether it be only some of your Church, or all? If it be the Pope himself, why then have we more murders than Miracles charged on your Popes by your own historians? and why will not his holiness do some Miracles in charity to poor Heretics? Why do you boast no more of you Popes Miracles? One I confess we read of in the Golden Legend, that Pope Leo the first by the means of a woman kissing his hand was so vehemently tempted with lust, that he was fain to cut his hand off: but the Virgin Mary having compassion on him, joined his hand to his body again. But this is no foundation of our faith.  
But it's plain that it is Saint Becket, and Saint Brigit and Saint Katherine that you send us to for Miracles, and not to the Pope: And then I would further know whether one man's Miracles will prove another man infallible unless they were wrought in confirmation of the assertion of that other man's infallibility? It should rather prove Saint Brigit and Saint Katherine infallible that are said to have the Revelations and Miracles, than the Pope, that had none. Would it prove the Patriarch of Constantinople infallible, if any one that is under his Government should work a Miracle?? Or are you sure that there is no Miracle wrought among the Grecians, Abassines or Armenians?  
Moreover, if you are All Miracle Workers, why can we never see one, nor have certain proof of one? But if it be but some very few of you (as good as none) how will that prove the infallibility of your whole Church? When the Apostles wrought Miracles, that proved their own infallibility: but that proved not the infallibility of all in the Church nor of every teacher in it, nor of the greater number of them  
3. Quest. If your Pope and Church be proved infallible, by such Miracles as the Apostles were doth it not follow then that all your Popes are inspired persons or Prophets as the Apostles were by which the gift of infallibility was conveyed to them?  
4. Quest. Yea will it not follow that all your Church are inspired Prophets, if all your Church be thus infallible: But you cannot expect that we should too easily believe these. If you have Apostolic infallibility grounded on the like Miracles, then must you not be each one dis-junctly infallible, as the Apostles were; and not only altogether?  
5. Quest. And is it not plain then that all your dictates are God's word, if you have the same seal and inspiration as the Apostles had? And so your Pope, at least, if not each one of you must make us new Revelations, or new Scripture: And is not this heinous arrogancy, thus to equal yourselves with Prophets and Apostles, when you are none? They could but be infallible, and so you say is the Pope, They could but seal their doctrine by Miracles, and so you say doth your Church.  
6. Quest. Will you grant that we are all infallible here in England, if we can prove any Miracles done among us and by us?  
7. Quest. Is it not absolutely necessary to the validity of the Testimony of a Miracle, that it be not controlled by some greater Miracle or evidence? Otherwise the Magicians in Egypt, and ●imon Magus might have gone away with better reputation. But your pretended Miracles are controlled by far greater and surer, and therefore of no force: For yours are to confirm a doctrine contrary to the Scripture, which was confirmed by many surer Miracles. This we are still ready to prove, though here we take it for certain: but you use to decline that trial.  
8. Quest Is not every Priest infallible, and every Church that hath the Eucharist, according to your doctrine? For sure Transubstantiation is a Miracle: I do not think you will deny it. And a Priest, even in deadly sin, may be an instrument of this Miracle, if your Church be infallible. Is, there then no Eucharist among the Abassines, Greeks, or any that subject not to you? Or are they all infallible? And if Miracles be as common as Transubstantiation, the privilege proved by them must be as common. So much to Master Knots first proof of his Infallibility without Scripture.  
His second Independent proof, is [Sanctity] But Sir 1. Are all Saints infallible? Sure you dare not say so?  
2. Will the Sanctity of one man, as Saint Francis or Saint Dominicke, prove the infallibility of the Pope that hath no Sanctity? By what means? Rather if Saints be infallible, a Murdering, Simoniacal, Drunken, Fornicating Pope (as yours confess many of them were) are not like to be infallible; especially Saint Brigit cannot make the Pope infallible by that Sanctity, that would not make or prove herself infallible.  
3. Who must be judge of your Sanctity and ours? Yourselves no doubt. For my part, if my salvation lay wholly upon the passing of a righteous censure between us in this point, I must needs profess, that even in England, where the Papists should be of their best sort, because it is not the common way of the Nation, but a discountenanced way, and where they are but few, yet I have known so few of them that have not been common Swearers, Cursers, Drunkards, Whoremongers, or the like, and yet fewer that ever manifested any serious minding of God and the life to come, or any experience of the work of Sanctification on their hearts; and who showed any more holiness than what say in certain ceremonies, words, gestures or other formalities; and on the contrary I know so many Protestants of heavenly hearts (as far as I can judge) and obedient lives; that there is no comparison, in my most impartial judgement between Papists and Protestants in matter of holiness. If this therefore be the proof of infallibility, sure God will excuse me, if I take England to be as infallible as Rome, because he requires me not to put out my eyes, nor to say the Swan is black, and the Crow white, because the Pope shall say so before me. And yet we still disclaim all pretences to such infallibility.  
The third mark that Knot brings, is their [Sufferings.]  
But 1. Sure the Pope suffers but little (in this life: but in the next, let him look to himself) How then do other men's sufferings prove him infallible?  
2. Do not the poor Greek Churches and other Christians under the Turks, suffer more than the Romanists?  
3. Do they not make us suffer incomparably more than they? Is it not impudence almost inhuman after the murder of so many thousands of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Bohemians, after the Massacres in France, Savoy, Ireland, the burnings in England, the Powder-Plot, after their bloody inquisition of so long continuance, and the rest of this kind, to tell the remnant of their surviving neighbours, that their sufferings prove them infallible, while our sufferings prove us Heretical?  
4. Is it not ambition and desire of Rule that is the very cause which they contend for? What's the unreconcilable quarrel so much as that all the world will not be subject to them? And yet the sufferings of these men prove them infallible? If one Butcher Henry the third of France, and another Henry the fourth, and others would blow up the English Parliament with Gunpowder, is the Pope infallible if some of these be hanged? Or what if some of them have suffered from infidels? Are not others as ready so to suffer as they? and have suffered as much as they?  
The next mark that he lays down is [Victory over all sorts of enemies] Butler is it over their minds, or over their bodies that they mean? If the first, who must be judge of their victories, but themselves? I never heard any of them plead their cause but in my judgement they had the worst. There i● no party but may turn divers others to their opinions. Mahomet hath got far more followers in the world than Christ; and Heathenism than either. If Papists can turn all these, why do they suffer themselves still to be confined to so small a part of the world? And if it be victory over men's bodies that they mean, I say the like. Have not the Turks a larger Dominion than the Pope? Have they conquered the Great Turk, the Great mogul, the Grand Cham of Tartary, & c? Are we not as infallible as they on this account, when we conquer them? It seems then, when Papists are so industrious to enlarge their Dominions, to destroy their enemies by Poisoning or stabbing Kings, or other means, it is that they may have a further Testimony of their infallibility.  
The last mark which the Jesuit mentioneth, is [the conversion of Infidels.]  
But 1 If that be a sure Mark, we are infallible as well as they: For we have been means of converting Infidels. And so have the Greek Churches, and others that disown the Pope's infallibility.  
2. If that Argument be good, than it was not only the Apostles, but all that converted Infidels at the first (or after) preaching of the Gospel, that were infallible: which sure they never pretended to.  
3. If it will prove any body infallible, it's liker to prove them so that did convert any Infidels, than the Pope that only gives them leave or order to do it.  
4. Let them not boast too much of their conversions, till we have a better character of their new made Christians, and a better report of their means of conversion, than Acosta and other of their own Jesuits give us, who have been eye witnesses of the case. To cut men off by thousands or millions, and force the rest to Baptism, as cattle to watering, when they have nothing of a Christian but the name and that sign, and some forget the name itself; this is not a conversion much to be boasted of. Nor must they think that all are Christians that the King of Spain conquereth for love of their Gold and Silver Mines. The Apostles did not convert Infidels by an Army, but by the word and miracles; but it is the King of Spain's soldiers that have been the effectual preachers to work the conversions that you have most to glory in. If the Jesuit had put his proofs into well form Arguments, what stuff should we have had?  
So much for the Answer to Chilling worth, and the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith, by which they can prove their Pope infallible without being beholden to Scripture for its help (And I marvel not at their contempt of Scripture-Testimony to them, unless there were more, or more appearance for them then there is.)  
Having considered the Papists proof of their infallibility, I shall next (though it be more than the cause obligeth me to) say somewhat to prove the Negative, and so proceed to my second Argument against them.  
Argu. 2. If the common senses of sound men (or their sensible apprehensions) be infallible, than the Pope with his pretended General Council is fallible: But the common senses of sound men are infallible: Therefore, etc.  
I know not how we should come nearer hand with a Papist, nor to plainer dealing, then to argue from common sense. And as to the Antecedent, Either sense is infallible, or it is not: If it be, I have that I seek. If not, then mark what follows.  
1. Then no man can be sure that the Christian Religion is true: For the proofs of it all vanish, if sense be not infallible. If you plead the Miracles of Christ and his Disciples, no man was sure that he saw them. If you plead the death and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, no man was sure he saw them, and therefore could give no assurance of it to another. All the Disciples senses, and the world's senses were (or might be, for aught we know) deceived. Nor are you sure that any writings or traditions came down to us from the Apostles: For the eyes of the Readers and the ears of the hearers might be deceived. 2. And then most certainly the Pope himself and all his Clergy are fallible: For they cannot be sure of that which the Apostles and following Church were not sure of: Nor can they be sure that in reading and hearing, their eyes deceive them not. And I take it for granted that the Pope and his Clergy do use their senses, and by them receive these matters into their intellect. Nay if sense be fallible, no man in the Church of Rome can tell whether there be any such place as Rome, or any such person as the Pope at all, or ever was. Nay what else can any man be sure of?  
I suppose you will marvel why I bestow so many words on such a point: But you see what men we have to deal with: When all the quarrel between us must be issued by this point, whether common sense be infallible? For if it be, we infallibly carry the cause: Yea whether it be or be not, as shall appear.  
I come next therefore to prove the consequence▪ and that I do thus.  
The judgement of the Pope and his pretended General Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension or judgement of common sense: therefore if common sense be infallible, the Pope and his Council are fallible.  
The consequent is unquestionable; the Antecedent I prove by this known Instance.  
Common sense takes it to be bread and Wine that remaineth after the words of consecration: The Pope and his Council say, it is not Bread nor Wine that remains after the words of consecration: therefore the judgement of the Pope and his Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension of common sense.  
For the first, I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist. Whether seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine, as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables? and whether they can see or taste, or smell, or feel, any difference to give them the least cause of doubting? I am sure I have the judgement of thousands and millions on my side, which in a matter of sense among sound men, is certainly enough. And if the Papists are so mad as to tell me, that it is otherwise with their senses; and will seriously profess that their eyes, and taste, etc. do not take these for Bread and Wine, but perceive that they are not, I will take them for shameless liars, or madmen; and I suppose no man in his senses will blame me for so doing. Well I its pa●● doubt that all our senses tell us its Bread and Wine, as confidently as they tell us any thing is such. And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine: If our eyes be infallible that read it, and our ears that hear it from their own mouths; then this is sure enough and too sure; I know they will not deny it: I would they would, we should then be somewhat nearer a reconciliation. What now can be said to avoid the conclusion, is past my understanding; save only that it is possible that some of them may come in with some alluding distinction to see if they can blind men's sense and reason; and so perhaps they'll tell them that 1. sense is infallible, on supposition of the right constitution of the medium, but else not: or 2. that sense judgeth but of accidents, and not of substances, and the accidents of Bread and Wine are here; or 3. that sense is infallible in common cases, where substances and accidents are not separated, as here they be. To which (if such stuff deserve an answer) I reply, 1. What medium is here questionable or questioned by you, but the accidents themselves, which you say are the objects. Sure the air is clear and perspicuous: the distance is not too near or too far off; our eyes and taste are sound. 2. I think senses judge of substances with their accidents: The eye sees substantiam coloratam, and the hand feeleth the substantiam qualem & quantam, and not only qualitatem & quantitatem substantiae. But let that controversy go how it will, I am sure the substance is objectum s●nsus per accidens, though not per se, or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of substance, by the help of the senses apprehension. Otherwise all the forementioned absurdities will follow, and still the Pope and Church will be fallible: For then the Apostles and others that saw Christ's Miracles could be sure only of the accidents, and not of the substance. Then no man is certain whether it was Christ himself that lived on earth that was crucified, and rose again, or only the accidents of Christ: And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome, or only the accidents of a Pope: and so of the rest. 3. And to the third part of the answer I reply, That if sense be infallible when substances and accidents are inseparable, than it is always infallible: For the accident separated from the subject doth perish. Moreover how shall we know whether substances and accidents are separated or not? If we be sure of that by sense, than sense is still infallible so far: if not, than sense is fallible, because it knows not when it apprehendeth any more than naked accidents. But indeed it's a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not subjecti alicujus accidentia.  
Obj. Sense is infallible (suppose the right temper of the Organs, object, Medium) till God tell us the contrary, but than it is fallible: But in the point of Transubstantiation God hath told us the contrary to what common sense apprehendeth: Therefore here sense is deceived.  
Answ. 1. Sense must in order be first known to be infallible, before you can tell any thing that God hath said or wrote, of its fallibility or infallibility: or else you cannot tell but your eyes in reading, or your ears in hearing those words of his, did deceive you. 2. Sense and Reason are the judging faculties which God hath given to mankind for the discerning of their objects. It is not therefore to be imagined that God doth turn the great Deceiver of the world, and by supernatural light contradict the Light of Nature, even the apprehensions of the sound and general sense of the world: Gods supernatural Revalations presupposes his Natural ones, and are additions thereto, but do not contradict them: for then God should contradict himself when both are his Revelations. God cannot lie, saith the Apostle: And what were it for God to lie or say truth, but only to make a deceitful or not deceitful discovery of his mind and will or the effects to us? Indeed, there may through our imperfection be a deceit of the senses, when the Organs are distempered, and the medium, or object are not conveniently disposed: and every such distance, impediment, or other ill disposure, is not as God's voice to tell us the thing as what to our imperfect sense it seems: But if the common senses of men, that are sound and not hindered by any such impediments shall yet be all deceived merely by a contradicting ordinance of God, than it would seem that God gave man contradictory lights and guides. And their objection seems to be as bad, as if they should say so of God's word [That it is always true, except where God tells us the contrary] but if it might be false at any time, how can you tell that that very word is true which you pretend doth tell you of the falsehood of another word: so say I here. If sense be not always infallible (where it hath its requisite assistance) then how can you tell that your senses are infallible when you are reading [Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body] which you think contradicteth the infallibility of sense? For 2. Is the infallibility of sense a thing that is known by nature, or by supernatural Light? Not by supernatural Light (unless consequentially) where doth Scripture or your Tradition say, that sense is sometime infallibe, and sometime fallible (supposit is requisitis)? And nature tells you no more of the infallibility of any other acts of sense (or Receptions) then of those same which you pronounce to be fallible.  
3. We challenge you and all the world, to prove that ever God hath revealed in Scripture, that the common senses of men, are deceived about their proper objects, the requisites in Nature supposed; Or that ever he made any ordinances for the deluding or contradicting the senses of his Church? Or ever said any such thing; Cannot Christ say [Hoc est corpus meum: This is my Body] but he must needs proclaim a delusion of the senses of all men that take it to be Bread? Then when God saith [Hoc est faedus meum: This is my Covenant] Gen. 17.10. He must proclaim all men's senses deceived; because sense faith it was but Circumcision, and Bellarmine will confess it was but the sign of a Covenant. Then when Paul saith [This Rock was Christ] it must proclaim that all the Israelites senses were deceived, that thought it to be a true Rock: when a Papist will confess that the meaning is [This Rock represented or signified Christ] As if among many Images, you should say, This is Peter, and this John, and this Paul, this were plainly to say, This signifieth Peter or representeth him, etc. and doth not proclaim that deceit of sense. Bellarmine cannot deny but that it is called in 1 Cor. 10. & 11. Bread and the Cup six times over, as after the consecration; and here his shifting answer is, that things are said to be in Scripture what they seem to be, as the brazen Serpent is called a Serpent, and so here he pleadeth a Trope. Good still! The Scripture calls it [Bread] six times near together, after the consecration, and it calls it [Christ's Body] once (when his living body sat by) Now the Question is which of these speeches are Tropical. And we must believe Bellarmine that the text which calls it six times Bread, must needs be Tropical, and that which calls it once [Christ's Body] must needs be understood without a Trope. And this is all the evidence they can bring that God hath proclaimed men's senses to be fallible. Nay all that we need for our cause is but to take [est] for [significat] which is so common that one would think there should not such unnatural absurdities be admitted to avoid it, as overthrow our humanity.  
When we plead that Christ had a true body, and that a true body may be seen and felt, because Christ bids them, Luk. 24. See and feel, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, etc. Bellarmine answereth that Sense is infallible in positives, and therefore thence we may say [This is a body because I see itself, but not in Negatives; and therefore we cannot say [This is not a body because I see it not.] And what need we more than that which is here granted? By his own confession than we may conclude that [This is Bread and Wine, because we see, feel, smell, taste it.] Yet no doubt, we may also argue that it is not a natural body, because it is not visible or sensible.  
So much for this second Argument, which I may thus with full advantage enforce: If sense be either fallible or infallible, the Pope is fallible: But sense is either fallible or infallible: Therefore.  
If sense be fallible the Pope is fallible, and all his Church for their senses, and the Apostles and their followers were fallible. 
☜  If sense be infallible, the Pope and his Council are fallible; because the common senses of all sound men take that for Bread and Wine which they expressly say (as the fide to be believed) is not either Bread or Wine.  
Argu. 3. If the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already, then are they not infallible: But the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already: Therefore they are not infallible.  
As the first Argument was taken from the no proof of his infallibility, and the second from the common senses of mankind, so the third is taken from certain experience; which is a medium so evident that their vain words and subtle evasions, have the less force to elude or obscure it. Of the validity of the consequence there is no question can be made. He that hath erred, is not infallible. All the doubt therefore is of the Antecedent, which hath by unquestionable evidence of History been put out of doubt by our Writers long ago. I shall produce some few instances of many.  

Bellarm. de Pontif. li. 4. cap. 8.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  There are no less than forty Popes whom Bellarmine himself takes notice of as charged with error or heresy, for whom he frameth such poor excuses, that I should think any impartial Reader might receive satisfaction enough from Bellarmine that the Pope is too fallible. Yea that even judicially and in fundamentals he may err.  
Did not Pope Liberius 
a Vid. Binnium Tom. 1. Conc. part. 1. p. 478 notis in 7. Epist. Liberii & p. 480. & p. 422. Item Baron. ●●●o 357. § 9.344. § 3.4.5. & 359. § 4 10 & Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4 c. 9  err judicially when he subscribed to the Arrians confession in the Council of Sirmium [Libenti animo suscepi in nullo contradicens] which the Fathers condemn of Heresy? and to the Councils condemnation of Athanasius, as Athanasius himself and many more witness. Did not Pope Vigilius err judicially when he condemned the Decree of the General Council (for condemning dead Heretics)? And when Pope Pelagius and Gregory the first, and Adrian the first did all approve of the same? Sure one party of these Popes erred, unless contradictoryes may be true? Yea when Pope Vigilius did afterward revoke his own constitution 
b Vid. Binnium net in Concil. 5. Occumenis.  sure he erred either in making or revoking it? And so did Pope Paschalis when they gave God thanks in open Council that they heard the Pope with his own mouth revok those grants which (said they) contained Heresy, which he himself had before made to the Emperor 
c Kraulzius Saxon li. 5. cap. 38. . Though Cajetans' excuse be true that it was no Heresy, yet either the making or revoking was an error. What will they invent at last to hide the nakedness of Pope Honorius who in two several General Councils was condemned for a Monothelite Heretic? which he judicially persuaded Sergius to, when he sought his judgement. Stapleton and many more of them confess the full certainty of the Councils condemning him of Heresy; but forsooth they say the Council did mistake the case 
d Vid. Bin●●m Tom. 3. part. 1 p. 143. & Staplet. Cons. 3. qu. 4. add arg. 7. . It seems then either a Pope may be a Heretic, or a General Council err.  
Moreover will any Papists deny that Pope Stephen six, and Sergius erred when 
e Vid. Sigebert in Chron p. 74. Anno. 902. & Martin. Polon. supput. p 158.  they judicially decreed that those should be ordained again that were ordained by Pope Form●sus? And of Pope Celestines error Alphonsus a Castro faith 
f Alphons. ●dv. Hereses li. 1. c. 4.  that he himself saw it in the ancient Decretals as his Definition, and therefore that it cannot be said that he erred as a private man, and not as Pope. What can they say of Pope John twenty two who denied the immortality of the soul, and was admonished of his heresy by the Doctors of Paris, as not only Pope Adrian the sixth, Joh. Gerson, Alphons. a Castro, and others witness, but Bellarmine himself confesseth also. But he excuseth him, because that opinion was not there defined against, and therefore was no heresy: See here 1. Whether the Papists do not make themselves a new Faith and Religion when they please, and that is a point of Faith with them one year that was none the year before: so that the novelty and the mutability of their Religion is thus by themselves confessed. 2. See here that a point declared in Scripture, and held by the former Church is no point of Faith with them, unless it be declared by a Pope or General Council. 3. See here what men Bellarmine would make all the former Popes to have been, that had determined, whether the soul were immortal or not. 4. Chamier truly noteth that Bellarmine himself, forgetfully contradicteth himself, and tells us elsewhere that Innocent the third (the ninteeneth Pope before John twenty two) had taught the contrary in express words.  
I shall forbear to reckon up any more, because the Reader may find it done so fully already in so many, and the excuses of Bellarmine by Chamier and many others so fully answered: and because it is a thing so far out of question, 
Vid. J●well Defence. part 1. c. 8. Divis. 1. & part. 2. c. 3. divis. 2 & part. 4. c. 18. Divis. 1.  that nothing but gross ignorance or impudence can deny it. It is so common a thing for Popes to contradict and repeal one another's Decrees, that their Platina in vita Stephani saith [Following Popes do always either infringe or wholly abrogate the Decrees of the former Popes] Erasmus Annot. in 1 Cor. 7. 
See Doctor John Whites way. Dig●ess. 28. p. 104.  saith [Pope John the 22. and Pope Nicolas are contrary one to another in their whole degrees, and that in things that seem to belong to the business of Faith] Lyra (in Mat. 16.) saith that Some Popes have Apostatised. Occam shows that many things in the Docretals do savour of Heresy. One Pope teacheth Emanuel King of Portugal to marry two sisters. 
* Os●r. de gestis Emanuel l. 2.  Another teacheth our King Henry 8 to marry his brother's wife: And even Pope Paul 4. with his Council of Trent decree, that it should be lawful for him to allow those degrees to marry together, which God in Leviticus had forbidden and to forbid those which God had allowed: which was a judicial error of the Pope and his Council, as many more in that Council were.  
But I will add another Argument like the last▪ which is as followeth.  
Argu. 4. If the Pope be infallible, than all the writings of all Popes are of infallible verity: But all the writings of all Popes are not of infallible verity: Therefore the Pope is not infallible.  
The consequence of the Major Proposition will be denied by Bellarmine, unless it be limited to such writings by which the Pope doth teach the Church in matters of faith: Though indeed they will never prove him infallible in Teaching the Church while they confess him fallible in his own judgement, yet let us for disputation's sake grant them this: But then (for the proof also of the Minor) I proceed thus: All the Theological writings of Leo, Gregory, Gelasius, Nicolus 1. Adrian 6. and other Popes are not infallible: But all these writings were to teach the Church in matters of faith: Therefore all the Pope's writings which are to teach the Church in matter of Faith, are not infallible. I think no ●ober Papist will maintain that all these writings are infallible. And that they are written about matters necessary to be believed or done for our salvation, is evident to any man that readeth them. And if they were not written to teach the Church to what end were they written? Do Popes publish writings about matters of Religion, and not to teach the Church by them? If they say, it is but to teach part of the Church: I answer. 1. What part is it? and where is the limitation expressed: for example, of Gregory's Dialogues, Morals, de officio Pastoris, etc. 2. The Pope in a Provincial Council may teach but part of the Church, and yet Bellarmine saith that he is there infallible.  
Moreover if all the Pope's writings be infallible, from his gift of infallibility, than they are equal to the Scriptures; nay what are they but God's word, and all Popes are Apostles or Prophets, that is, inspired men (of which more anon:) but that's false: Therefore.  
Obj. These writings come not from the Pope as Pope, but as a private Doctor, and so he may err.  
Answ. Can the Pope lay by his relation when he is teaching the Church, & do it as a mere private Doctor, when he is not a mere private Doctor? It is a hard straight that the Papists are in to tell us, and themselves, when the Pope teacheth as a private Doctor, and when as Pope? They are never likely to be agreed about this among them. And all that we have for it, is but the private word of Bellarmine and some such disputers; but we have no Scripture, Canon, or Decretal, to tell us how we shall know one from the other. If therefore we have no infallible means to know when the Pope teacheth as a Pope, and when as private Doctor, than we have no infallible means to know when he teacheth infallibly: But the former is most certain, therefore so is the later: And so if the Pope were infallible, it would do us no good. If they draw forth rational probabilities, and make every private man judge of them, they may as well warrant men by such means, to judge of the sense of Scripture, which they so much abhor.  
Argu. 5. If General Councils be infallible, or to be credited, than the Pope is fallible: But according to one party of the Papists, a General Council is infallible: therefore the Pope is fallible.  
The consequence of the Major is easily proved 1. Because General Councils have differed from the Pope. 2. Yea they have deposed divers Popes, and that for heresy: charging divers Articles against them, as also for wickedness of life. The Council at Pisa deposed two Popes at once, Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. and in the tenor of their deprivation call them [Notorious schismatics, heretics departed from the faith, scandalising the whole Church, cut off from the Church, unworthy the Papacy] 
a Theodor. Nicen. de schismate. l. 3. c. 44. p. 91. Antonin. sum hist. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. §. 3.  The Council of Constance 
b Antonin. ibid. c. 6. § 2. council. const. sess. 37.  deposed the same Pope Benedict again, commanding all men to esteem him as an heretic and schismatic. The same Council deposed also John 23. accused for holding 
c Bim. p. 1584. Conc. Const.  and defending as his judgement that there is no eternal life, nor immortality of the soul, nor resurrection of the dead, and so was a stark infidel. Concerning this Pope I would desire the impartial Reader to observe what a miserable answer Bellarmine is put to give? and whether it do not plainly give up their whole cause? His words are these (de Pontif. li. 4. c. 14.) [Responde● Johannem 23. non fuisse Pontificem omnino certum & indubitatum, proinde non necessario esse defendendum: erant enim eo tempore tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant: Gregorius 12. Benedictus 13. & Johannes 23. nec poterat facile judicari quis corum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex cum non deessent singulis doctissimi patroni.] That is [I answer that John the 23. was not a Pope altogether certain and undoubted: and therefore it is not necessary that he be defended: for at that time there were three that would be taken for Popes, Gregory the 12. Benedict. the 13. and John 23. and it could not easily be judged which of them was true and lawful Pope, seeing there were not wanting to each of them most learned Patrons] So far Bellarmine.  
Where observe 1. That even learned men, yea General Councils, and the Church may be uncertain which is the true Pope. It's worth the enquiring then, whether they be not uncertain that the Roman succession is interrupted; and uncertain at that time whether God had any word? or what was the sense of it? and whether it was certain to them that the Church failed not, when they had no certainty of the head? and whether their head and so their Church were then visible or invisible, when they could so hardly be known? And note, that Bellarmine doth disclaim the Com-popes' with this John 23. and saith elsewhere, that it was most likely that this was the true Pope. They have brought their glorious head, Church and infallibility to a fair pass!  
Besides this, the General Council at Basill did shortly after depose Pope Eugenius the forth, declaring him to be [A rebel against the holy Canons, a notorious disturber and scandalizer of the peace and unity of the Church, a Simonist, and a perjured wretch, incorrigible, a schismatic and an obstinate heretic] 
* Vid. Aenaeu Sylvi. gest. Concil. Basil. li. 2. And note that this Eugenius by force kept the Popedom after a General Council had deposed him for these crimes: How then can the succeing Popes have a just title, and Rome pretend to an interrupted succession, or any other Bishops or Presbyters from them?  To this Bellarmine hath not a word to say, but only that the Council did him wrong, and at Lansanna undid their acts. And thus he is content to grant that 1. A General Council may err (which he maintaineth) 2. And that a Pope may be a heretic and to be deposed in the judgement of a General Council? And are the Papists forced to yield us thus much? I would fain know then from Bellarmine or any Papists surviving him, whether that General Councils do err in faith, and be Heretics or not, for that their judgement? If they do so err, then where is the visibility of their Church with the rest of its privileges which they so boast of, when its Representative body, a General Council are Heretics, as thinking the Pope to be fallible? But if they erred not the fide, or were no heretics. 1. Then its seems the Pope's infallibility is no fundamental. 2. Then it seems we are no heretics neither, for denying that which General Councils of Papists (pretended by them to be General) have denied. 3 Nay why should they be angry with men for erring such an error (as they account it) which their own general Councils may one after another err.  
Argu. 6. From the Papists own open known confession: If the Papists themselves do confess both Pope and Council to be fallible, they have little reason to blame us for affirming the samewhich they confess: But the Papists themselves do confess both Pope and General Council to be fallible: Therefore, etc.  
I do not mean that all the Papists confess it of both, but one part of them confess it of one and the other of the other of them. Bellarmine and his fellow Jesuits with the Italian party do confess that a General Council may err in matters of Faith: The French and Venetian Papists, with all the Doctors of their party affirm that the Pope may err and be a heretic, and teach heresy: so that by the confession of one half of them a Council may err and by the confession of the other half the Pope may err.  
If any imagine that though both may err dis-junctly, yet not conjunctly, I shall only now say, that the concession that each of them dis-junctly may err, destroyeth the force of all those Arguments which are brought for their infallibility; and therefore will prove it of them also conjunctly. But we have yet further proof.  
Argu. 7. If the very substance of Popery be nothing but a farthel of errors brought in by the Pope and his Council to corrupt the Christian Religion among them, then certainly the Pope and his Council may err: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore so is the consequent.  
All the Question being of the Antecedent, and it being proved before in the former disputation, and fully by our writers against them, I shall thither for brevity refer you. What impudence is it to introduce such abundance of corruptions contrary to the express word of God and after all this to say, they cannot err when they have so plagued the Church with their errors? They teach men to serve God in an unknown tongue, and speak and hear they know not what, to worship the Bread with divine Worship, to receive only the bread, when Christ ordained that they should have the cup, and so do abolish one half of the Sacrament, they adore the Virgin Mary and other Saints, they plead for justification by the merit of their own works, as having a condignity of the reward; they make the Church a new thing by making a new head and centre of unity and a new and daily mutable Religion, in a word they poison both Church policy, Worship and Doctrine by their errors; and when they have done they stand to it that they cannot err. Like a Leper that should maintain he cannot possibly be Leprous, when he is covered with it already: or like a swearing or drunken beast, that should swear that he never did swear nor was drunk, nor ever can be, when he lieth drunk in the dirt, and breaths out his oaths. What need any impartial diseerning man any other proof that the Pope and the Church of Rome is not infallible, then actually to observe the swarm of their errors that have troubled the Church?  
Argu. 8. If the Popes themselves are to be believed, or if they are not to be believed, they are not infallible. But either they are to be believed or not: Therefore.  
If they be not to be believed, what need there any more proof? If they are, what need there also any more proof, when they themselves confess themselves fallible? Not a Pope for above six hundred years after Christ did ever pretend to infallibility as can be proved: Pope Adrian the sixth, one of the most Learned and best that ever they had this many hundred years, hath written his judgement that the Pope may err. And I think he is liker to know himself, as to his infirmities, than any of his flatterers are. His words are these De Sacram. Confirm. art. 4. ad fin. [Dico, quod si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus, puta Pontifex, certum est quod possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem; hear sin per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo: plures enim fue●unt Pontifices Romani haeretici] That is [I say, that if by the Church of Rome be meant the Head of it, to wit, the Pope, it is certain that he may err, even in those things that touch the faith by asserting heresy by his Determination or Decretal: for there have many Popes of Rome been heretics.] Thus you hear what a Pope says of himself.  
Argu. 9 If the Pope be infallible, then either it is his mind in believing, or his tongue in speaking, or his pen in writing, that is infallible. But it is neither his Mind, nor Tongue, nor Pen: Therefore he is not infallible.  
1. That his mind is not infallible, in point of belief, is confessed by the Papists themselves. One part of them saying he may err, and the other maintaining that he may be a heretic, and that many have been so.  
That his tongue and pen is not infallible when his understanding erreth is plain.  
1. In that otherwise he should be infallible in dissembling, and God is feigned to promise a man to keep his tongue from error when he speaks against his own heart; which cannot be proved, nor sound imagined.  
2. The infallible dictates of the Pope while he erreth in mind should be all either unreasonable acts▪ as being the words of one that knoweth not what he saith, or interpretatively lies. For when a man speaks contrary to his judgement, if his words be true in themselves yet they are interpretatively lies, because he so takes them, and intendeth them as falsehoods to deceive others. For instance, If Pope John the 23. that was deposed by a General Council upon Articles exhibited against him for denying the Resurrection, and the Life to come, should with his tongue have taught the Resurrection and the Life to come; this had been as lying to him, though the thing itself be most true. And we must have a promise that the Pope of Rome and his Clergy, among all the Liars in the whole world, shall be the only infallible Liars. A happy generation of Liars sure? But where is that promise?  
3. It was for the error of the tongue as well as of the mind, that the Clergy disposed Liberius & Felix, and that the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil deposed the other Popes above mentioned. For 1. they could not know their minds but by their words. 2. They charged them with the errors of their tongues as well as minds.  
Argu. 10. If Popes be infallible in the matters which they understand not, than it must be by Enthusiasm or prophetical inspiration. But all Popes are ignorant of many Divine Truths, and some more notoriously ignorant, and yet neither Alderman nor Any of them (for aught is ever proved) were Prophets, or divinely inspired: therefore they are not infallible.  
For the Major its plain, that as no erring man must speak against his own mind, if he be infallible, so an ignorant man (in those points) must 1. either have his ignorance cured suddenly by prophetical inspiration: or else 2. must speak as in an ecstasy, without or beside his own mind: there being no other way imaginable.  
And as for the Minor I prove both parts of it. 1. That Popes are ignorant of many Divine truths, I prove thus. 1. They that are ignorant of many truths revealed in the Scriptures, are ignorant of many Divine truths: For Scripture being God's word, all that is therein revealed is Divine truth. But Popes have been ignorant of many things revealed in Scripture: therefore I need not sure stand to prove the Minor, for they confess it themselves. And if the Pope understood all the Scripture, he were sure the most damnable sinner in the world, for not revealing his knowledge to others. 2. Yea some of them have been so notoriously ignorant and unlearned that their own Alphonsus a Castro saith (advers. hares. li. 1. c. 4.) that [It is certain some Popes be so unlearned, that they do not understand the Grammar.] And sure if they that understand not any Hebrew or Greek (which are the languages in which the Scripture is written) no nor the Latin Grammar should understand all the Bible and err in nothing, it must needs be by a Miracle, and by Prophetical inspiration.  
2. But that all Popes be not inspired Prophets, nor illuminated by Miracles, I will leave to be judged by the Papists themselves. Read Platina, Stella, yea or Baronius himself, or if they have any other that is a more notorious Parasite to them, and let them be judges.  
Argu. 11. If the Pope and his Council be infallible, than it is either in All things that God hath revealed in the Scripture or are necessary to be known, or but in some: If he be infallible in all things necessary to be known, believed, or decided, then will it follow,  
1. That the Pope is the most cruelly wicked man on earth, and the greatest enemy to the truth and Church that will suffer the Church to lie in so much ignorance and contention, and will not reveal the truth to reconcile and enlighten them. Why doth he not write an infallible commentary on all the Bible to perfect our knowledge and end all our quarrels? And why doth he not write an infallible summary of all his superadded traditions? Hath not Christ told him that no man lighteth a candle to put it under a Bushel, but where it may be seen of all?  
2. Why doth not one Pope reveal that which they think fit to reveal; but leave it to successors one after another to do it by degrees? Dare they say that there is any point of faith revealed in Scripture, and necessary to this age to know, which was not meet to be revealed by the Pope to the last or former age?  
3. Why do so many of themselves, yea their General Councils so much contradict their Popes in many things, if he be infallible in all things? And all of them confess that either a Pope, or a Council may err?  
But if it be but some things that the Pope is infallible in, then how shall we be sure which be those some? Can we know before he discloseth them, or only after? I suppose they will say [It is in all those things which he determineth or declareth] But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by; then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible, when he beginneth to Determine or declare, and not before. 2. And then every Pope increaseth in his infallibility, as he increaseth his Decretals or Canons. 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible than others, who have made more decrees than others. 4. And then some Popes were never infallible, who never made any decrees or determinations or expositions at all, so that their cause is lost, if their actual discoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility. And yet I cannot imagine what else they can say that may have any appearance of consisting with their interest.  
For it is either a Positive or a Negative infallibility which they mean and ascribe to their Church. If a Positive, then 1. All the foresaid absurdities unavoidably follow; whether they say that they can infallibly teach us all things (and will not) or but some? But if it be a Negative infallibility which they maintain (viz. that the Church shall never teach any false doctrine; Or the Pope shall never deceive us by obtruding any error, though withal he may possibly teach us but part of the truth, yea the necessary truth, yea perhaps teach us none at all) I say, if this be their meaning, than every infant or bird or beast hath as glorious a privilege as the Pope of Rome: For every infant and bruit is so infallible; that we are certain they will not deceive the Church by teaching any error.  
Perhaps they'll say that the Pope is positively infallible as a sufficient Teacher of the Church, in all things de fide at that time, or necessary to salvation; and negatively infallible in all the rest, which are not the fide or necessary: To which I answer: 1. Either such points are de fide and necessary before the Pope dedeclare them so, and he therefore declares them so because they are so: or else he declares them de fide and necessary before they are so, that by declaring them so, he may make them so. If the first, 1. then the Papists have lost their cause; for that's it which they deny, at lest quoad nos, though not in se, as they use to distinguish. 2. And then its plain that no Pope hath been positively infallible in necessariis, or all points de fide: for no one hath declared all, nor are they yet all (say they) declared by them, but every Pope may still add more, and who knows when we shall have all. But if they take the later way, than 1. They suppose that God's word how express soever doth not make a point to be de fide and necessary, till the Pope declare it so (at lest quoad nos: and how it can be de fide and necessary, any other way than quoad nos, they should do well to declare: For that which is credendum, est ab aliquo credendum (that which is to be believed, must be believed by some body) and that which is necessary is necessary to some one.) So that the Gospel shall be no Gospel with them, nor the Law of God any Law, though we read it and hear it a thousand times, till the Pope tell us by parcels the meaning of its particular words and sentences. 2. They make the Pope's acts to go before their objects, which is against the nature of actions: while they make him to declare a point to be de fide that it may become de fide. For to declare that it is so, supposeth that it is so, and not only that it will or shall be so de futuro. 3. And so they make all the Pope's infallible Declarations, Expositions, and Determinations de fide, to be Lies: for if he Declare a thing to be necessary before it is necessary, or declare this or that to be the sense of Scripture, before it is the sense of Scripture, or to be de fide before it be so, what is this but plain lying? But if they say that he declareth it to be de fide and necessary only for the future, and not to have been so before this Declaration, than the forementioned Absurdities fall upon them. And also 1. The Pope is then a Gospel-maker, and the Law giver of the Church, and that in spirituals and internals; and consequently it is he that is the King of the Church (who hath the Legislative power, and without whom nothing that Christ hath said shall bind us) 2. Then the Church's faith is mutable and in a continual change by new additions: For the Decrees or Expositions of every Pope do make more Articles of faith than were before. 3. Then the present Papists are not of the same Religion as their forefathers (or their forefathers not of the same with them) nor do they go to Heaven by the same way: For according to their own doctrine, if the present age of the Church did not believe as de fide many things more than the former ages were bound to believe, they cannot be saved. 4. And then it is evident unmercifulness in the Popes of Rome to make more Expositions, Decrees or Determinations! and so to make us of this Age, so much work to do before we can get to heaven and scape damnation, which our forefathers never had to do.  
I know 
* Answer to the Lord Falkland.  one of them replieth to this, that these Additions are no cruelty, because they make not salvation more difficult, but facilitate that which was necessary before (or to that sense) But 1. It seems then that somewhat was necessary and de fide before the Pope defined, determined or declared them so: By that time we are plainly told which those points be, the Papist that undertakes and performeth it, will find himself at a sad loss. 2. But is this man serious? Doth he think indeed that it is not easier to believe the Apostles Creed, than to believe all that is in the Councils of Trent, Basil, Constance, Lateran, with all the rest, and all the Decretals (both the Popes and Isidore Meccator's alias Peccator.) For instance, before the Pope determined the other day for the Molinists against some part of the Dominican, Jansenian doctrine, both parties might have gone to heaven: But now the poor Dominicans, must change part of their doctrine, or go to hell fire. I demand now whether the Pope's determination have not made salvation harder to many then before? I appeal to all the Thomists▪ Dominicans, Jansenians, whether the Pope hath facilitated their salvation by this determination? I appeal to Tho. Whites friendly combat with Francisc. Macedo; & to the late Animadversions of the French Doctors on the Pope's determinations.  
Further I add that if all the Pope's infallibility Positive be only in points of absolute necessity to salvation, than many a private Doctor, nay every Christian man or woman, is at present, as infallible as the Pope: for it implies a contradiction to be a true Christian, and not to believe all that is essential to Christianity, or absolutely necessary to salvation. And if it be not de praesenti & in sensu composito, but de futuro & in sensu diviso that they mean it, that is, that another man may fall from the faith, but the Pope cannot, 1. Clean contrary, we maintain, and the Papists confess, that no elect person shall fall quite from the faith. 2. But a reprobate Pope may: witness John 23. and many another. So much for that Argument.  
Argu. 12. If every Pope be infallible (Positively in all matters of faith, or in expounding all Scripture) than all Popes are of equal understanding and fidelity in matters of faith, and Scriptures. For the most learned, wise and pious can go no higher, but to be able infallibly to interpret all Scripture, and declare all Gods will concerning our faith and duty. But sure all Popes are not equal. None of those children or dunces that Alphonsus a Castro saith understood not the Grammar, are equal to Pius 2. or Adrian the 6.  
Argu. 13. If every Pope be infallible, then study, learning, consultations, yea and Councils are needless: for the most unlearned Pope is as infallible as the most learned; and after all the study in the world, consultation and advice of General Councils, he can he but infallible; and so, say they he was before. If they say still, that, before he was but negatively infallible; I say again, so is a block, an infant or an idiot. But that studies, learning, consultations and Councils are not needless, I suppose all Papists will grant: therefore they must grant that all Popes are not infallible.  
Argu. 14. Notorious ungodly men that live in murder, fornication, incest, Sodomy, blasphemy, etc. have no promise from God, nor any other assurance of infallibility: but such were many Popes, Therefore, etc.  
The Major I prove from many Scriptures, 2 Thess. 2.10, 11. Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.] They that receive not the love of the truth that they may be saved, are threatened to be given up to delusions; and therefore have no certainty of being infallible. They that choose their own ways, God will choose their delusions, Isa. 64.4. There is no communion between light and darkness, Christ and Belial: therefore no infallibility with the children of Belial. Of all men naturally till Christ illuminate them by special grace, it is said in Scripture that they are blind, deceived, liars, of no understanding, receiving not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2.14. Prov. 28.5. Rome 3.11. Prov. 6.32. & 9.4.10. & 15.21. & 7.7. & 12.11. 2 Pet. 1.9. 2 Tim. 3.13. Tit. 3.3. It is only the elect that cannot be deceived even in the foundation, Mat. 24.24. None of the wicked shall understand but the wise shall understand, Dan. 12.10. They are threatened to be given over to blindness, that they may not understand, Isa. 6.9.10. Act. 28.26, 27 Mar. 4.12. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Psal. 111.10. God promiseth to teach the humble Psal. 25. but the proud he still resist, when he giveth to the humble his grace, 1 Pet. 5.5. Jam. 4.6.  
And not only the minds of the wicked, but their tongues are deceitful, even when they know the truth, so that a wicked Pope may lie and deceive. Psal. 36.3. Prov. 12.5. Mar. 7.22. Rom. 3.13. I confess that a wicked man may have some kind of superficial knowledge of all those doctrines (dis-junctly at least) which are known to true Believers; but as he hath no solid knowledge of them, so he hath no promise or assurance of infallibility in that which he is capable of knowing: Nor is it so like that a blind deceitful man should be universally orthodox.  
And for the Minor, that many Popes have been notoriously wicked, I need not prove it, while their own Historians and disputers too, do so commonly confess it. It's well known what wickedness the Councils that deposed them charged upon some, and what poisoning, and other murders, Simony, conjuration, incest, common adulteries and other wickedness, is by the writers of their lives and other Historians charged on so many more, that I should but trouble the weary Reader to no purpose to cite them. Read the lives of Pope Sylvester (the Witch) the 2. Alexander the 3. and the 6. John 13. and the 22. and the 23. Gregory the 7. Vrbane the 7. etc. in Platina, Luitprandus, Fasciculus temporum, Martinus Polonus, etc. Ticinus hist. li. 6. of 
* Vid. Naucler. an. 956. figon. reg. Ita. l. 7. anno. 963. Anton. Chron. pa 2 tit. 16. c. 1. § 16. Bar. an. 964. n. 17  John 13. shows that his sins were proved in Council that he ravished and committed filthiness with maids, widows and wives at the Apostolic doors; committed many murders; drunk to the Devil; and at Dice asked help of Jupiter and Venus: and at last was slain in the act of adultery. See of Sylvester 2. Fascic. temp. an. 1004. Martin. Polonus Anno. 1007. Platin. in ejus vita. Of Boniface the 7. See Baronius himself anno 985. n. 1. Of Alexander the 6. see Guicciardine hist. li. 1. and Onuphrius vit. Alex. 6. But I will name no more.  
Argu. 15. Other Bishops and Churches who have as good a pretence to plead for their infallibility as the Bishop and Church of Rome, are yet generally acknowledged fallible, even by themselves and by the papists: Therefore the Pope and Church of Rome also are fallible.  
All that's doubtful is whether any other Churches or Bishops have as fair a plea for infallibility as the Roman? which I prove thus.  
1. The Plea of the Romanists is that their Bishop is the successor of an Apostle who was infallible, and so the Promises belonging to him, do belong also to his successors. And the successors of the rest of the Apostles may have the same plea: For all the Apostles, after the Holy Ghost fell on them, were infallible, as well as Peter: And therefore their successors have as fair a plea as Peter's successors.  
Obj. But there was not the like promise made to the rest for their successors stability as was to Peter. Answ. 1. There can no greater a promise to Peter's successors be showed, then was made Mat. 28.29. to them all [Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world] 2. The Papists (according to their new fundamentals) must not plead Scripture promises for their infallibility; for they say, their infallibility is in order first known, evidenced and to be proved, before it be known that Scripture is God's word.  
2. The plea of the Romanists for their Pope's infallibility is, that he is the successor of Peter. But the Bishop of Antioch might as well pretend to be the successor of Peter, and yet he pretendeth not to infallibility: Therefore, etc. That History which telleth us that Peter was Bishop of Rome, doth tell us that he was Bishop of Antioch also; yea and that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome, so that Antioch is undoubtedly the ancienter Church. What reason then can the Papists give why the Bishop of Antioch might not as well plead that he is Peter's successor, as the Bishop of Rome? Unless they could prove that Peter did by his last Will and Testament bequeath the honour of succession, and the privileges of infallibility to Rome only; which they have not yet (that I can find) been so bold as to go about to prove. Otherwise, if one must needs be preferred, why should not the eldest, unless they be disinherited, and the younger hath the blessing, which must be proved. Whence is it but from the honour of their Antiquity that Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome should be preferred as Patriarchates before all other Churches? And if Antiquity be a good reason for that, then why should not Jerusalem and Antioch on the same account be preferred before Rome, seeing its beyond all doubt that they were both the more ancient Churches, and Antioch the more ancient seat of Peter, in the judgement of them that make him Bishop of either. So that its clear that other Churches have as much or more to say for infallibility than Rome, who yet make no prentence to it.  
Argu. 16. The Apostles themselves were not infallible till the holy Ghost fell on them, nor by any other help without the extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost (for before, they understood not that Christ must die, rise and ascend, till it was done: but Peter Mat. 16.20. dissuadeth him from suffering) therefore the Pope if he might plead succession from Peter, cannot expect more than Peter himself had; and therefore cannot expect his infallibility without his spirit and inspiration: And therefore those Popes that have not the Holy Ghost, and that inspiration as Peter had, cannot pretend to be infallible, as his successors: For they must succeed him in the cause, if they will succeed him in the effects.  
Argu. 17. If the Catholic Church be infallible, than the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible: But the Papists say the Catholic Church is infallible; therefore according to their own doctrine it must follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible.  
The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own, all the doubt is of the consequence: which I prove thus, either it is the real or representative body which they must call the Catholic Church: But both these are against the Pope's infallibility: Therefore.  
1. For the real, no man can possibly know all their minds, nor ever expect that they should in this life be all of a mind: therefore it is the Major part that we must have respect to, as its usual in all such Bodies, or Assemblies. Now the greater part of the Catholic Church on earth, is and hath been against the Pope's infallibility. That it is so now, is well known, seeing all the Greeks, Abassin, Armenian, Reform and other Churches are far more than the Papists. 2. And that it hath been so formerly the Papists themselves confess. I will note at this time but one of the most learned and sober of them, Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. (mihi) 201. [Pugnatum est siquidem vehementer, non a Graecis solum, sed ab aliis plerisque totius orbis apiscopis ut Roman● Ecclesiae privilegium labefactaretur. Atque habebant pro se illi quidem, & Imperatorum arma, & Majorem Ecclesiarum numerum: nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt, ut unius Romani Pontificis potestatem abrogarent—] That is [Not only the Greeks, 
☜  but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world, have vehemently fought to destroy the privilege of the Church of Rome: And indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches: and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome] Mark here that it is only success that he pleadeth, but confesseth that most of the Bishops of the whole world, and the greater number of Churches, besides the Arms of Emperors, were against the Roman privileges, as they call them, & the Pope's power. So that by this you may see the conscience and modesty of these men, that not only call themselves the whole Church, as if all other besides them were some inconsiderable parcels, but also would make the simple people believe that before Luther's time, there were scarce any that denied their pretended power: we may see from themselves then where our Church was before Luther, so far as Christians opposing the Romish usurpations, are our Church, even most of the Churches and Bishops of the whole world by the Papists own confession. And therefore this may stop their mouths that use to call out to us for a catalogue of their names? would they have the names of Most of the Bishops and Churches in the whole world?  
2. And then for the Representative Church if there be such a thing it must be a General Council. And I have showed before, that many such as themselves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope, deposed, and condemned him. This Bellarmine, Canus and the rest of them do confess, and therefore I need not say more to prove it.  
Argu. 18. That General Councils may err, is proved fully, 
Vid. Baron. tom. 9 arm 794. n. 1. Bellarm. Append. de Imagine. c. 3.  both by the errors that they have committed, and by their contradicting one another. It's too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as most ever the Orthodox have had, Bellarmine and Canus give more instances of erring Councils than can be answered by the contrary minded. 
Vid. Bellar. li. 2. de Concil. c. 17.  Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice by him confirmed, decree for adoration of Images: And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary, against the said Council of Nice, though the Pope's Legates contradicted them. So did the Council of Paris anno 825. 
Leg. Jewel. Defence. Apol. part 6. c. 17 Divis. 1. & part. 1. c. ●. Divis. 1. & part. 2. c. 3. div. 2. & part. 4. c. 1●. Divis. 1.  who examined, judged and reprehended the Council of Nice, and and Pope Adrian's confirmation and defence of it; and therefore Bellarmine saith [They judged the judge of the whole world] Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. It's commonly known, how Nazianzen complained that [He never yet saw a Council have a good end, but things were made worse by it and not better.] And Hierom (in Epist. ad Galat.) saith [That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures, against which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked] Instances of the errors of Councils we have too many. 
Leg. Joban. Raynoldi thes. 2. pag. 60.61. ad 68 Lutheru● de Co●cil●is pag. 87 88, 89, 90, etc.  The Council of Neocesarea, confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the first of Nice (as saith the Council of Florence sess. 7.) condemned second marriages, contrary to Scripture, 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainly excuseth them by plain forcing their words.  
The fourth Council at Carthage, forbade Bishops to read the Gentiles Books, which yet the Apostle makes use of, and the Church hath ever since allowed.  
The Council of Toletane. 1. Ordain that he wh● instead of a wife hath a Concubine, shall not be kept from the Communion: which Bellarmine also falsely excuseth.  
The sixth General Council at Constantinople hath many errors, which Bellarmine confesseth, and layeth the cause on this that they had not the Pope's authority: Whereas Pope Adrian approved them 
* D●st. 16. c sextam synodum etc. babeo liborum. , and the seventh Council judged them genuine: Adrian saith [Se sextam synodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere; he receiveth the sixth Synod with all its Canons and confesseth it to be Divine] The Council at Constance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope: and the Council at the Lateran under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Sess. 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus, and decreed the contrary. The Council of Trent, is notoriously erroneous, and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag. 3. about the Canon of Scripture. The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite. Many of our writers against the Papists give you large Catalogues and full proof of them. See Doctor Sutline. li. 2. the Concil. cap. 1. What Gregor. Nazianz. And hierome say of them, I touched before: Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth against the errors and blasphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra: Augustine saith li. 3 cont. Maximni. c. 14. [Nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes. Ariminense, ta●quam praejudicaturus profere concilium, nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illius, detinenis] He saith also lib. 2. de Baptis. [Concilia plenaria priora, a posterioribus emendari] That is [Former Councils that were full have been mended by later] Bellarmine's deceitful shifting answers to these testimonies, are not worth the repeating. Isidore saith 
* G. Domino. Arist. 50. ●ex Andradius this●o●t ●o●t. ●bemni●. lib. 1.  Quotiescunque in gestis Conciliorum discors st●tentia invenitur, illius concilii sententia magis tenentur, cujus antiquior & p●tior est authoritas] That is [As oft as we find in the acts of Councils disagreeing judgements, let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority.] But the confession of the adversaries here may spare us more labour, who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated, and though the Pope's Legates concur, may yet err in the faith, if so be that the Pope doth not approve or confirm their Decrees. So that when they say that [All the Church cannot err] and therefore a General Council cannot err; their own meaning is, that one man cannot err; but All the Church (viz. a General Council) without him may err.  
Argu. 19 The infallibility of the Pope or Roman Church, was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches, or Fathers, for six hundred years after Christ: Therefore it is not now to be received.  
The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers, and so easily discernible by those that read the writings of those times, that there needs not any more to be said. That which I shall produce to this pupose, shall be anon to prove the following point and this together. In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewel, Cham●er, Bishop Usher, Doctor White, who with many more have fully proved this.  
Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture, nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement (or the judgement of his Church) then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture, and of controversies about matters of faith. For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge: nor doth he need infallibility to qualify him for a work which he was never called to, nor doth at all belong to him. It is not the Pope as a private Doctor, or as the Bishop of a particular Church, which is made by them the subject of infallibility, but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholic Church authorized to interpret Scripture, and to judge of all controversies of faith, into whose judgement (at least with his Clergy) our faith, they think must be resolved. If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct. And this leads us up to the third Question, which we have now to deal with.  
Quest. 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Roman (pretended) Authoritative judgement? Or whether the Pope's Authority and infallibility be the thing first to be known, and thence the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion to be received as upon his judgement?  
But because this is not the principal point intended in this dispute, and because there is enough said to it in the beginning on the by, and because I have said yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Rest, I shall therefore say but little to it now, reserving a fuller handling it (if necessary) to a fitter season. Only I shall here add a few more Reasons to prove that the Pope or Roman Church have no such Authority to be judge of Scripture or controversies to all the rest of the Churches on earth▪ and then I shall add a few words to prove that we must believe in Christ and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement, that is, without it.  
Arg. 1. If the Pope (or his consistory) must be the universal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world, then must the greatest part of the Christistian world be ungoverned and have no recourse to their Judge. But the consequent will be denied by themselves: therefore we have reason to deny the Antecedent.  
The proof of the consequence is most obvious and certain from the Pope's natural incapacity and insufficiency for such a work (and so of his consistory) It is naturally impossible that the Pope should perform the works of this Government to all the Christian world: therefore the consequence is good. He cannot make known his determinations to all: If all men through the Christian world that have such doubts to be resolved as his Holiness supposeth belong to him properly to resolve, should have recourse to him for resolution, O how much would the ways to Rome be beaten and frequented? What a concourse would be about his Holiness doors? What time would he have to resolve those millions of men: If any differences or difficulties arise in Aethiopia, or at the Antipodes, before they go or send to Rome for Resolution, and receive an answer, the persons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible resolution. And if they live to see the return of their messengers, they must take it on the trust of their words, that this is indeed his Holinesses resolution. Hence it is that de facto there is so few people on earth, even of the Papists themselves that are really goverened or resolved by the Pope himself, nor know what he is, or what is his mind: but all is done by his Missionaryes or Delegates; And if the Pope can delegate his power to others, and make so many others also infallible, than infallibility is not proper to himself: and then why may not the rest of the Bishops of the Church be as infallible, who are sent by Christ, as these are that are sent by him.  
Argu. 2. If the Pope be such an universal Governor and Judge, than all Popes must needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office. For sure when the welfare of the whole Church doth so much depend on the office of the head, it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greatest part of the Church on earth. But he must avoidable neglect (I mean omit) that work which it i● impossible for him to perform▪ Therefore.  
What I have further to say against the resolving of our faith into his judgement shall be contained in these few Questions following.  
Quest. 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope, that tells us that we must first believe him to be an infallible Pope, before we can believe the Doctrine of Christ? For a Roman Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Saint Peter, the head of the Church: And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Christ, who is the Saviour and principal head, and who is supposed to send him.  
Quest. 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church, to say that we must believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Christ? For what is a Church but a society of Christians, that is, men professing the Christian Faith? And how can they know that such men are Christians, or profess that faith, before they know what that faith is? And how can they know that they are to be credited as Christians, before they believe that Christianity itself is of credit?  
Q 3. Is there any man breathing that can bring sufficient Arguments to prove. 1. That there is a Church of Christ. 2. And that this Church is infallible. 3. And that the Pope and Papists are this Church, before their hearers have received or believed the word of God? If they can, why have they not fallen closer to work in this necessary point, when they know how much it would do to the determination of the whole? If they pretend such Antecedent proof by miracles, as the Apostles proved the Doctrine by, I have showed the vanity of this pretence (against Knot) before: and we must still desire them, if it be miracles that is their first witness, to let us see, or have certain proof of those Miracles. We protest to all the world that we are heartily willing to see them and know of them if they be true, but though we have lived in the midst of Papists all our lives, yet could we never to this day see any such matter from them, nor hear so much as of any probable proofs of any. And would they have us in a matter of salvation to believe every prating boaster that will tell us of Miracles and show us no such thing, nor any proof of them?  
Quest. 4. Whether those that do not go this most absurd way (of proving their Church infallible to an infidel that yet believeth not God's word, and so by means antecedent to the belief of Scripture) must not unavoidably confess that God's word must be first believed before the Popes or Church's infallibility or authority (and consequently our faith dependeth not in them, nor is resolved into them) or else they are inextricably ensnared in the Popish circle, and contradictingly do make two primo credenda, the Church or Pope, the first to be believed, and yet the word of God is first to be believed? And do not Holden, Vane, Knot, and others of them see this, who therefore eat the circle, and use not the old shifts of Becanus and others to blind the eyes of those that see them in it?  
Whether I wrong them H. Holden himself (an Englishman, and Doctor of Paris, shall be judge, who thus commendeth his own new devised Foundation or resolution of the faith in his Divini fid. analies. li. 1. c. 9 pag. 180. [Ex quibus patet ha●● Christianae fidei analysim haud in●idore in labyrinthum vulgarem & circular perfugium, quo solent Theologi passim involvi, qui fidei Resolutionem juxta communem & parum attente examinatam opini●●●● conferuunt as effingunt. Quarenti namque und● noverint scripturam esse revelatum Dei verbum? Respondent; ex universae consentientis Ecclesiae assertione. Quibus si iterum fiet interrogatis, unde sciverint unanimeus hanc Ecclesiae Catholicae assertionem esse ab errore liberam seu infallibilem? Respondent, ex revelat● Dei verbo. Adeo ut non audentes fidem Divinam in certitudine & evidentia naturali fundare, in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur, & in orbem turpissime saltantes, fidem, quam ipsa prima ratio format & efficit, rationis experem reddunt; voluntque homines rationales, mentis ac judicii partioipes, in fidei assensu certiores esse, quam vel ratio postulat, vel approbat, Hasitant quip Theologi quidam asseverare & agnoscere quod omnia argumenta, etiam firmissima, omnesque rationes, item evidentissimae, quibus universam fidei Divinae & Catholicae traditionem solidam erroris immunem & infallibilem esse demonstramus, adeo veritatem hanc evincant, ut nulla prorsue subsit aberrationis facultas? Ideoque ●pinantu● Christianorum a●imos adhuc ita vacillantes & fluctuantes derelictos esse, ut privatum aliquem & singularem instinctum pernecessarium autument quo omni fidei Christianae assensui certitudo & infallibilitas divina (at ajunt) attribuatur. Nos antem levibu● hisce & voluntariis opinationibus fidei divinae & Religionis Christianae certitudinem & soliditatem, inniti aut fundari, nequaquam judicamus.  
That is in English [From hence its evident that this resolution of the Christian faith, doth not fall into the common Labyrinth and circular shift in which Divines are commonly wont to be involved, who do frame and fashion the resolution of faith according to the common and unheedfully examined opinion. For when they are asked, how they know then Scripture to be the revealed word of God? they answer, By the assertion of the universal consenting Church? And if they be again asked, how they know that this unanimous assertion of the Catholic Church is free from error or infallible? They answer, By the revealed word of God, so that not daring to found divine faith in natural certaintainty and evidence, they unavidably slide into this circle, most filthily dancing in a ring (or round) the faith, which the first reason formeth and effecteth, they make void of Reason, and would have reasonable men who have understanding and judgement, to be more certain in the assent of faith, than reason doth either require or allow. For some Divines, etc.—] Hear you see a Learned Papist confessing that the Papists are commonly entangled in this circle, and filthily dance in a round, and would make our faith an unreasonable thing. Let Knot note this that would make Chillingworth a Socinian and an Infidel for making faith a reasanable act. And let the common sort of Papists note this that deny faith to have any evidence. And let it be considered according to this man's judgement, on what foundation the generality of Papists do build their faith, and what a faith it is that hath such a foundation. Yea and let it be considered whether the wiser sort of Papists begin not to change the very foundation of their Faith? And how near they begin to draw to the Reformed Churches in the Resolution of their Faith? For this same Doctor doth well disprove the infallibility of the Pope, pag. 179. Saying [Own quidem Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt, Apostolos vere ade● confirmatos in gratia fuisse, ut infallibiles omnino, seu in doctrina Christiana tradenda ab omni erroris periculo immunes fuerint, agnoscit universa Ecclesia. Nunquid ergo omnes Episcopi ab errore liberi? Omnibus quidem Apostolis revelata fuisse secreta Caelestia, iissque, ut nec decipi nec hallucinari possent; divina & extraordinaria via donatum esse certissime tenemus. Nun● quid ergo vel summo Pontifici vel caeteris Episcopis haec sunt divinitus concessa privilegia?] That is [All Bishops are the Apostles successors: And that the Apostles were so confirmed in grace, that they were altogether infallible, or free from all danger of error in delivering the Christian doctrine, this the universal Church acknowledgeth. But are all Bishops therefore free from error? We certainly hold that to all the Apostles the heavenly secrets were revealed, and that by a Divine and extraordinary way it was given to them, that they could not be deceived or err. But are these privileges therefore granted to the Pope, or to other Bishops?]  
And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into? Let it be observed whether it be nearer the Miracles of Knot, or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth. Pag. 174, 175. He hath these words [Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia, Ecclesia soliditatem in fide, seu in fidei divinae & Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem & infallibilitatem, non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae, Deo authore, concesso, aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo, etc. Sed universae & Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia, & Christi Domini promissis fulcitae, praecipue tribuendam esse] & postea [Deinde Catholicae & universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse. Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium ade● publicum, universale, & apartum esse debere, ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare.] That is, The Church's infallibility and certainty of faith [Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome, or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peter's successor; but it's chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholic Church upheld by the special providence of God, and the promises of Christ— And the account of this Catholic and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith. And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so public, universal and open, that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses.  
I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party. If they will but give us such Open public universal certain Tradition, which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian, we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony. But if all the Romish Traditions had been such, they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope, and not locked up in his Cabinet, and ourselves should sure have known them before now, if we be Christians.  
Quest. 5. To proceed, I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church (Pope or Council) or of those former that are dead and gone, that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures? Or upon both? If it be on the credit of any former Church, then would I know of which age? whether of the nearest, or the middle, or of the first and remotest age, that is, from the Apostles and the Church in their days? If from the last age, than 1. How know we their Testimony? If it be by their writings, Canons or Decrees, why cannot other men who are much wiser and better, understand these as well as the Pope? And why do they not refer us to those writings, but to their own determinations? If it be by the Father's telling the children what hath formerly been believed, then, why cannot I tell what my Father told me, without the Pope, and better than the Pope that never knew him? 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us? Doubtless they will say, from their predecessors; and they again from their predecessors, and so up to the Apostles. And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did? supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings, without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons, or of any privileged infallible judge of the faith; And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God, I shall then proceed further to demand.  
Quest. 6. Why may not the Greeks, Abassines, Protestants, etc. that acknowledge not the Pope's authority or infallibility, receive the Scripture as the word of God, as well as the Papists? Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church? What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of? Or dare they say (if they have the face of Christians) that none of all the Christians on earth, but Papists only, have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles, and delivered from them, and that this is it which is now in the Church? Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God, upon justifiable grounds?  
But if it be on the credit of the present Church (or both) that we must take the Scripture to be God's word, than I shall further desire to be informed.  
Quest. 7. What is it which they call the present Church: Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful. 2. Or a major vote, or part. 3. Or the Bishops, or Presbyters in whole or part. 4. Or a Council chosen from among them, 5. Or the Pope? If the first,  
Quest. 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope. And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials, but 1. whole particular Churches may, and 2. the whole Church may err some smaller errors against the revealed will of God; the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part; and as in many things we offend all, so in many things we err all. And moreover if this be their sense.  
Quest. 9 Will it not then follow, that the Pope cannot be proved infallible, because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible: no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world. Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists, yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible. For the French take a Pope to be fallible, and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible: and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it, we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible. And moreover on this ground I demand,  
Quest. 10. How shall we know (in very many cases at least) either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part? What opportunity have we to take the account? Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God, that cannot take an account of this through the world?  
The same Question also I would put, if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church.  
Quest. 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church, I would first know, How we shall be sure that ever there hath, at least, these thousand years, been ever a true General Council in the world? The Popish Doctors (as Doctor Holden de resolute. fid. li. 1. cap. 9 pag. 156.) say that [It must arise to that degree of universality that there may not be any suspicion of conspiracies and combined factions, that so every prudent man may be able heartily to say that the Assemblies are truly General.] And is it so, when there are none but the sworn obliged vassals of the Pope of Rome, and the Greeks, Ethiopians, Protestants, etc. and most of the Church are absent? and when it is a known combination to promote their own espoused cause?  
Quest. 12. And then is the whole foundation of Divine faith extinct and lost, when there is no General Council? It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or six hundred, or a thousand years together? Have we no Church then? Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith? If they say that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils, than they speak of the Church that is past and gone, of which I moved the doubts before: And the Canons of these we can read and understand as well as the Pope: But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages, they would hold us to the present Church, and that must be their own: and so be sure to be judges in their own cause.  
Q. 13 I would know also whether it were by the judgement of a General Council that the first Churches believed the Scripture to be God's word? Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epistle to the Romans, and the Church of Corinth believe the Epistle to the Corinthians, and so the rest, to be the word of God, as soon as they received them by an undoubted messenger from Paul? Or did they stay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches? Indeed they made use of the intervening humane (but certain) testimony, of him that was the messenger or bearer of the Epistle, to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed: and so we still maintain the necessity of a credible humane Testimony that these writings came from the Apostles hands: But Tychicus, or Trophimus, or Timothy, or Ones●mus, were not a General Council, nor the whole Church And doubtless those Epistles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the rest of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apostle: and not that the particular received it from the universal. How did the universal Church know that those Epistles were written by Paul to Titus, Timothy, Philemon, to the Ephesians, etc. but on the report of the persons and Church to whom they were written? or else of those particular persons or Churches to whom the Apostle did communicate a copy of them.  
Quest. 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be God's word before the Council of Nice, when there had been no General Council to determine the business?  
Quest. 15. Dare a Papist undertake to justify at God's judgement all that part of the unbelieving world, for not taking the Scripture for the word of God, who have seen or heard it, and had all other testimonies of it, but never knew of the Testimony of the Pope or a General Council? Shall none of ●hese perish for this unbelief?  
Quest. 16. And if it be the Pope that they call ●he Church, and take it to be this infallible judge, ● then demand, How knows the Pope that the Scripture is God's word, or that the Christian Faith is ●rue? The like also I ask of a Council: How doth that Council know it themselves from whom we must know it? Either the Pope and Council must believe it because they first believe themselves, and so take it on their own words, or else on the words of some others. ●f the former, than they Believe it because they Believe ●t: then they are the original of their own belief, and believe themselves first, and then would have all the world to believe them. And this is not only to be ●o arrogant as to be the God of themselves, and the Church, but also so impudent and unreasonable as to believe themselves without reason, and to expect that all others should do so too. But if it be not from themselves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures, from whom then is it? not from any others of the present Church doubtless, therefore it must be from the former Church: And if so 1. Have not we the same means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath, and therefore may believe it without recourse to him, and as infallibly as he? 2. And then it seems that according to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the same ground as all the rest of the Church must do: so that the Church must have a twofold foundation of her faith, whereof one is necessary only to one part, and not to the other that is, All the rest of the Church must believe the Scripture to be God's word, because the present Pope or Council saith so (having first believed the infallibility) but the Pope and Council themselves need not any such ground of their faith? And this distinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general: But even the Clergy themselves out of Council, or who never were of the Council (which sure is more than a hundred for one) must thu● differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith. This is another taste of the famous Roman unity: Paul saith there is One Faith: b●● if two divided Foundations, or Reasons of Belie● do make two Beliefs, surely the Church of Rome hat● two.  
Quest 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jes● Christ understood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility, when he so chid his Apostles fo● striving who should be greatest: and telleth them so expressly, that the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them, and are called, Gracious Lords: but with you it shall not be so: And when he sets before them a little child, and telleth them that he that will be greatest among them, must be as that child: that is, that humility is the thing that they must strive to be great or excel in, and so to serve one another in love. Also when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Master, that is, of their Faith. Did ever Christ direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Christ, or whether the Scripture be his word or not?  
Quest. 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead, and when there are three or four at a time, and when there is an interruption by Schism thirty years together, as it is known there hath been: Hath not the Church then lost her faith by losing the foundation of it? Or whether then must poor Pagans have recourse to know that Scripture is the Word of God? If Infallibility survive in other Pastors, than it seems it is not the Pope only that is infallible, but others as well as he.  
And was not the Church's Faith resolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes days? I know the shifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joan is but a Fable: Florimondus Remondus is common on this subject.  
But the case is out of question thus far, that we have near fifty of their own Writers, especially old Historians that give us the History of this Pope Joan; as Platina in vit. Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead. l. 1. Antoninus' Archbishop of Florence part. 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Fasciculus Temporum, Nauclerus, Volaterane, Textor. Caryon, Sigebertus Gemblacensis, Mat. Palmerius, Massaeus, etc.  
And I marvel why the Papists should be so industrious in refelling it, as if their cause lay more on this then other things. If a Conjurer, a common Whoremonger, a Murderer, a Simonist, a Heretic, may be the infallible judge of the faith, why may not a woman? Hath Christ laid more on the Sex then on all these? specially if she had but kept herself honest, I should have thought Joan had been better than John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender.  
Quest. 19 And further I would know, If the City of Rome were consumed with fire, or the Popedom removed from that Sea (which Bellarmine confesseth, it is not impossile to be done) where then were the infallible head of the Church, and what were become of the Romish faith? If they say that this can never be, and that Christ's promise implieth the preservation of the City of Rome. I answer, 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that. 2. Their own writers confess the contrary. 3. Let the end determine it. But if they say that infallibility is not tied to the place, but to the Person, who shall be Peter's successor, I answer, we thought hitherto that to be Peter's successor, and to be the Bishop of Rome, had been all one with them. If another man that is no Bishop of Rome may be Peter's successor, then how shall we know who have succeeded him all this while? Why not the Bishop of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Ephesus, or other place as well as the Pope? specially why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who is said to be the eldest son of Saint Peter, as inheriting his first chair I doubt, if Rome were extinct, and the Bishop of Mentz, or Cullen, or Vienna, or Rheims, or Paris or any other should pretend to be the infallible head of the Church, not only the old Patriarches but their neighbour Bishops would much contradict it; and the world would be at a great loss to find the Popish faith or infallible head.  
Quest. 20. Lastly I will appeal to the conscience of any Papist that hath any conscience left, and hath read the Fathers or History of the first Ages of the Church whether the rest of the Bishops and Curches in those times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Roman Church? Did the rest of the Apostles receive the Gospel on the credit of Peter, or were they sent by him? or did they receive their authority from him? Do they find that ever the Apostles, or any following Bishops of the Church did take such a course to bring men to the faith, as first to teach them that the Roman Pope or Clergy were infallible, and therefore to persuade them to believe the Scriptures or Christian faith, because they say its true. Is it possible that any learned Papists can seriously believe that this was the ancient way of believing? Do they think in good sadness that the world was converted to Christianity by this means? Sure it is scarce possible that they should be so far distracted by their prejudice and faction? Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin, in Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, or any other of those times, that the preachers that went abroad the world to persuade men to Christianity, did ever use this Popish Medium, or go this way to work? Did they first preach the Pope and Roman Church before they preached Christ or Scripture? Did they first preach men into a belief of the Roman infallibility, and then bring them to Christ or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that? O that these men would but show us in what history we may find the reports of this way of preaching? Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument?  
How many and large Orations, Apologies and other discourses do we find in the Father's writings for the Christian Faith, to convince the unbelieving world? in Clem Alexand. Tertullian, Origen, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Minutius Faelix, Arnobius, Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Nissen, Athanasius, Basil, Eusebius, Cyril Alexandr. Augustine, and many others? And can any man of brains imagine that if the infallibility, ●ea or but the authority of the Roman Pope or Church must needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Christian faith, and that it must be received upon the credit of that Church, that all these Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith, would have quite forgotten and left out this great and necessary point? What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith, overlook and omit the very foundation into which all men's faith must be resolved? Undoubtedly, if this had been then thought to be true which the Papists now teach, we should have had the first part, and a great if not the greatest part of all tho●e Apologies and discourses, laid out in the proof of the Roman infallibility. What man will go to evince a whole system of doctrines to be true, and quite forget that medium, by which only it is first to be proved? Would not this have found one place at least if not the chief among Eusebius his Preparations or Demonstrations? Where was there ever in all Antiquity found such an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever? [Whatsoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true: But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God, or that Christianity is the right Religion: therefore this is true.]  
Nay further consider: If this kind of arguing had been then used, may not any man see that hath not renounced his wits, that the Heathens would have sorely stuck at the Major proposition? and that it would have met with so many objections and contradictions from them, that surely we should have found some of them remembered to posterity. Did Julian never stick at this very principle of the faith, the Roman infallibility? who stuck at so many things in the faith itself? Or have Cyril Alexandr. and others quite forgot to mention these among the rest of his contradictions? Did it never come into the mind of Celsus, Porphyry, or any other unbeliever that we read of to doubt of and object against this fundamental infallibility? O what an incredible thing is this?  
Yea and yet the more incredible will it appear, if you consider, that all the whole cause between the Christians and the Infidels, according to the Popish conceit, must depend upon this one point of their infallibility. For what man will be so mad as to contradict the Church if he once believe that the Church is infallible. Can they think that all the learned Heathens were such fools? It must needs be therefore that their first stop must be at the Major proposition, even at this principle of the Church's infallibility▪ and therefore certainly their most objections would have been against it, and the most of the Christian Doctors labour would have been in the defending of it: But that its certain they then believed no such thing, and the Church was at that time utterly unacquainted with the foundation of the present Romish faith.  
Moreover, if this Popish foundation had been then known, do you think that the Fathers would not have appealed to Rome, for a decision of all their perplexing controversies? What readier way to have silenced all gainsayers, and ended all strifes, and to have saved the labour of so many volumes, then to have bestowed their pains with all dissenters upon this one point alone [That Rome is infallible] and then have sent them thither for satisfaction in all the rest. Common reason must needs have told men of such principles, that this was the way? But do we find that this way was taken? How come we then to have so many volumes of the Father's controversal writings, and not one Book, or Chapter, or leaf or line, to prove the Roman infallibility?  
And because the order of our discourse hath brought us up to the judgement of the Fathers, I shall here give you a brief taste of their judgement in this point, and so conclude this argumentation.  
In the contention about Easter day between the Eastern & Western Churches, 
Bellarm. de Verbo Dei li. 3. c. 6. Baron. an. 198.  Polycrates with the Asian Bishops resisted the Pope's judicial determination, anno 198. And therefore doubtless they believed not his infallibility nor universal jurisdiction.  
In the Council of Nice, the first that subscribed, was Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch before the Legates of the Bishop of Rome: Theodor. li. 1. c. 7. So did Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, as Athanas. Apolog. 2.  
In the Council of afric the Pope's Legates had the last place, Conc. Afric. 
Baron. anno 258. ●. 15, 16. spondan. Epit. Baron. 5. & 9  Can. 100 In the Council of Chalcedon there was 157. subscribed before Philip the Pope's Legate. In the fifth Council of Constantinople, Menna their Bishop was Precedent: Evangri. l. 4. c. 38.  
And if the Pope had not then so much as the Presidency, how much less an universal jurisdiction with infallibility?  
When Stephen the Bishop of Rome determined judicially against rebaptising Heretics, and excommunicated Firmilianus for not assenting, and wrote to Cyprian about it, what did they do? Did they either submit to the judgement of the Pope as infallible, or obey him as their universal Ruler? No, but Cyprian, Firmilian, with the rest of the Bishops, did unanimously join against the Pope's decree.  
I would fain know by what spectacles the Papists can read these words of 
* Cyprian. Edit. Pamel & Goulart. pag. 229.  Cyprians, to find out their infallibility in them? In his Epist. 74. ad Pempeium, he saith thus [I have sent a Copy of our Brother Stephen's letters which when you read you will see his error more and more, who endeavoureth to maintain the cause of Heretics against the Christians, and against the Church of God. For among things which he writeth either proudly or nothing to the purpose, or contrary to himself and ignorantly and unadvisedly, he addeth, etc.] Here mentioning Pope Stephens pleading of Tradition, he saith [Whence is that tradition? Is it from the Authority of the Lord and the Gospel? Comes it from the commands and Epistles of the Apostle? For that we must do those things that are written, God testifieth and propoundeth to Joshua saying, Let not this Book of the Law depart out of thy mouth, etc. If therefore it be contained in the Gospel, Epistles or in the Acts, then let this Divine and holy Tradition be observed.— What obstinacy is this? And what presumption, to prefer Humane Tradition before Divine appointment? and not to consider that God is angry and offended as oft as humane Tradition doth lose or pass by the commands of God. As Isaiah saith, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me: in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commendements of men: and as the Lord in the Gospel reproveth them, Ye reject the commandments of God to establish your Tradition. So Paul 1 Tim. 6.3. If any teach otherwise, and rest not in the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his doctrine he is proud (or lifted up with stupidity) knowing nothing, from such we must depart.— The custom which hath crept in with some, ought not to hinder the truth from prevailing and overcoming. For custom without Truth, is but antiquity of error, therefore leaving error, let us follow truth.— It is through a study of presumption and contumacy that a man will rather defend his own wicked and false opinions, than consent to another's that are right and true: Paul therefore saith that a Bishop must be no quarrel, but mild and teachable; for a Bishop must not only teach, but be taught.— And there is a speedy way for Religious and simple minds to lay down error, and to find and disclose the Truth. For if we return to 
* That is, the Scriptures.  the Head and Original of God's tradition, humane error ceaseth, and whatsoever was in cloudy darkness, it opened in the light of truth— If the water Pipes be stopped, do we not run to the fountain to see what's the matter.— So now must the Priests of God that keep his commandment, that if in any point Truth have changed or wavered, we may return to the original, even the Tradition by the Lord, by the Gospel and by the Apostles: and the Reason of our action may rise from thence from whence both order and beginning did arise.] So far Cyprian.  
If the Papists can make their followers now believe that Cyprian believed the Pope's infallibility, or that the Church of Rome was the only keeper of Tradition, or that Traditions were not to be tried by the Scriptures, than you may see to what purpose it is that they must needs be the judges of Controversy and the sense of Scripture, and why they call it a Nose of wax; even that it may be at their service, and so flexible as to yield to what sense they will put upon it, when they will needs exercise the same Authority on the Fathers themselves who in their familiar Epistles speak as plain as they can.  
Firmilianus, a famous Bishop writeth a confutation of Pope Stephen's Epistle and therefore took him not to be infallible; 
* Cyprian pag. 236.237.  and he parallell's him with the Ancient Heretics, Martion, Apelles, Valentinus, Basilides, as bringing in error under pretence of Tradition as they did. And saith [And for them that are at Rome, they do not in all things observe those things which were delivered from the beginning, and do in vain pretend the Authority of the Apostles; as may be seen in that about Easter and about many other Divine mysteries, there are some diversities with them, and they do not equally observe all things as at Jerusalem they are observed. As also in many other Provinces many things are varied according to the diversity of places and names, and yet no breach of the Church's unity and peace for this. Which now Stephen hath dared to do, breaking the peace with us, which his ancestors kept in love and honour: and moreover defaming Peter and Paul, as if he had this Tradition from them.— And in this I have just indignation at the open and manifest foolishness of Stephen, that he that thus boasteth of the place of his Bishopric, and contendeth that he holdeth the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church are laid, doth bring in many other Rocks and maketh new buildings of many Church's while by his authority he defendeth that there is Baptism▪— And as to the confutation of Custom, which they seem to oppose to truth, who is so vain as to prefer custom before truth? Or that seeing the light will not forsake the darkness? Except that when Christ, that is the truth, was come, the most ancient custom would have in any thing helped the Jews, that leaving the new way of truth, they remained in Antiquity, Which you Africans may say against Stephen, that having knowledge of the truth you have forsaken the error of custom. But we do both join custom to truth, and to the custom of the Romans, we oppose custom but of the truth, from the beginning holding that which from Christ and his Apostles was delivered to us. Nor can we remember any beginning of this— Yea thou art worse than all the heretics— See then how ignorantly thou darest to reprehend them, who strive for the truth against a lie. For who should more justly be angry with the other? he that defendeth God's enemies or he that consenteth? But that it is manifest that the ignorant are haughty and angry, while for want of judgement and speech they easily turn to indignation; so that of no man more than of thee doth God's Scripture say, An haughty man breedeth strife, and an angry man heapeth up sins (Prov. 29.22.) For what strifes and dissenssions hast thou made through the Churches of the whole world? And how great a sin hast thou heaped on thyself, when thou hast cut off thyself from so many flocks? For thou hast cut off thyself: deceive not thyself: For he is truly the schismatic, who maketh himself an apostate from the communion of Ecclesiastical unity. For while thou thinkest to suspend all from thy communion, thou dost only suspend thyself from the communion of all. Can there be one Body and one spirit with such a a man whose soul perhaps is not one, so slippery and mutable and uncertain is it— And yet is not Stephen ashamed to patronise such against the Church, and for the defence of heretics to divide the brother hood; and also to call Cyprian a false Christ, and false Apostle and a deceitful worker; who being conscious that all these were in himself, did by prevention, object all that to another by a lie, which himself deservedly aught to hear] So far Firmilianus.  
The question is not whether Stephen of Rome, or the Eastern Bishops were in the right, but whether these passages do not sufficiently declare, that they had then no conceits of the Pope's infallibility? and that when he excommunicated other Churches, they took it but as an excommunicating of himself, and therefore plainly called him a Schismatic.  
In the Council of Carthage, 87. Bishops decreed expressly against the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. And Cyprian in Council speaks thus [Let every man speak his judgement, judging no man, nor removing any man from the right of communion, that thinks otherwise: For none of us takes himself to be a Bishop of Bishops; or by a tyrannical fear doth compel his Colleagues to obey: seeing every Bishop hath by licence free choice of his own liberty and power, and can neither be judged of another, nor can judge another: But let us all expect the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only and solely hath power to set us over his Church in Government, and to judge of our actions.  
If this be not as plain as need be spoken against the Papal usurpation, I know not what can be accounted plain.  
Yea Cyprian and the Council say the like to the Pope himself [These things dear brother we speak to thy conscience for the common honour and for simple love— But we know that some men will not lay down that which they have once drunk in, 
Cyprian. Epist. 72. Edit. Goularti.  nor easily change their purpose, but saving the bond of Peace and concord among Colleagues will retain some things of their own, which are once grown into use among them. Wherein we do neither use violence, nor give Laws to any; seeing that every Ruler (or Bishop) hath the free arbitration of his own will in the administration of the Church, as one that must give account of his doings to the lord]  
If this be not plain still against Papal, and all Archiepiscopal government of Bishops, I know not how a man should speak plain.  
The Council of Carthage (saith Gratian Dist. 99) saith [Even the Pope of Rome must not be called the universal Bishop.]  
Gregory called the great Bishop of Rome, but a few years before Boniface claimed the universal Episcopacy, wrote thus against John of Constantinople who would have had some such title [None of my predecessors would use this profane word (viz. Universal Bishop) because if one will call himself universal Patriarch, 
Greg. Epist. 80.  the name of Patriarch is stolen from others: But far be it from a Christian soul that any should falsely ascribe to himself that whereby he diminisheth any thing from the honour of his Brethren To consent to that unjust speech is no other thing then to fall from the faith. One thing we owe to the unity of the faith, and another to suppress pride. And I say boldly that he who calleth himself universal Pastor or desireth so to be called surpasseth the Antichrist in pride—]  
So Epist. 188. l. 6. He saith [I have said that he cannot have place with us, if he corrected not the vanity of that superstitious and ambitious word which hath been invented by the first Apostate. And to speak nothing of the injury done to your honour, if a Bishop be called universal, that universal once falling the universal Church must also fall.] Here it is especially to be noted that this very reason by which Gregory condemneth universal Episcopacy, is now used by the learned Papists to prove the Pope's infallibility: For they argue that the Pope cannot err the fide in Cathedra, because else the universal Church should fail with him if he fail.  
The same Gregory in Epist. 78. saith [It is a thing too hard to endure that our Brother and fellow Bishop, should be alone called Bishop in contempt of all the rest: And what other thing doth this arrogancy portend, but that the time of Antichrist approacheth already, in so far as he imitated him who disdaining the company of Angels assayed to ascend to the top of singularity?]  
A man would think that all this should be plain enough to resolve us beyond all further doubting, that the Pope's Universal Episcopacy is new. But to t●● the Papis● have no thing to say, but a foolish pretence that John of Constantinople would have been the sole Bishop on earth, and have had no Bishop else but himself alone, which the Pope never arrogated. Ans. A silly shift, which supposeth all the world to be so unreasonable as to be satisfied with any thing, or else would make them so: A shift that hath not a word of proof to support it, but contradicteth the full course of History, and the words of Gregory themselves, which all show that it was but an universal Episcopacy to which all other should be subject, which John of Constantinople did challenge; if so much. And all their show of proof of the contrary is, because Gregory here saith that [He would be alone called Bishop] But that's not as if directly in terms, but only by consequence, he is supposed to lay such a claim, in that he claimed the title of universal Bishop. 
Vid. Platin. in vita Gregorii. 1.  But I now see that the Papists will make a nose of wax of their own Pope's Writings as well as of the Scriptures; and that the Pope hath no more the gift of speaking intelligibly than Peter, Paul or Christ himself is by them supposed to have. And therefore what should they talk any more of a living judge, when that living judge himself cannot speak so as to be understood?  
Platina saith that [Bonifacius tertius a Ph●ca Imperatore obtinuit, magna tamen contentione, etc. That Boniface the third obtained of Pho●as the Emperor, but not without great contention, that the seat of the blessed Apostle Peter which is the Head of all Churches, 
inter Platina in vit. Bonif. 3.  should be so called and accounted of all; which place indeed the Church of Constantinople did seek to challenge to itself—]  
So that it was the same place or name which the Bishop of Constantinople would have had, which Boniface after got, and not as Bellarmine feigneth, a quite different thing. Nay I cannot perceive any probable evidence that Boniface himself had any thought of that Universal Jurisdiction, which now is arrogated, but only to be the Greatest and Highest of all Bishops, and in that sense called the Head or the universal Bishop.  
If they knew the Pope to be the supreme infallible head of all the Church, why did the Council of Chalcedon (the fifth general Council) examine Leo's Epistle, 
Vid. Binnium Tom. 2. Conc. part 1. art. 4. Conc. Calced. p. 218. & part. 2. Art. Conc. gene. 5. Collat. 6. p. 101. & Collat. 8. p. 113. Vid. Constitut. Vigil. in Binnium Tom. 2. part. 2. p. 25, 26. & Baron. anno. 553.  and profess to receive it only on its agreement with former doctrine? Yea why did this Council condemn Pope Vigilius his judicious sentence de 3 capitulis? Yea and anathematise all that condemned not Theodorus, of whom Vigilius was one? and this in a Doctrinal Point, Whether Heretics may be condemned after death? Yea they pronounce the Pope and his adherents defenders of impiety, and such as cared not for God's decrees, or the Apostles pronunciations, or the Father's Traditions. If these 165. Bishops had believed the Pope's infallibility, they would rather have craved his Definitive sentence. And why did the Council of Chalcedon also Decree without the Pope's consent, that the Bishop of Constantinople was equal with him; and the 5-sixth general Council confirm it?  
Any man of understanding that readeth over the Decretals of the several Popes shall find besides all other errors, so many false expositions of Scripture, even common reason, and the Papists themselves being judges, that there needs no other proof that they are too fallible.  
Augustine in l. 2. 
August. li. 2. Contr. Donatist c. 3. de Bapt. pag. Edit. Paris. 40.  Contr. Donatist. saith [Ipsa concila qua per singulas regiones, etc. That is, Who knoweth not that the very Councils themselves which are held in several Regions or Provinces, do without more ado yield to the authority of fuller Councils which are made out of the whole Christian world? And that the full Councils themselves which were before are oft 
* Or Corrected.  mended by the later, when by some experiment of matters that is opened which before was shut up, and that is known which lay hid, and this without any smoke of sacrilegious pride, without any inflation of arrogancy▪ without any contention of livid envy, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity.]  
This he brings as a majore to show the Donatists the invalidity of Cyprians authority, telling them that it is the holy Scriptures that are undoubted and of unquestionable credit, but not the writings of any Bishops since, no nor of Councils themselves.  
This place of Austin doth confirm the French Papists as well as the Italian, that they have nothing to say against it, that without mere impudence can be thought to be of any weight. What is vainly said by them, you may see answered in A.B. Laud's Book against Fisher and A.C. Pag. 240, 241, 242.  
In Austin's Book against Petilianus the Donatist the very question debated, is, How they may know where the true Church is? And is it not a wonder that Austin never remembered to direct them to Rome, or to the Pope's infallibility, if that had been the approved way? Here than what way Austin went Cap. 2. 
August. Cont. Petil. Don. c. 2. & 3.  pag. (mihi Edict. Paris') 141. Quaestio c●●te inter nos versatur, ubi sit Ecclesia? utrum apud nos, an apud illos?— Quid ergo facturi sumus? in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, an in verbis capiris sui Domini nostri Jesu Christi: & puto quod in illius, &c, that is, The question handled between us is where is the Church? with us or with them? What must we do then? must we seek it in our words, or in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ our head? I think in his who is truth itself, and best knows his own body, 1 Tim. 3. The Lord knoweth who are his—] Cap. 3. p. 142. Sed ut dicere caeperam, non audiamus, haec dico, haec dicis, sed audiamus, haec dicit dominus, etc. That is, But as I began to say, Let us not hear, I say this, and you say that, but let us hear, Thus saith the Lord. There are certainly the Lords Books, to whose authority we both consent, we both believe them, we both obey them; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuse our cause.— Auferantur, ergo illa de medio, etc. Away with those things from among us, which we bring against one another, not out of the Divine Canonical Books, but from elsewhere— Quia nolo humanis documentis, etc. Because I will not have the holy Church to be demonstrated by humane documents, but by God's Oracles. For if the holy Scriptures have placed the Church in Africa alone, and in a few places of Rome, etc. than whatsoever may be brought out of other papers, the Church is only with the Donatists. Si autem, &c But if the Church of Christ is placed by the Divine and most certain testimonies of the Canonical Scriptures in all Natitions; than what ever they bring, and whence ever they recite it, who say, Lo here is Christ, or lo there; let us rather, if we be his sheep hear the voice of our Shepherd, saying, Believe them not. For those parcels are not found in many Nations, where that (Church) is: but it, which is every where, is found even where they are; therefore let us seek it in the holy Canonical Scriptures.]  
And thus he goes on and proves at large by the Scriptures the true Church; fitting all as meet to the present schism of the Papists, almost as if he had seen and named it.  
Cap. 18. Begins thus [Because therefore the holy Church is manifestly known in the Scriptures, etc.] Remotis ergo omnibus, etc. Laying aside therefore all such matters, let them demonstrate their Church if they can; not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans, not in the Councils of their Bishops, not in the writings of any disputers, not in signs and fallacious Miracles, because we are prepared and cautioned against such things by the word of God: 
Cap. 18.  but in the writings of the Law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the Psalms, in the words of our Pastor himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the Canonical authorityes of the sacred Books.]  
Next he shows that it must not be out of Parables, Allegories or such Scriptures that make no more for one side then the other (what then? doth he tell them that it is all such, and send them to Rome to know the sense? no) but it is the plain Scripture of which he produceth abundance that must tell us which is the true Church. And he thus begins the 19 Chap.  
Omissis ergo, etc. Letting pass therefore the snares of delays let him show their Church, 
Cap. 19 pag. 154.  etc. and so show it, as not to say, It's true, because I say it, or because my colleague said it, or these colleagues of mine, or those Bishops, or Clerks, or our Laity, or therefore its true 
* How fit is this wedge for Master Knot if he will but apply it, it may easily cleave his new foundation of the faith.  because these or those wonders were done by Donatus or Pontius, or any other, or because men pray and are heard at the Memories (or shrines) of ours that are dead, or because such or such things happen there, or because that brother of ours, or that sister of ours saw such a sight waking, or had such a dreaming vision sleeping. Away with these either fictions of lying men, or wonders of deceiving spirits: For either the things that are said, are not true, or if any wonders are done by heretics, we must the more beware, seeing the Lord when he told us there would come deceivers, who by doing certain signs would deceive if it were possible, even the elect, addeth, Lo I have foretold you,— And if any be heard praying at the Memories of heretics, it is not for the desert of the place, but the desert of his desire that he receiveth good or evil.— No man can have Christ for his head, that is not in his Body, which is the Church: which (Church) we must know as we do Christ himself in the sacred Canonical Scriptures, and not to inquire into the various rumours of men and their opinions, and deeds, and sayings, and sights.— But let them show me whether they have the Church, no way but by the Canonical books of the divine Scriptuers: Because neither do we therefore say, that they ought to believe us that we are in the Church of Christ, because that (Church) which we hold is commended by Optatus Melevitanus, or by Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other 
* Was the Pope of Rome none of those innumerable Bishops of the Church?  Bishops of our communion, or because it is predicated (or praised) by the Councils of our Colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which are frequented by our communion, so great marvailes of hear, or healing are done (here some are named.) What ever things of this sort are done in the Catholic Church, 
☜  are therefore to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but it is not therefore manifested to be the Catholic Church, because these things are done in it.— This he testifieth is written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms; this we have commended by his own mouth. These are the documents of our cause, these are its foundations, these its upholders (or confirmers.) We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some Believers, that they daily searched the Scriptures whether those things were so: What Scriptures? but the Canonical of the Law and prophets? Hereto are added the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John. Search all these, and produce somewhat manifest which will demonstrate that the Church either 
* Or Rome.  remaineth in Africa alone, or is to be from afric, so that it may be fulfilled which the Lord saith, This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, etc. But bring somewhat that needeth nor an interpreter, that you may not be convinced that it speaks of another matter, and that you strive to turn it to your own sense 
* Like the Papists, Pasc● oves meas: etc. es P●trus, etc. —] Chap. 25. [The question is not dark in which they may deceive you— You see the Church is every where diffused, and increaseth to the harvest.]  
This whole Book of Austin is written, as if it had been purposed as a confutation of the Papists that will have the Church to contain only the Roman faction, and exclude all the rest of the world, and will try the Scripture by the Church, and not the Church by the Scripture, but fly to I know not what visions and pretended miracles to prove their Church which Austin professeth are not a proof no not of the true Church, though there be much more than there to boast of: so that the Papists cannot here say that Austin thus dealeth with the Donatists because they denied the Church of Rome and believed the Scripture: he expressly enough preventeth all such expositions of his words.  

August. Cont. Crescon li. 2. c 33.  August. con. Cresconium li. 2. cap. 33. p. 177. Saith [Ego hujus Epistolae, etc. I am not bound by the authority of this Epistle (of Cyprians add Jubai:) because I take not Cyprian's Epistles be Canonical, but by the Canonical I consider them, and that in them which agreeth to the authority of the Divine Scriptures, I accept with his praise, but that which disagreeth I refuse with his peace. And so if thou hadst recited those things which he wrote to Jubajan out of some Canonical book of the Apostles or Prophets, I should have had nothing at all to gainsay: But now, seeing what thou recitest is not Canonical, by that liberty to which the Lord hath called us, I refuse it, etc.] And he compareth it to Peter's compelling the Gentiles to Judaize Gal. 2. showing that even Peter should have been so refused in error.  
The words of Austin in Epist. 19 ad Hieron. are commonly cited [I have learned to give only to those writings which are now called Canonical, 
August. ad Hieron. Ep. 19  this reverence and honour, as that I dare say, that none of them erred in writing: but others I so read, that how holy and learned soever they be, I do not therefore think it true, because they so judged, but because they persuade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true.]  
As commonly cited is that li. 3. Cont. Maximin. Arrian. c. 14. pag. (mihi) 306. 
August. cont. Maximin. l. 2. c. 14. Vid eti●m August. in Psal. 21. exposed. 2.  [Sed nunc nec ego, etc. But now neither aught I as fore-judging (or for prejudice) to bring forth the Nicene Council, nor thou the Council of Ariminum; I am not bound by the authority of this no● thou of that. Let matter contend with matter, caus● with cause, reason with reason, by the authority of the Scriptures, which are witnesses, not proper to either of us, but common to both.]  
It were too long to recite the fourtieth part which Augustine hath to this purpose. He that would se● more, let him read his Epist. 112. & de Morib. Eccles● Cathol. c. 7. & Epist. 111. & Contr. Faustum li. 11. c. 5 & de Trintat. li. 3. etc.  
The words of Optatus lib. 5. advers. Parmen. ar● frequently cited by our writers: which are thu● [Quaerendi sunt judices, etc. We must seek judges. 
Optatus li. 5. advers. Parmen.  I● Christians, they cannot be admitted on either side, because by siding the truth is hindered. We must seek a judge abroad (or without.) If a Pagan, he cannot know the Christians secrets. If a Jew, he is an enemy to the Christian Baptism. On earth there can no judgement of this matter be found. We must seek a Judge from heaven. But wherefore should we go knock at heaven, when we have it here in the Gospel? A Testament (I say, because here we may well compare earthly things to heavenly) is such, as that a man that hath many sons, doth command them all himself as long as the father is present: 
Vid. A.B. La●d against Fisher. and A.C. pag 194. vindicating this.  there is then no need of a Testament. So Christ, as long as he was present on earth (though yet he be not wanting or absent) commanded the Apostles whatever was needful, for the time. But as a father when he feeleth himself near to death, fearing lest after his death, the Btethrens should unpeaceably quarrel, doth before witness put his Will out of his dying breast into writings which may endure. And if there shall rise any contention among the Brethren, they go not to the Grave, but seek the Testament; and he that resteth in the Grave doth silently speak by the writings. The Living (Lord) whose the Testament is, is in heaven. Let his will therefore be sought in the Gospel, as in a Testament.]  
The Author of the imperfect work on Mat. commonly imputed to chrysostom Homil. 49. saith [At this time, since heresy hath possessed these Churches, 
Opus imperfect. in Math. Hom. 29.  there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge of Christians, that would know the truth of Belief, but the Divine Scriptures. For before it was declared by many means, which was the Church of Christ, and which was Gentilism. But now it is by no way known to them that would know, which is the true Church of Christ, but only by the Scriptures.— How therefore should he that would know which is the true Church of Christ, come to know it, but only by the Scriptures?]  
One would think this were plain enough, if the Papists were not the Judges of the meaning of all writings, as well as the holy Scriptures, which condemn their cause?  
Junilius ad Primasium ● part. divin. legis li. 2. 
Junilius ad Primal. li. 2. qu. 29.  qu. 29 Saith. [Vnde probamus libros, etc. How do we prove that the Books of our Religion are written by Divine inspiration? Many ways, of which the first is the truth Scripture itself, than the order of things; the agreement o● precepts, the manner of speech without affectation (or compasses) and the purity of words; Ther● is added also, the quality of the writers and preachers; that mere men could not have delivered such Divine things, and vile men such high things and uneloquent men such subtle things, unless they were filled with the Holy Ghost. And the force o● the preaching of it, which it had when it was preached, though by a few contemned men. Hereto is added the witness of the contrary party, as the Sibyls or Philosophers: the expulsion of adversaries; the utility of the consequents, the event which by acceptations and figures and predictions were foretold: and lastly the Miracles which were continually wrought till the Scripture itself was received by the Nations: of which this sufficeth for the next Miracle that it is known to be received by all.]  
Saith Chamier citing this passage, Here are arguments enough to prove the authority of Scripture, 
Vil. Scot in ●●nt. Prologue. qu 2.  internal and external; but no mention of the Church's antecedent judgement to determine it. The same may be said of Eusebius, Anstia and the rest that prove the Scripture and Christian Religion.  
Hieromes words are frequently cited on Math. 23. [Hoc quia de Scriptures, 
Hierom. in. Math. 23.  etc. This is as easily contemned as proved, because it hath not authority from the Scriptures.] And on Isaiah 8. He saith [Side aliquo dubitatis, etc. 
Hierom. in Isa. 8. fol. (mihi) 18.  If you doubt of any thing know what is written— If you would know the things that are doubtful, rather give up yourselves to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures.] And on the 86. Psalms, He saith [Quamvis sanctus aliquis, etc. 
Idem in Psal. 86. Idem Epist. ad Rusticum, Idem ad Evagr.  Though there be some Saint after the Apostles never so eloquent, yet he hath not authority.] And Epist. ad Rustic. [Since covetousness entered into the Church as into the Empire, the Law is perished from the Priests, and the vision from the Prophets.]  
And the same Jerome Epist. ad Evagr. (fol. 150. Edit, Basil. per Froben, 1516. Tomo. 3. & pag. 329. Edict. Basil. 1536. Tomo. 2.) Saith thus [Quid ●uim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat? Nec altera Romana urbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est: Et Gallia, & Britannia, & Africa, 
Erasmus in his first Annotations saith that [hac oli●● sort●sse vera▪ nunc magna ex parte commutata sunt, viz. Quod aequat Eugubiensem Epi copum cum Romano, nec putat ullum Episco●um alio majorem esse nisi qu●tenus superat humilitate, & non pu●at. Episc●pum quovis sacerdote prestantiorem esse, nisi quod jus habet ordi●andi.] But in his latter Annotations he merrily referreth all the equality in their respect to the Deacons, that he might 〈◊〉 to abate the offence.  & Persis, & Oriens, & Judia omnes Barbarae nationes, unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis. Si Authorit●● quaritur, Orbis major est Vrbe. Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Fugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & sacerdotii. Potentia divitiarum, & paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Caeteram omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. Sed dicis, Quomodo Romae ad testimonium Diaconi presbyter ordinatur? Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuttudinem? Quid paucitatem, de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Eccesiae vindicas?] That is [For what doth a Bishop except ordination which a Presbyter may not do? Nor is the Church of the Roman City to be esteemed one and the Church of the whole world another: Both France, and Britain, and afric, and Persia, and the East, and Jndia, and all the Barbarous Nations do worship one Christ, and observe one Rule of truth. If you seek for Authority, the worlds is greater than the Cities (of Rome) Wherever there is a Bishop, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, of the same Merit, he is also of the same Priesthood. The Power of riches, and the lowness of poverty, make not a Bishop high-eror lower: But they are all the Apostles successors. But you say, 
Baronim ad Tom. 402. pag. (mihi) 160 To. 5. & ita Tom. 1. Doth in vain seek to ●void the force of this passage, as if the equality were only quoad sacros ordines. It seems the Pope's jurisdiction is no part of his office, nor belongeth to him by ●●●ted orders.  How is it that at Rome a Presbyter is ordained on the testimony of a Deacon? What tell you me of the custom of one City? why do you defend a few (of which superciliousness is arisen) against the Laws of the Church?]  
It may be the Papists by their supereminent power of interpreting all Church writers, can put such a sense on these words of Hierom, as shall consist with that which he purposely doth oppose: But I think an impartial man can hardly believe that when he wrote these words, he was acquainted with Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction and infallibility.  
Nay when it is the scope of much of the former part of this Epistle to prove the equality of Bishops and Presbyters, in the beginning, and that at that time they differed in no power but that of ordaining (when yet he saith the Presbyters of Alexandria did long make their own Bishops) how then could Jerome believe the Pope's universal jurisdiction? Could he think that the Bishop of Rome had that power over the Church which he thought not any Bishop to have over the Presbyters of any one Church?  
Greg. Nazianzen saith of Councils [If I must write the truth, 
Nazianzen Bellar. li. 2. de council. e. 7. pag (mihi) 121.  I am of this mind, that I will fly or avoid all Councils of Bishops: for I never saw a glad or happy end of any Councils, or which did not rather bring an addition or increase of evils, than a removal of them.] To this of Nazianzen Bellarmine answereth that [Gregory meant that in his time no Council could be wholly lawful: for he lived between the first and second general Council, where he had seen many Councils which because of the great number of Heretics had a bad end.] And he names five of them.  
Answ. 1. But by what Authority doth Bellarmine confine Gregory's words to some Councils, which he speaks in general of all that he had seen or might do resolving to avoid all hereafter. 2. Here note that Bellarmine confesseth that Councils may err; and then where is the French Religion? 3. I would fain know where was the Church's infallibility, and power of judging of matters of faith in Nazianzens days? If there were no lawful General Councils, nor could be, than it was not in them; therefore it must be either in the people (and how shall we gather the world together to consult with them) or else as Bellarmine will say, in the Pope alone, or in the Roman Clergy with him. 
Why did Nazianz. never remember, when Councils all failed, and the Pope was the only living fallible judge, to have pleaded this with the Heretics, and to have sent them all to Rome instead of the Councils.  I hear not yet that they are very forward to prove that the Roman Clergy in particular are Infallible (though Bellarmine hath given us his bold conjectures of that) It must needs be therefore that at that time all the Churches infallible judicial power, and so the foundation of our faith must be resolved into the Pope alone; and so the faith of all the world must then be resolved into the credit of the word of a single and silly man. I know the Italian faction will not abhor this at any time; but then they should for shame speak out and deal plainly with the world, and not talk of the whole Church and all the Church, when they mean but one man. 4. And I would fain know of any friend of Bellarmine's, how far the universal Church was visible at that time, when all Councils were bad, and none could be lawful? The visibility was not in a Council to represent the whole: and the ●aity are not much noted when Councils go wrong, ●o that the Church was visible only in one man, or ● few particular persons, according to the Papists common reckoning, who judge by the Pastor's visibility: Yea the Church of Rome itself was invisible ●hen and divers times when their Bishop was a Heretic. If therefore they will say either that the Church was visible in one man, or in the Laity of many parts oppressed by the Clergy and Magistracy and they have nothing more to say) than we will ●ay as much of the visibility of our Church before Luther, and more too. 5. It's confessed here also that ●ot only a Council, but the greater number (by ●ery many) of the Bishops of the Church may be heretics or err in faith. 6. And then the Church may lie in the smaller oppressed part: and why then may not the most err now? 
* Stapleton de princip. doctrine. li. 2. cap. 18. Hieron. Dialog. advers. Lucifer.  Stapleton himself confesseth ●hat Luther was not much out of the way, when he said, ●here were scarce five Bishops ●o be found that turned not Arrians. And Hierome●aith ●aith Dialog. advers. Lucifer.) [The whole world ●●aned, and wondered that it was turned Arrian.] ●. And did the authority of the Scripture at that time ●ll quoad nos, when the judge was turned heretic? ●ven Liberius and the Councils?  
And if the high Eulogies of the Roman Church would prove its Authority, then see what Nazian●ene, saith of the Church of Caesarea. In his 22. Epistle ad Caesarienses patris nomine scripta (found among his own works, Edit Paris. Tom. 1. 
Greg. Naziazen. Epist. 22. To. 1. p. 85.  pag. 785. and also in Basils' works translated by Musculus Edit. Basil. 1565. Tom. 2. pag. 17. [Seeing every Church as being Christ's body is to be watched over (or looked to) with greatest care and diligence, then specially yours, which anciently was, and now is and is esteemed, almost (o● nigh) the mother of all Churches, on which th● whole Christian Commonwealth doth cast their eyes even as the encompassing circle doth on the centre, not only for the soundness of doctrine long divulged to all, but also for that conspicuous grace of Concord which God hath given them.] What would the Papists say, but that this were fo● their supremacy, if they found but this much in him for the Church of Rome.  
And I think there is no doubt but that in thos● ancient times the Church was acquainted with th● true way of Government as well as Rome is now and therefore I would know further. 8. Whether th● truest Government may not stand with great desolations, divisions of the Church and multitudes of errors? Greg. Nazianzen saith (Orat. 20 pag. mih● 345. 
Nazianz. Orat 20. p. 345. ) That when Basil se● upon the great work of healing the Church [The holy Nation, the Kingly Priesthood was so far amiss that it was distracted into six hundred opinions and errors; And spoiled and wasted by the Devil.] If the Pope's Monarchical Government was then a foot, than it seem● that Government will no more prevent sects and errors than the worst: If it were not, then 1. They are now usurpers, 1. And they cannot prove ou● way of Government to be wrong by the multitude of errors that are in the Church.  
Basil was far from resolving his faith into the Pope's infallibility when he wrote his Ascetica (or at least Eustathius Sebastienus, if they be his) when (pag. 195. 
Basil, Mag. To. 2. Ascet. p. 197.  Tom. 2. translat. Musculi, Basil) he saith [It is a manifest lapse of faith, and apparent vice of pride, either to refuse any thing which the Scripture containeth, or to bring in any thing which is not written: seeing Christ saith, My sheep hear my voice, and premiseth, But another they will not follow, but fly from him, because they know not a stranger's voice.] And pag. 193. he saith, that sometimes he had used unwritten sayings against heretic's [But never alien from the Scripture sense, etc.] and that now he was resolved [To make use of what he had learned from Scripture, and but sparingly, to use the very names and words which are not literally conform to the divine Scripture, though they do retain the Scripture sense.] The same Basil Epist. 80. To. 2. p. mihi. 74. 
Basil To. 2. Epist. 80. ad Eusta●hium Medi●um.  renouncing the argument from custom, saith [Let us stand therefore to the arbitration of the Scriptures inspired from God: and with whomsoever is found the opinions which are agreeable to the Divine oracles, to him let the sense (or sentence) of truth be wholly adjudged.] This is Basils' judgement of the judge of controversies.  
Hilarius Pictav. in his 
Hilarius Pictav. Edit. Paris. 1531. pag. 318, etc. Idem de Trinit. li. 2. p. 16. Idem ●● Mat. p. 498.  Epistle de Synodis adversus Arrianos pag. (mihi) 318▪ 319. and fully showeth his thoughts that Council● have erred, and that even those of the Orthodox are to be tried by the Apostolical doctrine. And lib. 2. de Trinitate pag. 16. col. 2. he saith [Commendat autem fidei hujus integritatem, etc. The integrity of this faith is commended by the Authority of the Gospel and Apostolical doctrine— For this foundation standeth strong and unmoved, etc.] And he maketh it a remedy against all Heresies.  
And in his Commentary on Mat. Canon. 8. pag. 498. he saith [Igitur secundum haec Ecclesiae intra quas verbum Dei non vigilaverit, naufragae sunt, etc. i. e. The Churches in which the word of God doth not watch, are shipwrecked.]  
And most fully lib. 4. de Trinitate pag. 31. col. 2. Nemini autem dubium esse oportet, etc. that is, No man ought to doubt but that we must use God's doctrine for the knowing of divine things. For humane weakness cannot of itself attain the knowledge of heavenly things.— It is God himself that we must believe concerning himself, and those things which he offereth to our knowledge, of himself, must we obey. For either we must deny him as the Gentiles do, if we disallow his testimonies; or if he be believed to be God, as he is, nothing of God can be understood, but as he hath witnessed of himself; Let men's own opinions therefore cease (or be laid by) and let not men's judgements extend themselves beyond God's constitutions— For the understanding of sayings, must be fetched from the causes of the speech, because the thing is not subject to the words, but the words to the matter]  
And li. 4. de Trinitate, pag. 29. col. 1. when he showeth that the heretics use to plead Scripture misunderstood, he doth not send them to Rome for a judgement of the sense▪ but still concludeth [Respondendum esse existimo haereticorum perversitati, & omnes corum stultas ac mortiferas institutiones Evangelicis atque Apostolicis Testimoniis coarguendas: That is, I judge that we must answer heretic's perverseness, and all their foolish and deadly institutions, by the testimonies of the Gospel and of the Apostles.]  
And the same Hilary doth largely persuade to a close adhering to the Gospel, 
Hilary ad Constant. Imper. pag. 307. etc.  and the sum of Faith called the Apostles Creed, without adding or altering, under any pretence of amending, and showeth the divisions and depravations that have followed since the Council of Nice would make one emendation, and on their example other Councils had made and mended, done and undone so oft, that they had marred all by it: and he persuadeth the Emperor 
* It is a great doubt whether this Book were written in constantin's his life time or since his death: of which see Hieronim. de Scrip. Ecclesiast. Erasm. Baronius tom. 3. Annal. pag. 714, 715. Bellarmin de Scriptor. Eccles. pag. (mihi) 25. But it's plain by the Epistle itself, that it was written as to Constantius alive, though its possible, as Bellarmine conjectureth, that he might be dead, and Hilary in France not know it; For its clear that was written a little before or after his d●ath, even the same year that he died.  to hearken to the ancient Gospel faith and not to Synods. His words are in Epist. vel Lib. ad Constant. August. pag. (Edit. Paris.) 307.308. where having showed how he had erred in looking after Councils, he saith [Recognosce fidem quam, etc. that is, Reacknowledge that Belief which thou desirest to hear from the Bishops but hearest not. For they of whom it is required do write their own things, and do not preach the things of God; they have drawn about an endless and perpetual circle. For the modesty of humane infirmity should have contained all mysteries of divine knowledge in those bounds of conscience only, which he believed in, and not after a Belief confessed and sworn in Baptism, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to doubt or innovate any thing else.— Under the improbable occasion of this necessity 
* Of keeping the right sense.  the custom is come up of writing and renewing the Belief. Which after that it began rather to frame new things, then to retain what was received, it neither defended the old, nor confirmed the new, and Belief is now become rather (a belief) of the times than of the Gospels: while it is written according to the years, and not held according to the Confession of Baptism. It is a most perilous and miserable thing, that we have as many Beliefs as Wills; and as many Doctrines as manners; and that as many causes of blasphemy spring up, as there are vices. And when according to one God and one Lord, and one Baptism, there is one Belief, we are fallen from that Belief which is but one, and while many are made, they therefore begin to be, that there may be none. For we are on both sides conscious, that since the meeting of the Council of Nice, we have wrote nothing but Beliefs. While there is quarrel about the words and questions about the newness, and occasion about the ambiguityes, and complaints about the Authors, and strife about the parties, and difficulty in consents, and while every one begins to be an Anathema to another, almost no one now is Christ's. For we are carried about by an uncertain wind of Doctrine, and either while we teach we trouble, or while we are taught we err. And what is the change that is in the last years belief? The first decreeth that the word homoousion shall be silenced: The next decreeth and preacheth the homoousion: The third doth by indulgence excuse the word usia which was simply before used by our fathers. The fourth and last doth not excuse it, but condemn it. and at last it's come to this, that there is nothing remaineth established and inviolable with us, nor 
* i e. That was so with us, etc.  with any before us. And as for the likeness 'of God the Son to God the Father, it is the Belief of our miserable time, that he is not like in whole, or but in part. We are excellent 
* That is, the Councils of those times.  judges (or Arbitrators) sure, the seekers of the heavenly mysteries who do calumniate in our professions of the faith of God, we decree yearly and monthly Beliefs of God; we repent of our decrees, we defend them, we Anathematise those that were defended, we damn other men's matter in ours, or they damn ours in theirs, and biting one another, we are consumed one of aouther. A Belief is again sought for, as if there were no belief. A belief must be written, as if it were not in our hearts. Being already regenerated by faith, we are now taught to believe: As though the Regeneration were without Belief. We lear● Christ after Baptism; as if Baptism could be anything 
* Or there could be any Baptism.  without the faith o● Christ— p. 309. Amon● these shipwrecks of faith the heritage of our heavenly patrimony being no● almost profligate, it is the safest way for us to retain that first and only Evangelical Belief confessed in Baptism and understood, and not to chang● that good Belief which only I have received and heard. Not as if those things which are contained in the Council of our Fathers, 
* The Council of Nice,  are to be damned as irreligiously and impiously written; but because through men's rashness they are used to contradiction, that for this the Gospel might safely be denied under the name of novelty, as if it were innovated that it might be mended. That which is mended always effecteth this, that while every amendment doth displease, every amendment may be condemned by a following amendment; as if now, whatever it be, it were no amendment of an amendment, but began to be a condemnation of it. In this much, O Emperor Constantius, I admire thee as of a blessed and Religious will, desiring a Belief only according to what is written; 
☞  and indeed justly hastening to those very words of the only begotten God, that the breast capable of impartial solicitude, may also be full of the knowledge of the words of God. He that refuseth this is an Antichrist: and he that counterfeiteth it, is Anathema. But this one thing I entreat of thee,— that the Council being present which now quarrels about the Belief, thou wilt vouchsafe to hear me a few words, of the Holy Scriptures, and I may speak with thee of the words of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose banished man, or Priest I am.— O Emperor dost thou seek a Belief! Hear it, not out of newpapers, but out of the Books of God.— Remember, that it is not a question of Philosophy, but in the doctrine of the Gospel. I desire not audience so much for myself as for thee, and the Churches of God. For I have my Belief with myself, and need none from without. That which I have received, I hold, and I change not that which is of God. But yet remember that there is no heretic but doth falsely pretend that he speaks that in which he blasphemeth, according to the Scripture.— (Here he names Marcellus, Photinus, Sabellius, Montaneus, Manichaeus, Martion.) They all speak Scripture without its meaning; they pretend faith without faith. For the Scriptures lie not in reading, but in understanding, nor in prevarication, but in charity. Hear, I pray thee, what is written of Christ, lest under them those things that are not written be preached. Submit thy ears to those things which from (these) Books I shall speak; lift up thy faith to God: Hear that which profiteth to Belief, to Unity, to Eternity. I will speak to thee with the honour of thy Kingdom and thy faith, all things profitable to the peace of East and West: under the public knowledge, under a disagreeing Council, under a famous contention.— I will defend nothing to scandal, nor that is without (or besides) the Gospel.] Here he reciteth a short creed in Scripture words, especially about Christ.  
I confess I fear I am too tedious in these long citations; but I do it, that the Papists may not say that we take particular words or shreds of sentences, without the full sense. Here I desire that it may be noted, 1. That Councils may err and differ. 2. That they are so far from being the authorized judges of our belief, that in Hilaryes judgement, their determinations have occasioned the ruin and dangerous divisions of the Church. 3. And that this is not only true of the Arrian Councils, but of the Council of Nice itself though its Belief were sound, even by the novelty of terms, and example for further innovating. 4. That Hilary never calls the Emperor to consult with the Pope or Church of Rome as the authorised infallible judge, even when he professeth to tell him all that was necessary to the peace of the whole Church East and West. If it be said, that this is because Heretics believed not Rome's authority or infallibility; I answer, It had then most nearly concerned Hilary to teach it them, when he taught them all that was necessary to peace; especially if that be the foundation into which the rest of our faith must be resolved. 5. Lastly note, that it is only the word of God, and the ancient Baptismal Creed which Hilary here calls them to for Peace and healing of all the world's division.  

☞  O sad case that this advice was never taken to this day! O happy Church when ever it shall be taken, and never till then.  
And here because I am afraid of wearying the Reader, and making these testimonies unproportionable to the brevity of the disputation, I shall forbear adding those that I thought to have added, yet assuring any Papist that readeth it, that it is not for want of more sufficient Testimonies of the Fathers on our side. For I had ready to transcribe in those few books which stand at my elbow, sufficient Testimonies (shorter or longer) in all these following Authors in their own writings, viz. Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus the supposed Dionysius Areop, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandr, Athenagoras, Fatianus, Arnobius, Athanasius, Lactantius, Macarius, Cyril. Alexand. Cyril. Hierosol. Synesius, Epiphanius, Eusebius Caesariensis, chrysostom, Gregorius Thaumat. Neocaesar. Greg. Nyssen, Basilius Seleuciae, Ambrose, Theodoret, Damascene, Isidore Hispal. Gaudentius Brixianus, Vincentius Lirinensis, Salvianus Massil. Caesarius Arelatens. Alcuinus vel Albinus, Beda, Vigilius, Joannes Maxen●ius, Alcimus Avitus, Prosper, Fulgentius, Oecumenius, Theophylact. Bernard, with many others, besides all before named: of whom, some speak fully to the point, and all the rest call us to the word of God in Scriptures, for the resolution or ground of our faith, and not to the authority or infallibility of the Pope of Rome. I shall only stay so long as to add two or three of the eldest (though briefest) and two or three Canons of some Councils, because there will seem more weight in their testimonies. And for any Reader Papist or Protestant that would have more Testimonies to this end (to see whether it be Rome's authority or infallibility, or rather the Scriptures, that is the Testimony which must support our faith, and is first to be known) I desire them to read them already collected in Chamier, in Doctor Sutlive, in Sibrandus Lubbertus de princip. Christ. Dogmat. in Chemuitius, and Bellarmine himself who reciteth them out of Chemnitius, and pretendeth (and vainly pretendeth) to answer them, to whom Lubbertus, and many more of ours have therein replied: But specially read that excellent Treatise of Philip Mornay Lord du Plessis of the Church.  

Clemens Rom. ad Corinth.  Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians useth not once to them any argument from his authority and infallibility, which sure he would have done for the healing of so great a schism, if it had been true. Nay when he doth earnestly press them to submit to and obey their own Presbyters, he never requireth any obedience to himself or to the Roman Church. Nay so far is he from taking any notice of any universal Monarchy or infallibility in himself that he doth not so much as take notice of any Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in their own Church, nor once call them to be determined by any single or supereminent Bishop at all; but only to obey their Bishops or Presbyters.  

Ignatius ad Rom.  Ignatius writing to the Romans calleth them only the Church [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [Quae & praesidet in loco regionis Romanorum] or as Bishop Ushers ancient Version hath it [Quae & praesidet in loco chori Romanorum] which is not a presidency over the whole Church. And towards the end, he saith [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i.e. [Memores estote in precibus vestris Ecclesiae quae est in Syria, quae prome, jam Christo Pastore utitur.] as Hier. Vairlenius Silvius interpreteth it in his Edit. pag. 69. I know that the old vulgar Latin Edition, which is in Joachimus Perionius his Edition, pag 494. and in Bishop Ushers pag. 89. translateth it Mementote in orationibus vesiris illius qui pro me recturus est ecelesiam quae est in Syria] as if it were his successor that he would have them pray for: But as Vairlenius, so Vedelius also better translateth it [Ecclesiae quae est in Syria, quae pro me jam Domino pastore utitur.] (Edit. Vedel. pag. 250.) And Bishop Ushers old Latin Translation, is [Ecclesiae quae pro me pastore Dei utitur.] And the next words are [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. [& solus ●am visitahit & sit vestra in eo dilectio] as the vulgar Latin Version, or Solus ipsam curabit visitabitque] As Vairlenius and Vedelius: or rather as Bishop Ushers old Latin version [Solus ipse (Jesus Christus) vice Episcopi sit] From whence I gather that the Bishop of Rome was not the Bishop universal of that Syrian Church, or else Ignatius 1. Would have sure commended it to his care. 2. Or at least not have expressly said that Christ only was their Bishop when he was gone.  
Moreover, is it a probable thing that Ignatius would have so frequently and importunately have pressed the Church, that he wrote to in all his Epistles, to be subject to and obey their Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, and yet would never have given them one word of advice to be subject to, and obey the Bishop of Rome, if the peace and unity of the whole Church, and the very faith and salvation of the particular members, had so much depended on this as the Papists would persuade us? Certainly a Negative Argument from the silence of the writers of those times, is a sufficient confutation of the Romish usurpation.  

Policarpus Epist. ad Phil.  Policarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, persuadeth that Church [to be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ] not mentioning any other superior Bishop, much less an universal Bishop to whom also they must be subject. And whereas Valens one of their Presbyters was fallen (with his wife) into some sin which Policarpe professeth his sorrow for, he doth not direct them to seek remedy at any higher power, but persuadeth them to reduce him themselves as a straying member. And having before mentioned divers heresies of those times, be addeth as the Remedy, not an advice of appeal to Rome, or to seek for their determination, or to hold to their infallibility, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. [Wherefore leaving the vanity of many, and false doctrines, let us return to that Word which from the beginning was delivered to us.] It is to the first word, and not to Rome that this blessed Disciple of John doth send the Philippians for stability against errors.  

Irenaeus Euseb. Hist. Eccles. li. 5. c. 26.  Irenaeus is said by Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. li. 5. cap. 26.) to have sharply reproved Victor for breaking the Church's peace, by excommunicating the Asian Churches about Easter day, 
The Asian Churches.  and tells him that [The like was never heard of] and that [his predecessors did otherwise] therefore he took not Victor to be infallible.  
And it is apparent that all the Asian Churches ●ho stood against Victor and were excommunicated by ●im, did little dream that he was the universal Bishop or infallible. Nay their Bishops [sharply reprehend him and their words are yet extant] saith Eusebius.  
Moreover in the same Chapter of Eusebius it is expressed by Irenaeus to Vict●●, 
Policarp. ibid.  that Policarp the Disciple of John differed from Anicetus, and neither of them could be persuaded to alter his opinion. Therefore Policarp never dreamt, either that the Roman Bishop was infallible, or was his Governor, whom he should obey.  
And its worth the reading in the 24. and 25. Chapters of Eusebius, how confidently Polycrates opposeth Victor, alleging a General custom from the Apostles, and resolveth never to change his custom: And the Bishops and Churches here in England, did follow the same custom, and differ from Rome.  
And in the 28 Chapter Eusebius mentioneth an ancient writer, that opposed the heresy of Artemon, and whereas they alleged that all the Bishops of Rome till Zephyrinus were of their mind, and preached it, even Victor himself (that is, against the Godhead of Christ) he answereth them thus [This peradventure might seem to have some likelihood of truth, if it were not oppugned, first of all by the holy Scriptures, next by the books of sundry men long before the time of Victor] As Justin, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, and Irenaeus. So that this old writer supposed it no impossible thing for a Bishop of Rome to have taught heresy.  
And in the very conclusion of the Chapter and Book Eusebius recites many more of the words of that old writer among the which there are these against the heretics of those times for presuming to correct and so deprave the Scriptures, which methinks, should touch the Romanists to the quick: [Belike they are altogether ignorant what presumption is practised in this wicked deed of theirs. For either they persuade themselves that the holy Scriptures were not indicted by the instinct of the Holy Ghost, and so are they Infidels, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Ghost; and what other thing do they in that than show themselves possessed of the Devil?]  
So that if we must go to the Arbitration of the Pope to know whether the Scriptures were indicted by the Holy Ghost. We must go to him to know whether we must be Infidels or not? For they that deny this are Infidels. But I hope all the world will not remain Infidels, till they know the Arbitrement of the Pope, or till his Authority move them to be Christians. For its an impossibility and contradiction, that any man should believe in Christ's pretended Vicar, as his Vicar, and believe an authority and infallibility which he or his Church of Rome hath received from Christ, before they believe in Christ himself.  
How Tertullian lib. de Pudicitia c. 21. takes up the Pope, if he pretend to his pardoning power from Do tibi claves, or supra hanc Petram, I shall for brevity refer you to the place in him.  
And Origen upon Math. on the words, is large and full against them, I refer you to the words themselves in him.  
I conclude this rank of testimonies in the words of Tertullian [Credunt sine Scripturis ut credant contra Scripturas] They believe without the Scripture, 
Tertull. de prescript.  that they may believe against the Scriptures. Had Scripture been for the Pope and Papists, than the Pope and they would have been for Scriptures; and then we might have spared all this ado. But because it is against them, no wonder if they be against it.  
I shall next give a touch more of some passages of Councils concerning this controversy. And first it is known that the first Councils did commonly decree that appeals should be from a Bishop to a Synod, or the Metropolitan, and that if the Synod of Comprovincials disagreed, that the Metropolitan should call some of the next Province to assist them, and that was the highest, unless there were a more general Council, as Concil. Antiochen. Can. 14. and divers more, beyond doubt, declare: So that here was no appeal to the Pope. Yea in the 6. Canon of that Council of Antioch, it is decreed that till an offending Priest, Deacon, or Layman, be reconciled to his own Bishop, or else have given satisfaction to a Synod, that no other Bishop shall receive him: so that Rome itself may not receive him: much less absolve him.  
Also in the 22. Canon of the same Council (and in many other Councils) it is decreed that no Bishop shall come into the City of another Bishop, not subject to him about ordination, and if they there ordain any, it shall be void, and they shall be questioned by a Synod. And chrysostom hereupon complaineth of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, for exercising authority at Constantinople, out of his o●n jurisdiction, contrary to the Canons; as may ●e s●en in his first Epipse to Pope Innocent. I know they pretend that by that Epistle he yet acknowledged Innocents' superiority and jurisdiction: As if a man might not make his moan, or seek all possible relie● from any that are capable of helping them, without respect to superiority or jurisdiction; It was R●mes greatness and interest in the Emperor and others, and not a universal jurisdiction, that made Innocent seem capable of affording some help to 
* Which yet he was not able to do.  chrysostom. But thus Baronius the Pope's Annalist, where ever he findeth but a letter written to the Bishop of Rome, or his advice or help in any thing desired, doth presently conclude that they acknowledged in the Pope universale regimen, an universal Government. And by the like reason many another should be universal Governor as well as he.  
Moreover, in the third Council of Carthage Can. 26. it is decreed [Vt primae sedis Episcopus non app●●●tur princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut ●liquid hu●● modi, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus] that i● [That the Bishop of the first seat shall not be called the chief of the Priests, or the chief Priest, or any such thing, but only the Bishop of the first ●●at.]  
One would think that this were as express against Rome's usurpation, as can be spoken. But they that must be the interprets of Scripture because it speaks ●●t plain enough, must be judge of Councils too, which it seems can speak no plainer than Scripture, 〈…〉 taught them to speak anew.  
Or if plainer may be (of the power as well as the name) let us hear the Council of Milevis (of which saith Prosper, Aurelius was the Captain, and Augustine the ingenium: And Baronius saith that Augustine was magna pars a great part of the Council, and by reason of his great abilities and interest) Whether there were two Milevitane Councils, as Baronius not improbably thinks, or but one, it much matters not: The Canons are now usually commixed as if they were one, and undoubtedly the true Canons, and so that which is now the 22. Canon runs thus [Item placuit ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteriis inferiores clerici in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis Episcoporum suorum quaesti fuerint, vicini Episcopi eos audiant, & inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum. Quod si & ab eye provocandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra African in communionem suscipiatur.] That is [It seemeth good that Presbyters, Deacons, and the other inferior Clergy, if in their causes they complain of the judgements of their Bishops, neighbour Bishops shall hear them, and being used by them with their Bishop's consent, shall end whatever is between them. But if they think good to appeal from them, they may not appeal but to the African Councils, or to the Primates of their Provinces. But if any think to appeal to those beyond Sea, 
* That is, to Rome or any other.  let none in afric receive him into communion.] Then it was a matter of excommunication to appeal to Rome, and consequently to acknowledge their universal Government: and now it is become essential to a Church, and to a Christian to believe it.  

Council Nis. Can. 6.  The General Council of Nice before this (according to such Canons as are now extant) C. 6. doth give the Patriarches of Alexandria power over Egypt, Libya & Pentapolis, quoniam quidem & Episcopo Romano parilis mos est, Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom, so that the Bishop of Rome is equalised with them, and his power restrained to his own Patriarchate, or the Ecclesiae suburbicariae (of the extent whereof read Salmasius his learned Treatise against Sirmondus de Ecclesiis subvarbicariis) which was so plain to Cusanus a Cardinal of Rome, that it made him say, hereupon [Videmus quantum Romanus Pontifex ultra sacras observationes, ex usu & consuetudine subjectionalis obedientiae hodie ●cquisivit] That is [We see how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custom of subjectional obedience. 
C●sanus li. 2. de concord. cap. 12. ] And Barth. Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his sum. Council. p. 48. had no other evasion but this, that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched, Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council, showed him one Latin Copy that had [Metropolitan] instead of [Roman?] But is this much to the purpose? Or if it were, is one Latin Copy in a Cardinal's hand more credible than all the rest in the world, that have c●●e to light?  
In the 6. Council of Carthage, Au●elius herd it and Augustine was there, and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him. And they give this as the Reason [Quia hoc nulla patrum, etc.] That is [Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers, and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy, and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans. For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun: and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province: Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christ's Priests: especially seeing every man hath leave, if he be offended with the judgement of the known, to appeal to a Council to his Province, or to a General Council. Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Trial into any one person, and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council.]  
And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts, to take cognisance of their affairs, they answered [Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur, nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum] That is [That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity, to us, is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers] But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon, by the addition of a [Save to the See of Rome] where the Milevit●n Canon is repeated: In which manner they have used too much of the Church's records.  
Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did, and purposely restrain the Roman ambition?  
The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholics and the Donatists shows how far they were in those days from dreaming of the Roman decisive judgement. The great controversy was, who had the true Church the Donatists, or the Catholics? And the Donatists great Arguments were, that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors, and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with. Mark now how the Catholics plead this cause. 1. They procure it heard by the Emperor's Cognitor, Marcellinus; and not by the Pope. 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholic Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome, or subjection to the Pope, nor once in all their mention of the Catholic Church do give the Popish description of it, or fetch it from the Roman Bishop as the head; but over & over again they prove that their Church is the Catholic Church because it is [That which beginning at Jerusalem, is tranfused over all the world.] and frequently they give this same description of it, and hence prove it out of Scripture, as is apparent in Augustine's writings at large. They never say, the Catholic Church is the Roman or that which submitteth to the Pope. 3. Note (which is the chief thing that here I do intend) that it was publicly proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome, with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis, and Caecilianus, and that they absolved Caecilianus, and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor, and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again, and these Bishops not agreeing (though they were most of them against Donatus) the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself, who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus, and condemned the Donatists, yet giving them liberum arbitrium, as it was called then, or Liberty of conscience, as it is called now. So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others; and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal; for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again, and the Emperor after them. Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul. Collation cum Donat. throughout, specially pag 288. (Edit. Paris.) & lib. ad Donatist. post. Collation. cap. 33. pag. 245.  
I shall only add to these Testimonies foregoing, the witness of some of their own party. I have before showed that one part of their Church denyeth the Pope's infallibility, and the other a Councils: and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith. Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord. Cathol. c. 13. & 34. maintaineth that [All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction, though not as to the execution, because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds, and that for the better, to bring men to God, which when it ceaseth, the positive rights cease] And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope; And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right; and that both it, and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent▪ that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ, and therefore that Priests are equal, and that the distinction of Diocese, and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters, are of positive right: And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles, nor said more to him then to them, Yea and he addeth, that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their Precedent and head, he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome.] This is plain dealing for a Cardinal.  

* 
Occam & Almain in 3. sent D. 24. Conc. 6. dub. 6. There are many heretical Docretals Alph. a ● astro adv. har. l. 1. c. 4. Waldens. Doct. fid. l 2. are 2. c. 19 § 1. § 38. N. 4. Leg. Card. de Alliaco de reform. Eccles. Picus in quest. ves. per.  
Adco ut jam borrendam quorundam proverbium est al cum statum devenisse Ecclesiam, ut non fit digna regi nisi per reprobos inquit Card. de Alliaco.   That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them. And in Cardinal de Aliaco, and many other Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoolmen of their own, the like passages are well known, and so oft cited already, that I shall forbear to recite them.  
I have oft times observed how they have alleged Durandus, as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum, that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost, and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be God's word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather than that of Nicodemus, because the Church approveth it, who is guided by the spirit. But I find that even there Durandus destroyeth the Roman cause. For he immediately addeth, that [Hoc quod dictum est de approbatione Scripturae per Ecclesiam intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum, qui fuerunt repleti spiritu sancto, & nihilominus viderunt Miracula Christi & audierunt ejus doctrinam, & ob hoc fuerunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut do●uit ut per eorum testimonium scriptura continens facta & dicta Christi approbaretur] That is, 
Durandus in sem. li. 3. Dist. 24. q. 1. pag. mihi 576.  [This which is said of the approbation of the Scripture by the Church is only meant of the Church which was in the times of the Apostles, who were filled with the Holy Ghost, and also saw the Miracles of Christ, and heard his doctrine, and therefore were fit witnesses of all that Christ did or taught that by their testimony the Scripture containing the deeds and words of Christ, 
Vid. Zabarell. Cardin. Florent. in li. Schism. & Conc. That future Councils may abrogate that which was unjustly done in former, and that they may err.  might be approved]  
This he proveth from Scripture, and concludeth, that the Gospels which that Church approved cannot now be rejected, because there is not the like cause, and that [Immo tenens contrarium haereticus est, cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat] [Yea he that holdeth the contrary is a heretic, of what state or condition soever he be] Not excepting the Pope himself. Is this liker the doctrine of Papists or of Protestants?  
Yea one word to Master Knot and those of his that will resolve their faith into the Miracles of the present Rome Church. If those Miracles which they glory in be indeed regardable, than the Church of Rome is not infallible; for the author of those Miracles do witness them to be fallible. The old Saint Austin and the rest of his time and before, whose testimonies about Miracles they bring in, as I have sufficiently proved are against their usurped jurisdiction and infallibility. Their Saint Maud saith, that the Roman Church shall ere long Apostatise from the faith totally and openly, which did obscurely Apostatise of a long time before. Their Saint Elizabeth saith, That Christ the head of the Church cryeth out but his members are dead: 
Abbas Joachim in Jerem.  that the Apostolic seat is possessed with pride, and the flocks go astray. The supposed Prophet Abbat Joachim saith There is yet another figtree withered by the curse of prevarication; the Latin Church, or the Ship of Peter, whose temporal leaves are made covers to excuse sin, with which both Adam the Pope, and Eve the subjects of the Church do cover the dishonesty of their lives, 
See many of the Papists cited against themselves by Doctor Sutlive de Eccles. c. 11. pag. 55.56, 57  and miserably hide themselves in the wood of Ecclesiastical Glory.]  
But I will trouble myself and the Reader with no more of this work, fearing that I have trespassed in doing more than needs in so plain a case, already. I will therefore shut up all that I have to say from humane Testimony, with the words of Chrysostom (or whoever else is the author of the imperfect work on Math.) and his own certain expressions elsewhere.  
In the Imperfect Comment. (Edit. Commel. an. 1617.) in Math. 20. Hom. 35. 
Opus Imperf. in Math. Hom. 35. pag. 900.901.  pag. 900.901. it is said as followeth [Fructum humilitatis terrestris posuit primatum caelestem, & primatus terrestris fructum, posuit confusionem caelestem. Quicunque ergo defiderat primatum caelestem, sequatur humilitatem terrestrem; quicunque autem desiderat, primatum in terra, inveniet confusionem in caelo: ut jam inter servos Christi ●on sit de primatu certamen] That is [He hath made the Celestial primacy to be the fruit of terrestrial humility: and the fruit of earthly Primacy, he hath appointed to be Celestial confusion 
* That is, confusion from heaven. . Whosoever therefore desireth Celestial primacy let him follow terrestrial humility: but whosoever desireth Primacy on earth, shall find confusion in heaven: That so a 'mong the servants of Christ there may be no strife for Primacy.]  
And afterward he addeth [Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere, neque ratio est neque causa: quia neque justum est, neque utile: Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinar servituti, labori, dolori, & quod majus est, periculo tali, ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud justum judicem, nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei, nec times, uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter, convertat eum in secularem.] That is [But to desire an Ecclesiastical Primacy, there is neither reason nor cause, because it is neither just nor profitable: For what wise man will voluntarily hasten to subject himself to servitude, labour, grief, and which is more to such a danger, as to be accountable to the righteous judge for all the Church? unless it be one that perhaps doth neither believe the judgement of God, nor feareth it, that abusing secularly his Ecclesiastical primacy, he may turn it into a secular.] One would think this should be plain enough against the Papal usurpation! If they tell me that this is none of Chrysostom's works, but some heretics; I answer, When they have use for it, they can magnify it. Let their Sixtus Senensis words be weighed which are printed before this book, especially what he saith of some ancient Copies, which have the errors only in the Margin, written by some Arrian hand, and withal that it is very observable, that the errors are so intermixed, that yet you may take them out, and not maim any of the sense, but leave the rest entire, yea they seem as parenthentical or superfluous, and then conjecture whether yet it may not be Crysostomes': But whose so ever it is, it is ancient, and commonly much commended. But let that go which way it will, as long as in the undoubted works of Crysostome there is over and over again the like. In his Homil. 66. alias 67. in Mat. 20. pag. 577. 
Chrysost. on Math. 20. Hom 67. Grec. 66. juxta Edit. Comm. pag. 577.  he saith [They that seek Primacy, are a disgrace to themselves not knowing that by this means they shall thrust themselves into the lowest] state. The like he hath in Homil. on Math. 18.  
I shall now leave it to the consideration of the impartial, by this small taste of the judgement of former tmes, whether the Roman infallibility and universal government were a thing known to the Church of Christ of old, or yielded as soon as ambitiously sought? And whether this be a sit ground for us to build our faith upon, or resolve it into? And if any would see more of the resistancy of their usurpations, even when it was at the highest, he may read in Mich. Goldastus a multitude of Volumes, that will give him further information: or in Bishop Usher de Success. & stat. Eccles. he may find enough in narrower room.  
The last part of this disputation should consist of an answer to the Popish Arguments for their cause: but I can find so little in any of their writings that's worthy to be taken notice of, more than what is answered before, that I shall not need to stand long upon this.  
They tell us that, if our Church be not infallible▪ than people have small reason to hear us or regard us? or to trust their salvation on the doctrine which we deliver to them,; seeing for aught we know, or they know, we may but deceive them, as being first ourselves deceived; so that this makes way to infidelity or uncertainty of the faith, if the Church be not infallible.  
This is their all, the first and last, for aught I can find (that's worth the repeating) and of how little value this arguing is, me thinks should be very easy to apprehend.  
1. Look back to the stating of the Question, and remember how far we say the Church is fallible, and how far infallible, and it may suffice to confute all this.  
2. It's not all one to be absolutely infallible, and to be actually Not-mistaken. Nor to be certain of some things, and to be certain of all things that ought to be known or believed: Nor to be certain by such external evidence of verity and internal grace, as is ordinary to the faithful, and to be certain by a pretended privilege above all the rest of the world; even knowing the conclusion as such without knowing the medium. We are certain that Scripture is God's word: and certain that we are certain; and therefore pro tempore infallibly certain: And if we should say that we are certain that no true Believer shall ever fall from this certainty, we should speak more agreeably to the Protestant doctrine then to yours, who say that they may fall away. And we maintain that there is still an Objective certainly or Infallibility (if I may use the word actively) in the word of God and every sentence of it, which can never fail, if our faith should fail. And we can manifest to our hearers such grounds of their belief, as are infallible, and will never deceive those that trust in them  
Your argument therefore most vainly supposeth, that men's saith must be grounded on the word and credit of their Teachers, and that therefore they can have no stronger a faith, then is answerable to our credit with them. But it's no such matter: It is God's Veracity and not ours that is the formal object of the hearers faith: We do not desire (as it seems the Papists do) that they should take their faith on trust from us, and believe all on our words. We do but reveal to them that word of God, which is the ground of faith; and we prove it to be the word of God, and show them that in it which will prove itself to be so: so that as long as our Reasons, Proofs, Evidences are infallible, what necessity is there that the speaker must be infallible, and that in every thing that ought to be believed? Are all the Preachers of the Romish faction infallible? You will say, no, yourselves. Must they not therefore be heard? Or may not the doctrine which they preach beget a certain belief in the hearer? You will, I know, with one voice, say, that I may and doth. How then do fallible men among you, by preaching bring men to an infallible faith (in tant●m) and why may it not be so with us? Will you say that you preach in the name of the Pope who is infallible? Why but, how do your hearers know that; Must they take it on the preachers word, who proclaimeth himself fallible? Why then, may they not as well take it on our words that Christ and Scripture is infallible! When we say, we preach in Christ's name, as confidently as you say that you preach in the Pope's name? and so your doctrine and ours should be both uncertain, if both rested on the fallible preachers word. But if you will not bid your hearers take your word, but will undertake to demonstrate to thtm by cogent evidence, that you are sent by the Pope, and that he is infallible, and that you speak nothing but what he infallibly warranteth you to speak (all which will be incumbent on you to prove) then will we much more easily and truly prove, that God is true and that Scripture is his word (which is all that is incumbent on us to prove; seeing an infallible word, of an infallible God, must be heard, how fallible soever we may be) so that you might easily see, if you would that your task is incomparably harder than ours (even as much as to prove a falsehood is harder than to prove a truth.)  
How will you approve of such reasoning as your own in other cases! What if ten men that have been at a fight, come home and tell you, which side had the better? though they are all fallible, may they not possibly give you such infallible proof of what they say, as may make it certain? What if all the Lawyers in the Land are fallible men, yea and all other men in the Land; and do not know all things, nor all that should be known about the Laws? Doth it follow that these fallible men, may not infallibly know themselves and infallibly prove to others, even by certain humane testimony, uncapable of deceit, that this or that is indeed a statute Law of the Land made by King and Parliament? Do all men hold their lands and lives by Law, and so many dye at the Gallows by Law, and yet is it uncertain whether they be the Laws indeed or not, and all because the men that say so, are not infallible (and all are dead that saw them made!) Why but a man may be certain of many a thing that yet is not infallible in all things, nor in all that he ought to know. Your argument therefore is strong against yourselves, who resolve men's saith into humane credit, but it's nothing against us, who resolve it into God's veracity, and teach not men to take all upon trust from our bare words. It is sufficient that God is infallible when we persuade them to believe, and that we can infallibly prove to them that the Scripture is God's word, and what it containeth in the points of necessity to salvation. We can without infallibility in all other matters, infallibly prove to them what God requireth them to Believe and Do as Necessary to Salvation. It is the infallibility of our proofs▪ and not of our bare words, that is necessary to men's belief. But the Papists expect their misled flock should take their bare word, and so make the faith of their followers, a humane faith; and to blind the business they pretend to a certain infallibility as if their sayings were Divine.  
Men will make use of Physicians for their bodies though they be not infallible: Much more might they do it with encouragement, if they could infallibly tell them the true cure of every mortal disease, though there were an hundred smaller diseases that they could not cure, or a hundred questions in Anatomy and about the nature of diseases which they could not resolve. Why then should men conceit that the Ministry is vain that is not infallible, and knoweth not all things. Hath God's Church been without infallible ordinary guides from the creation to this day, and we must now begin to feign a Necessity of their infallibility? Let it be sufficient that God, and the extraordinarily inspired Prophets and Apostles are infallible, and that we have Teachers that can infallibly prove to us what he requireth of us in his words in points of Necessity to our everlasting happiness.  
And for themselves, pretending to infallibility makes them not, nor procureth them infallible, whereas their voluminous errors, and the wicked practices grounded thereupon, and their frequent self-contradictions and mutations, do proclaim aloud to the world that they are both deceivable, deceived and deceivers: while the holy Scriptures whose sufficiency they deny is by themselves confessed to be of infallible verity.  
We are resolved therefore by the grace of God, in a business of such moment as the everlasting saving or losing of our souls to venture and bottom all our Hopes on that word of God whose infallibility they confess, then on the word● of men who pretend to infallibility, and notoriously declare the vainty of those pretences.   

Some more of the Sense of Antiquity in the main Controversy between us and the Papists, to declare further who it is that is of the New Religion.  
CYrill. Hierosol. Cateches 4. Sect. de spiritu sancto, pag. (Edit. Paris. 1631.) 30.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. e. For concerning Divine things, and the holy mysteries of faith, nothing, no not the smallest thing ought to be delivered without the Divine Scriptures; nor to be brought forth by simple probability, 
☜ If the Tongue of man can speak plain this is plain.  nor by a train of words. Nay do not simply believe me myself when I speak of these things to thee, unless thou receive a demonstration of the things which I speak from the Divine Scriptures For the very safety of our faith, resteth not on the elegancy of speech, but on the proof of Divine Scriptures.]  
And pag. 36. Sect de Sacra Script. he telleth you what Scriptures he meaneth earnestly dissuading from the Apocryphal books, and numbering the same only which we own as Canonical, save that he saith [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and omitteth the Epist. to Hebrews and the Apocalypse.  
And Cateches. 17. pag. 192. he saith [And we now also ingeniously confess that we will not use humane reasonings; but will only commemorate those things which are in the holy Scriptures: for this is most safe as Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 2.4.  
And Cateches. 18. pag. 220, 221, 222. See how he describeth the Catholic Church without the least intimation of the Roman description.  
August. Cont. literas Petiliani li. 3. cap. 6. pag. Edit. Paris. 127.) col. 1.  
[Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem utramque nostram; 
Note here, 1. That it is, Ecclesia vel quacunque re alia, that Austin speaks, 2. That its cum omnibus, and therefore not an Argument only for such as deny the Church and right grounds. 3. So do we procure the flames of Popish hatred.  non dicam nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos, sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, Si Angelus de caelo vobis annunciaverit preterquam quod in Scriptures legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit. 
☞ 4. So may w● say [As if we had bid the Apostles put nothing in the Bible to prove the Roman Catholic Church.  Hac vobiscum & cum omnibus quos Christo lucrati cupimus actitantes, atque inter caetera sanctam Ecclesiam quam in Dei lieris promissam legimus & sicut promissa est in omnibus g●ntibus reddi cernimus, praedicantes, ab iis quos ad ejus pacificum gremium attrahi cupimus, pro actione gratiarum flammas meruinnus odiorum.] That is [Moreover, whether it be of Christ, or of his Church, or of any other thing which pertaineth to our faith and life, I say not [if we] who are not to be compared to him who said [Though we] but that which he next added [If an Angel from heaven shall preach to you any other thing then that which you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, let him be accursed. While we deal thus with you and with all men whom we desire to win to Christ, and among other things, do preach the holy Church, which we find promised in God's Scriptures, and which we see to be placed in all Nations as was promised, we have deserved (or procured) the flames of hatred from those whom we desire to draw into its pacifike bosom in stead of thanks.] And he proceedeth [as if it were we that so long before had bid the Prophets and Apostles that they should not put in their books any Testimonies, by which the faction (or party) of Donatus is proved to be the Church of Christ.]  
The Epistle ad Demetriadem commonly reckoned the 142. among Augustine's cap. 9 saith [Scito itaque in Scriptures divinis (per quas solas potes plenam Dei intelligere voluntatem) etc.] By the Divine Scriptures alone thou mayst understand the full will of God.] I know the Louvain Doctors put this Epistle in the Appendix and conjecture it to be of Pelagius: but 1. it shows the doctrine of that age: 2. Never did Austin contradict it, but oft say the like.  
August. de peccat. Merit. & Remiss. li. 2. cap. 36. pag. (mihi) 304. saith [Talis populus ut praedixi, eruditus in Regno caelorum per duo testamenta vetus & novum, non declinans in dextram superba presumtione justitiae, neque in sinistram secuva delectatione peccati, in terram illius promissionis intrabit:] & postea [Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus Divinarum Scripturarum certis clarisque documentis, cohibere se deb●t humana presumptio nihil faciens in partem alteram declinando] So that in Austius judgement the old and new Testament teach us enough to salvation; and in the difficult points we must not so much as incline to either side, without the Scriptures, it being presumption to speak when they are silent.  
And in his 49. Tract. on John he saith [Evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & dixisse & fecisse quae non scripta sunt, electa sunt autem quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur.] i. e. [The Evangelist testifieth that the Lord Christ spoke and did many things that are not written: but those were chosen to be written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of Believers.]  
And li. de Nat. Grat c. 26. he saith to the Pelagians [Solis Canonicis debeo sine ●ulla recusatione consensum] That is [I owe a consent without any refusal to the Canonical Scriptures alone] An hundred more such sayings might be cited out of Augustine.  
Hierom on the first Ch. of Hag. (fol mihi. 102.) speaking of the use of Heretics, saith [Sed & alia quae absque authoritate & testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei. 
Andradius Defen. l. 2. Vainly replieth that this is spoken only to those Heretics that plead only Tradition and reject Scriptures. 1. That's plainly false: for Tatianus did not so 2. He speaks of all such traditions therefore of the Popish. ] i. e. [But other things which without the Authority and Testimonies of Scripture they do of their own accord find out and feign as of Apostolical tradition the sword of God will cut down.] And he instanceth in the fastings and other austerities of the Tatiani, which he saith they suffer causelessly.  
The same Hierom against Helvidius saith [Vt haec quae scripta sunt non negamus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus. Natum Deum esse de virgine credimus quia legimus: Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus] So then the Church in Hieromes time would believe no more by Divine Faith, but what was written.  
chrysostom saith on the 95. Psal.. [when any thing is spoken that is not written, the very thoughts of the hearers are lame] And again on the 2 Thess. 3. [All things are clear and sincere that are in the Divine Scriptures, every thing that is necessary is therein plain] The words are spoken against those that would not go to the Congregation because there was no Sermon; And though chrysostom was almost daily in preaching, yet to show them that the word read was worth their hearing, he addeth this answer: And he proceedeth to answer their other objections taken from the supposed obscurity of Scripture, telling them they are spoken in their own tongue and plainly. Orat. 3. pag. (mihi) 1503.  
And on 2 Cor. Hom. 3. he calleth the Scripture the balance, the square and rule of all things; which words Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. endeavoreth to pervert in vain.  
Theodoret Dialog. 1. inter Orthodox. & Eranist. in the beginning (pag. 1.) saith [I would not have thee by humane reasons to inquire after the truth, but seek the steps of the Apostles and Prophets and their followers] And in the second Dialogue [I am not so rash as to assert any thing wherein the holy Scripture is silent.]  
Cyril of Alexandria in his seventh book against Julian (pag. mihi 159.) saith [The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them that are exercised in it, wise and most honest, and to have sufficient understanding.] The like he hath twice or thrice over in that same Section, which I will not stand to repeat lest I be tedious.  
Ambrose having mentioned the diversity of Heresies agreeing in una perfidia, giveth us this direction for cure: Itaque tanquam boni gubernatores quo tutius praetermeare possimus fidei vela tendamus Scriptuarumque relegamus ordinem. Amb. de fide li. 1. cap. 4. pag. 56. And many more express passages he hath: as [Quae in Scriptures sanctis non reperimus, ea quemadmodum usurpare possemus?] This citation I take on trust from others that have before produced it, having before mentioned more.  
Athanasius in his Orat. against the Gentiles in the beginning saith [The holy and Divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for all instruction of verity] And afterward he addeth that the writings of the Fathers and our Teachers do help us to interpret and understand Scripture.  
Hippolytus (in Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 3. Edit. col. p. 20.21.) saith [Vnus Deus est, quem non aliunde agnoscimus, quam ex sacris scriptures. Quemadmodum enim siquis vellet sapientiam hujus seculi exercere, non aliter hoc consequi poterit, nisi dogmata Philosophorum leg at: sic quicunque volumus pietatem in Deum exercere non aliunde discimus quam in scriptures Divinis] i e. [There is one God, whom we no other way know, 
* That is [Savingly.]  but by the holy Scriptures: For as he that will exercise the wisdom of this world, cannot otherwise attain it, but by reading the opinions of the Philosopher's i● so those of us that will exercise piety towards God, do no other way learn it but in the Divine Scriptures.  
Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat. li. 6. saith [Without the Scripture we say nothing.]  
In the Life of Antony the Author saith [The Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction.]  
Theodoret li. 1. histor. c. 7 reporteth the words of Constantine the Great spoken to the Fathers in the Nicene Council, after Eustathius Oration to him, thus [He showed them how grievous a thing it was and how bitter, 
Constantinus Magnus.  when the enemies were profligate, and there was none left that durst oppose them, that they should strive against one another, and should make mirth for their enemies, and become their laughing stock: specially seeing they dispute about Divine things, and have the doctrine of the Holy Ghost laid down in the Scripture monuments: For, saith he, the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles, and also the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to hold concerning God. Laying aside therefore all seditious contention, let us resolve the matters that are brought into question, by the Testimonies of the writings of God's inspiration] And Theodoret addeth, that [While he spoke these and the like things to bring them to a consent in the Apostolical doctrine, all the Synod except a few Arrians obeyed and established concord on these terms.  
Yet doth Andradius think to disable Constantine's testimony by saying that the Arrians were pleased with these words of Constantine, 
See Andrad. T●ef. l. 2. fol. 110, &c Where are the rest of his cavils.  and Bellarmine vainly endeavoreth to lessen their esteem, because Constantine was no Doctor of the Church.  

Salvianus Massil. de Provide li. 3. pag. (mihi) 62.  Salvian saith [Si scire vis quid tenendum sit habes literas, sacras perfecta ratis est hoc tenere quod legeris] i. e. [You see Scripture is the only Rule of Faith with him.  
But I will once more stop this work of citations, it being so fully done already. Only desiring the Reader to lay those before produced together with these last, and to compare with them, 1. the Protestants judgement, and then the Papists, I shall lay them here by him, that seeing them together he may the better judge.  
And for the judgement of the Reformed Churches, I shall say no more than what I before mentioned out of their own Polidore Virgil [That they are called Evangelical, because they maintain that no Law is to be received in matters of salvation, but what is delivered by Christ or his Apostles] And this is in the Scripture fully contained and safely delivered to us (which kind of Tradition of the books of the old and new Testament as Canonical, saith Molinaeus we readily receive, which is so far from being an addition to Scripture, that it tells us that nothing is to be added thereto) Compare this with the Father's judgement before laid down.  
As for the Papists judgement you shall have it in their own words, lest we seem to wrong them.  
Vasquez Tom. 2. Disp. 216. N. 60. saith [Licet concederemus ho● fuisse Apostolorum praeceptum, nihil●minus Ecclesia & summus Pontifex potuerunt illud justis de causis abrogare: Neque enim maj●r fuit potestas Apostolorum, quam Ecclesiae & Pontificis inferendis praeceptis] That is [Though we should grant that this was a precept of the Apostles, nevertheless the Church and the Pope might upon just causes abrogate it: For the power of the Apostles was not greater than that of the Church, and Pope in making precepts.]  
The Council of Trent say, Sess. 21. c. 1.2. that [This power was always in the Church, that in dispensing the Sacraments, saving the substance of them, it might ordain or change things as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver.] (So that they may change any thing that God appointeth about Sacraments, except the substance: And it were well if they would have left that unchanged.)  
The Council of Constance took the cup from the Laity [Licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie.] Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds.] So that they confess they contradict the Primitive Church.  
Bellarmine plainly saith li. 4. de Pontif. c. 5. [Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.] That is [If the Pope should err in commanding vices, and forbidding virtues, the Church were bound to believe that vices are good, and virtue's bad, unless they would sin against conscience.] And against Barelay cap. 31. he saith [In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro Potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato, peccatum] That is [In a good sense Christ hath given power to Peter to make sin no sin, and no sin to be sin.] (compare this doctrine with the Fathers.)  
The Glass in Can. Lector Dist. 34. saith, [Papa dispensat contra Apostolum] The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle.]  
Innocent. 3. Decret. de conces. prebend. tit. 8. c. proposuit, saith [Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure supra jus possumus dispensare] According to the fullness of our power we can dispense with the Law above Law.] And the Gloss addeth [For the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle, and against the old Testament, as also in vows and oaths] And another Gloss saith [The Pope dispenseth with the Gospel, in interpreting it.] More such Glosses you may find, if not yet more gross and impious; which I'll not stand to recite.  
Gregory de Valentia Tom. 4. disp. 6. qu. 8. p. 5. § 10. saith [Et certe quaedam posterioribus temp●ribus rectius constituta esse in Ecclesia quam initio se haberent] That is [And certainly some things are more rightly constituted in the Church in the latter times than they were in the beginning.]  
Andradius Defens. Concil. Trident. lib. 2. pag. (mihi) 236. saith [Vnde etiam liquet minime eos errasse qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare a Paulo, primisque quatuor Conciliis ad Ecclesiam exornandam, moresque componendos pro temporum necessitate edictis, qualis est illa quae interdicit, ut digamos creari ne liceat Episcopos.] i. e. [Whence it appeareth that they did not err who say that the Pope of Rome may sometime dispense with Laws made by Paul and the four first Councils for the necessity of the times to the adoring of the Church and the composing of manners; such as is that, which forbiddeth, those to be made Bishops who are the husbands of two wives.]  
Cardinal Perron against King James li. 2. Obser. 3. ●. 3. p. 674. hath a Chapter purposely [Of the Authority of the Church to alter matters contained in the Scriptures] And pag. 1109. & 1115. he saith, that [When in the form of the Sacraments some great inconvenicies are met withal, the Church may therein dispense and alter.] And that the Lords words [Drink ye all of it] were a precept not immutable nor in dispensable] for [the Church hath judged that there may be a dispensation for ●t.]  
B●ovius Observe. on C. 24. constit. Apost. saith [Ecclesia Romana quae Apostolica utens potestate, singula pro conditione temporum in melius mutat] i.e. [The Church of Rome, using Apostolical power, doth according to the condition of times change all things for the better.]  
Cardinal Tolet saith [Cum certum sit non omnia q●ae Apostoli instituerunt jure Divino esse instituta] i. e. [It is certain that all things which the Apostles instituted were not instituted by Divine right.]  
And the Council of Trent hath showed its usurpation of power above Scripture, in dispensing with the degrees of Marriage in Leu. 18. & 20. adding to what God hath prohibited, and relaxing what God hath restrained, and that [To Great Princes and for a public cause] When they make it sin to other men.  
These and many more of their gross sayings and usurpations against Scripture and above it: they have been long ago told of by Jewel, Reignolds, Whittakers, Molinaeus, and others; and how sleight their evasions are, the considerate and impartial may discern.  
I have therefore recited thus much of their words here, that you may compare them with the Ancients, and then see who are the Changelings and Novelists, and who they be that keep to the old Church and Religion.  
And among other ancient Writers I would desire you (besides all the forecited) to compare the Popish frame with the Directions of Vicentius Lirinensis, 
The sum of Vincentius Lirinensis adv Heres.  which he giveth us for the discovery of Truth and avoiding heresy, in his book Contr. Haeres. Which I the rather mention, because I admire that the Papists should be so immodest as to boast so much of him as if he were on their side. The sum of his advice to avoid heresy, is this. 10 Fidem munire Divinae legis authoritate. 20 Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione: To fortify our faith. 1. By the Authority of Gods Law. 2. By the Tradition of the Catholic Church. This way he saith he was himself directed to by all the holy Learned men that he enquired of: Saepa magno study & summa attentioae perquirens a quamplurimis sanctitate & doctrina praestantibus viris quonam modo possem certa quadam & quasi generali ac regulari via Catholicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere, hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli] cap. 1. (Edit. Colon. a. 1613, & pag. 617. Edit. Perionii. Lugd. 1572.) So that we are given to understand by this passage.  
1. That this was no private opinion of Vincentius, but the common way that was then taken by Holy learned men to discern Truth from Heresy.  
2. And note well that he doth not once in all the book direct us to the Determination, much less to the Infallible determination of the Pope or the Roman Church as the way to discern Truth from Heresy. And can any man of common reason that is willing to know the truth, imagine that there is the least probability that Vincentius should silence this Romish decision, in a Treatise written purposely and only on that subject, and wherein he undertaketh to give us the full and certain direction to avoid Heresies, if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion? O intolerably forgetful, negligent, delusory man, that would not give us one word of that which is now the foundation of all, and into which our faith must be ultimately resolved! What never a word to tell us that whatsoever the Pope or Clergy of Rome are for or against may be known accordingly to be true or false, because he is the infallible Head of the Church and decider of controversies!  
3. Observe also that Vincentius doth fully and purposely acknowledge the Scripture sufficiency, and never once mention any Traditions as necessary to supply the defects of Scripture, or as part of God's word when Scripture is but the other part. Not a word of such Traditions. But only of Tradition subordinate to Scripture finaliter for the true expounding of them. Hear himself [Cap. 2. Hic forsit an requirat aliquis: cum sit perfectus scripturarum Canon, sihique ad Omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur authoritas? Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipinut.] And in his recapitulation Cap. 41. [Diximu● in superioribus hanc fuisset semper est esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem, ut fidem veram duobus his modis approbent. Primum divini Canonis authoritate: deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione: Non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat; sed quia verba Divina pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes varias opiniones errores que concipiant.]  
So that Scripture is sufficient ad omnia, ad universa, only the Church's tradition, that is, interpretation is the safe way to avoid heresy, for the understanding of it.  
4 Note also that the Catholic Church which Vincentius mentioneth is not the Roman Church any more than any other: but the Tradition that he referreth us to is, that which hath been taught or held ubique, semper, & ab omnibus: every where, always, and by all.  
5 Note also that it is not any authoritative Determination, of any person or persons whomsoever: but universal consent that he referreth u●to.  
6. And it is not in lesser, probable, or controverted points: but in those great necessary points, which the Church hath wholly, every where, in all ages agreed in.  
7. Note diligently, that one of the cases he putteth is this, cap, 4. [Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam tantum, sed totam pari●er Ecclesiam commaculare conetur?] i. e. [But what if any novel contagion, shall not only slain a small part of the Church, but also the whole Church?] A presumptuous Question in the Papists sense! But what saith he to it? doth he say, it is impossible? no but [Tunc item providebit, ut Antiquitati inhaeteat: quae prorsus jam non potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci] i. e Then let him see that he stick to antiquity, which cannot at all now be seduced by any fraud of novelty.] Here 1. he supposeth that the present Church may all err; 2. He makes the remedy to be an appeal to the ancient Church, and not as the Papists, to appeal in all cases to the present Church or Pope. (Costerus seeks by a citation out of Tertullian in his Annot. to detort both.)  
8. Lastly note diligently, that it is not in all cases that Vincentius leadeth us to the exposition of the Church and Fathers, but only (as in the weighty use beforesaid so) in case of [the newness of errors, when they first arise: before they falsify the Rules of the ancient faith 
* That is, before they corrupt ancient Writers or grow so old as to pretend to antiquity themselves. , let them be forbidden by the straits of time; and before by the large spreading of the poison they endeavour to vitiate the volumes of our Ancestors: But dilated and inveterate heresies are to be set upon this way, because by the long tract of time, they have had a long occasion of stealing truth (that is, Antiquity and other signs of truth) And therefore as for all those Ancient prophanesses of schisms or heresies, we must by no means convince them, but by the only authority of Scripture, if there be need, or avoid them as certainly already of old convicted and condemned by the General Councils of Catholic Priests.] They are his own words translated, pag. 677. Edit. Perionii, & pag. 87, 88 Edit. Colon. 1613.  
So that you see Vincentius supposeth error may infect all the Church, and may grow old and so seem to be the Truth, and in such cases only Scripture must be pleaded against it, unless also we can produce some ancient Council that hath condemned it. This is the very case between us and the Papists: Their heresies are old, and far spread, though not universal nor of utmost antiquity: therefore between us and them the Scripture only must be pleaded. Where there is no need of a judge by reason of its plainness we need not go to the Ancient Church; where there is need of an Expositor, we are content to deal with them on Vincentius grounds, and to admit of that which ubique, semper & ab omnibus hath been held in point of faith, if they will do the like; And indeed this is our very Religion. Will the Papists but dispute their cause with us on these terms, we shall readily join issue with them, and doubt not of a good success. Of this see more in our Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol. divin. Canonis.   

THe Dispute which we have hitherto managed being only against Popery in the gross, and two or three branches of it only in particular, I had thought to have annexed a Brief enumeration of the particular errors of the Papists, that the vulgar might observe and avoid them; and therein I thought to have endeavoured the true stating of the differences between us, both for the avoiding of error on the other extreme, and also that we may take out of the Papists hands the greatest of all their advantages against us, which is the false-opposed opinions and unsound Arguments of such as thus err on the other side: But perceiving how it would lengthen this work beyond the intended limits, and how certainly all those that so run into extremes would fall a quarrelling with me for not stating the controversies according to their fancies, I have thought best for answering all my ends at cheaper rates to give you the chief of the Popish errors in the words of Doctor Feild, and to that end to transcribe his seventh Chapter of the third Book; that so the simple Reader may have some help to inform him without a commixed means to pervert him. And for those that desire to see the Protestant Doctrine solidly defended, and cannot have time to read many books, I know not of any one that they may more profitably and safely read to that end then the said Book of Doctor Field on the Church; and especially the Appendix to the third part, which is but the Defence of this very Chapter, proving it in particulars, that the Western Church was Protestant and not Popish even in the worst times before Luther's Reformation; and that the Papists were but a seducing tyrannical party in the Church, endeavouring to obtrude their errors against the mind of the generality of good men: In which he hath quite broken down those pretences of Universality and [All the Church] which the Papists do so fond boast in.   

Dr. Field of the Church, li. 3. Cap 7.  
Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries, wherein some in the Church erred, but not the whole Church.  
FOr neither did that Church, wherein our Fathers lived and died ● hold that Canon of Scripture, which the Romanists now urge; nor that in sufficiency they now charge it with; nor corruption of the Originals, nor necessity of following the vulgar Translation; nor the Heresies touching man's creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen, as that there are three different estates of men; the first of pure nature, without addition of Grace, or sin; and two other, the one of Grace, the other of Sin: That all those evils that are found in the nature of man, since his fall, as Ignorance, Concupiscence, Contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the Soul, difficulty to do well, and proneness to do evil, were all natural, the conditions of pure nature, that is, of nature, as considered in itself, it would come forth from God: That these evils are not sinful, nor had their beginnings from sin, that they were the consequents of nature in the state of creation, but restrained by addition of supernatural Grace, without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect: That men in the state of pure nature, that is, as they might have been created of God in the integrity of Nature, without addition of Grace, and in the estate of Original sin, differ no otherwise, but as they that never had, and they that have lost rich and precious clothing; so that Original sin is but the loss of that, without which natures integrity may stand: That no evils are brought in by the fall, but nature left to herself to feel that which was before, but not felt, nor discerned while the addition of Grace bettered nature: None of these errors, touching the estate of man's creation, were the Doctrines of the Church, but the private fancies and conceits of men.  
So likewise touching Original Sin, there were that taught, that it is not inherent in each particular man born of Adam, but that Adam's personal sin is imputed only: That the propagation of sin is not general, Mary being conceived without Original sin: That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart, or positive evil, but privative only; and that therefore there is a third place, neither Hell, nor Heaven, named, Limbus Puerorum; which is a place, whereas some think, they who are condemned thither, though they be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, and all possibility of ever coming thither, yet are in a state of natural happiness, and do enjoy the sweet content of Eternal Life. These Pelagian Heresies were taught in the Church of God, but they were not the Doctrines of the Church, being condemned, rejected and refuted, as contrary to the Christian Verity, by many worthy members and guides of the Church: who as they never received these parts of false Doctrine: So likewise the Church wherein they lived, neither know, nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins, which the Romanists now Teach, nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded, though not according to the intention of the Lawgiver to love God above all, and to do acti●●s morally good, or not sinful, without concurrence of special Grace, nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of something in us positive or privative; nor merit of congruence and condignity; nor works of supererogation; nor counsels of perfection, as they now teach; nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities; nor uncertainty of Grace; nor seven Sacraments properly so named, nor local presence; nor Transubstantiation; nor ●rall manducation of the body of Christ, nor real sacrificing of it for the quick and the dead: nor remission of sins after this Life; nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of Salvation in a part of Hell, hundreds of years, by Devils in corporal fire (out of which, prayer should deliver ●hem) nor that the Saints hear our Prayers, ●ow or are acquainted with our particular wants: nor the gross idolatry in those times committed, and intolerable abuses found in the number, fashion, and worship of their images: nor their absolution, as now they define it: nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superstuity of Saints merits, not rewardable in themselves, to be disposed by the Pope for the supply of other men's wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence: nor the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may dep●s● Princes, and dispose of their Crowns, and digr●●ie● and that whatsoever he doth he may not be brought into order, or deposed by authority of the whole world in a general Council.  
Those are the errors which we condemn and our adversaries maintain and defend: these we are all assured were not the Doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, though we do not deny, but they were taught by some in that Church. All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith, and that seeing we could have peace no longer with our adversaries, but by approving these impieties, we had just cause to divide ourselves from them, or (to speak more properly) to suffer ourselves to be accursed, anathematised, and rejected by them, rather than to subscribe to so many errors, and heresies, contrary to the Christian, and Catholic verity.   

WHereas the Papists have little else to say to us, but only to call still for a Catalogue of Professors to prove the successive visibility of our Church; we require of them first an answer to those Writings that have been extant so long on this subject: especially Bishop Usher de successione & Statu Eccles. and his answer to the Jesuits challenge (Defended by Master Sing and Master Puttock) Doctor Fields Treat. of the Church, especially the Appendix to the third part: Simon Birkbecks' Protestants evidence: Doctor Whites Way to the true Church. Abbot against▪ Hill. Illiricus his Catalogues testium veritatis. Mornays' two Treatises of the Church, and the Mystery of iniquity (to say nothing of that of the Mass) Johan. Lidii walden's. Nicol. Vignier Ecclesiast. Histor. And the confessions of your own Writers: Your after Pope Aenaeas Silvius Histor. Bohem. and that commonly cited passage of your inquisitor Rainnerius, which I will adjoin.  
Rainerius' contr. Waldens. cap 4. Inter omnes sectas que adhuc sunt & fuerunt, non est perniciosior Ecclesiae quam ea Leonistarum, idque tribus de causis. 1. Quia est diuturnior: aliqui enim dicunt quod duravit a tempore Silvestri: alii a tempore Apostolorum. 2. Quia est generalior: fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec secta non sit. 3. Quia cum omnes aliae sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrorem inducant; haec scilicet Leonistarum magna habet speciem pietatis, eo quod coram omnibus just vivant, & bene omnia de Deo credant, & omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur: solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum.  
That is [Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists, and that for three causes. 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 (or of longer continuance) for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester; other from the time of the Apostles. 2. Because it is more general, for there is scarce any land in which this ●ect ●s not. 3. Because, when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers; this of the Lyonists hath a great show of godliness; in that they live righteously before all men, and they believe all things well concerning God, and all the articles that are contained in the Creed: only they blaspheme the Roman Church, and the Clergy.  
To this add what I cited out of Canus and others before.  
Lastly, Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions, by Princes, Prelates, Divines and Lawyers, which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published, on his volumes de Monarch & constitut. Imperial.    

APPENDIX. A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors. lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7.  
To satisfy the earnest desires of some of the unlearned, who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us, that they may be the better furnished against them, and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines.  
BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists, 
Because many of these Errors are delivered only by particular Doctors, and all be not of a mind as to the sense, and some of the words may admit a tolerable and Orthodox meaning, I thought meet to add these Animadversions, to acquaint you in what sense we reject them. What I pass by without Animadversion, I leave upon them as it is here charged; and also suppose the difference to lie plain.  and yet very desirous to know them, I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them, gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. etc. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions, the true point of the difference, should in all lie plain, before them that are unacquainted with the controversies, yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering, and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors, and brief as to the expressions, I give you this as I find it.  

Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome.  
THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it. The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures: Here the Papists have many errors.  
1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the only Rule, and Foundation 
a 1. That is, as the Authentic sign of God's will: For we all confess that Christ and his Apostles are the foundation of faith, as the Authorized chief revealers; and God himself only as the principal efficient, and Christ the Mediator as the first corner stone of the matter revealed; and the Catholic Church, as the keeper or subject in quo of true Belief: for the Law is written 〈◊〉 the hearts of its members, and it is the Pillar and ground or foundation of truth.  of Faith.  
2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament, which neither the Jewish Synagogue (to which the Oracles of God were committed) nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive.  

3. This erorr is one of the fundamentals of the Romish Fabric.  3. They make two parts of God's word, that is, the Scriptures, and (their own) Traditions.  
4. They contend that the Customs and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome, are most certain Apostolical Traditions.  
5. These Traditions, or (as they call them) unwritten verities, they make equal with the Holy scripture, and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence.  
6. They number the Pope's Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures. 
6. When yet it is most clearly proved by many, especially Blondel in a just volume, that abundance of them are forgeries; and Dalaeus proves it particularly of the Clementines.   

7. At lest quoad nos, So that they never know when their faith is at its full stature.  7. They say its heresy for any to say, that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Articles of faith.  

8. By this you may conjecture from whence the Quakers have their doctrine of the light within us.  8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome, which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church, b●fore the Holy Scripture.  

9 It is the voice of the Law giver and the Law is the Rule of life and of judgement.  9 That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge, but the matter of strife.  
10. 
10. We confess (as Peter saith of Paul's Epistles) that there are somethings in them hard to be understood, which the ignorant pervert as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction: But we maintain that they have so much light as sufficeth to their ends▪ that is, to be the Rule of our faith and life.  They accuse the Scripture (which is the light to our feet, and giveth understanding to children) of too much obscurity.  
11. 
11. This is one of their greatest errors.  They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency.  
12. They say that even in matters of faith, and the worship of God, we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture (as thus: It is not in the Scripture: therefore it is not necessary or lawful)  
13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies (as if there were any heresy but what is against Scripture.)  
14. That heresy is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Church's determination.  
15. 
15. The last clause (that the Pope's authority is greater than the Churches) the French do not hold. And so they are divided in their foundation.  That the authority of the Catholic Church (that is, the Roman) is greater ●en of the Scriptures: ●nd the Pope's authority greater than the Church.  
16. 
16. They yield that the Doctrine is elder than the Church, and we yield that the Church is elder than ●●●ings. But we affirm that the doctrine as fetched from these writings is now before the present Church in order of nature, as the cause of it, at least as to the generality of members.  That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture (that is, than the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter than the writing of it. As if it were not the same word of God, which was first delivered by voice, That is now then in writing.  

17. The Negative is their master error: but the Affirmative Proposition is not denied of us as to every kind of dependence, but of some special sorts, of which I have spoken in the Pref. to the Saints Rest Part. 2. Edit. 2. etc.  17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholic Church (that is the Roman) and not the Church on the Scripture.  

18. The height of Romish arrogancy  18. Also that the sense of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome, and that the Scripture is not the word of God, but as it is expounded according to the sense of the Church of Rome.  
19 They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine, which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome.  

20. And yet I would that vulgar Translation might but be allowed to be the deciding ●●le: for there is e●●ugh in it against them.  20. They take the vulg● Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals (though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies▪ lately published by the Popes themselves, Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ.  
21. 
21. This error is an accusation of the Wisdom of God, and contrary to express Scripture, and destructive to the progress of knowledge and godliness, and such as the experience of gracious souls should provoke them to detest; and had they but this ●ne, they could never expect that the Catholic Church should unite upon their principles.  That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues; or if it be, yet it must neither be publicly read in a known tongue, nor permitted to be privately read by the common people.   

§ 2. Of the Belief.  
The Parts of Theology are 

1. Of faith, or things to be believed.  
2. Of Charity, or things to be done.    
Matters of faith are 

1. Of God & his works.  
2. Of the Church.    
The works of God are specially 

1. Of Creation and Government of the world.  
2. Of Redemption of mankind.    
1. 
1. As concupiscence is taken improperly for the corrupted sensitive appetite; so it was of God: But as it signifieth the appetite distempered or corrupted, or the corruption of the will, inclining it to evil, it is not of God.  ABout the Creation the Papists err in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man (though John saith that it is not of God, 1 Jo. 2.16. and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature.  

2. See Radas first controversy.  2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall (created after God's Image in Righteousness and holiness.  

3. A posse mori, and a posse non mori were not then Natural: But a non posse mori, or an actual non mori were to be the reward of obedience; and is now given by Christ. And a non posse non mori, or an actual death, are the fruits of sin.  3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall (which yet is not from God the author of nature.)  

4, 5. I would they would prove this Tradition to be Apostolical  4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it (which yet covered all the earth, and were fifteen cubits higher than the highest mountains.)  
5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise (or Eden) yet untouched, that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henoch and Elias, yet living in mortal bodies (where they place them as behind the stage, that they may be ready to act their parts in the fable o● Antichrist)  
To the Article of creation is annexed the Article of providence.  
1. In this the Papists err, 
1. In this they no more agree among themselves then with us.  in making man's actions not to depend on God's Providence, but on man's freewill, which they make the absolute Lord of its own actions.  
2. 
2. Saith Davenant, the point of Predetermination is a controversy between the Dominicans and Jesuits, which Protestants have no mind to trouble themselves with: But they that do are not of a mind in it, no more than they.  And that they are not determined of God (according to whose determinate Council things come to pass Act. 2.30. & 4.28.) but that God rather (who worketh all according to the Council of his will) doth follow the determination of the will of man.  
3. And that he foreknows them from eternity only in man's will.  
4. 
4. God doth not cause sin even when it is a punishment; but only permitteth it; But by such a permission as proceedeth from a punishing intention. And so he justly withholdeth his grace, and giveth men over to the power of the devil & their own lusts  Also in that they interpret the action of God as judge, punishing sin with sin, hardening men, giving them over to their lusts, and to the temptations of Satan, to be naked permission (as if the judge or Magistrate might not deliver a malefactor to the hangman, as executioner of his judgement to be punished; but should not only permit him to be punished, that is, not hinder it.   

§ 3. Of Redemption.  
IN the Doctrine of Redemption and Salvation we must consider.  
1. Whence we are redeemed, to wit from sin, and a state of obstinacy  
2. By whom, to wit, by Christ, who is the author and foundation of our Salvation.  
3. By what means the benefit of Redemption and Salvation is applied to us: where, of the Covenant of God, the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments.  
4. The effects of God's Grace in Christ, or the degrees of Salvation, which are fruits of the Merits of Christ applied to us.  
In all these the Papists do filthily err; for as to sin (which intercedeth between the works of Creation and Redemption, as a medium) they teach.  
1. That the blessed Virgin was free from all sin original and actual, as being conceived without Original sin, and having lived without actual sin.  
2. 
2. The body is not to be mortified by self-murder; but the corrupt inclinations and actions of the sensitive appetite are to be mortified; and all its motions subjected to holy Reason: And this is called in Scripture the mortifying of the flesh, and our corruption would never be called in Scripture so often [The flesh and the body] if it were not that the fleshly appetite is much of the seat of it, and the pleasing of that appetite and imagination, much of the end (that I say not the whole.)  Under the name of the flesh which lusteth against the Spirit, and is to be mortified among other things, they mean the body of man.  
3. That all sin is not a transgression of the Law (John defineth it, 1. Jo. 3.4. Gal. 3.10.) nor all transgression of the Law is sin.  
4. 
4. Sins are called voluntary, either because they are in the Will, or from the will. In the first sense the vicious habits of the will are voluntary in the second, the ellicite and imperate acts. Also they are voluntary, directly, and formally, as are the wills own acts and habits; or participative, as are the acts and habits of all the imperate faculties. And there is nothing sin but what is voluntary in one of these senses: nor any further than voluntary.  That there is no sin but what is voluntary (which is not only false of concupiscence, habitual and actual which goes before the wills consent, but of other sins also which are done of ignorance or infirmity, for though the actions are voluntary by which they are committed, yet the sin is not.)  
Sin is original or actual: The Papists marvailously extenuate original sin, and amplify and set forth the strength of nature.  
5. 
5. Neither they nor we are agreed about the quiddity of original sin.  For some of them would have original sin to be only the guilt of Adam's transgression: most will have it to be only the want of Original righteousness: And so that the state of man after Adam's fall, and in pure naturals, doth differ only as a stripped man, and a naked man.  
6. Others would have it to be a very small sin, and less than any venial sin; and therefore needeth no repentance; nor is punished with pain of sense, but only with pain of loss.  
7. Others deny original sin to be properly sin, or that any thing is found in infants that properly hath the nature of sin.  

8. Metaphors are not usually the fittest terms to state controversies in. We have vicious habits and the absence of Rectifying habits: call this what you will. Free will is either Physical (and that all men have as they are men) or moral; which is 1. To be free from a legal restraint from good (and this all have) or to be free from vicious Habits: and this only the sanctified have; and that but in part.  8. That we are not by nature dead in sin but sick: nor do they acknowledge in us an impotency to spiritual good, but a difficulty: nor that freewill to spiritual good is wholly taken from us, but hindered and tied.  

9 It is the most noble controversy among the Schoolmen: and Thomists, and the greatest part seem rather to err on the other extreme and the Scotists that hold this to rectify them, do gi● such explications of their doctrine, as are well worth our study, as you may see in Radas first controversy.  9 That men are naturally inclined to love God above all.  

10. Man's will is the Ruler of itself under God: and it's fully free from that necessity which is contrary to its natural essential Liberty.  10. They attribute to man a will that is the Ruler and Lord of itself: such as belongeth to no creature: Yea they say that the will of man is as free from Necessity as the Will of God.  
11. 
11 It is a wilful servant only.  They deny the will of the unregenerate to be a servant.  
12. 
12. The matter of their works is oft good: but because their end and manner is always wrong, therefore they sin in all: for bonum est ex causis integris.  They deny also that all the works of the unregerate are sins: or that the unregenerate sin when they do the works that are commanded.  
13. 
13. The will is free and not free in several senses. 1. It is not free from God's Government. 2. Nor from its natural inclination to good in general; and therefore cannot will evil as evil. For these were but slavery. 3. Nor is it free from the moral force of a dark and erring judgement. 4. Nor from temptations. 5. Nor from its own vicious disposition, till grace free it. But it's free, 1. From any natural determination to evil, or to unknown good in particular. 2. And free from coaction or violence. 3. And from a physical efficient immediate exterior Determiner, in ordinary natural, or sinful actions. 4. And its free from sinful habits in that measure as it is sanctified.  They say that before all grace a man hath freewill not only to works natural and moral, but also to works of piety, and supernatural.  
14. 
14. No question but the will is potentia activa naturalis, or hath such an active power: which is employed in spirituals when it is inclined by a habit thereto; but till then will not act spiritually: not because the natural faculty is absent, but because the inclination without which it will not act, is absent.  That there is in man's free will, not only a possibility or passive power, but also an active power to spiritural works.  

15. No doubt but under the common grace of Christ, an unregenerate man may do that which he shall be more disposed to conversion by then also he would have been: as our practical Divines▪ all teach, and we are fain daily to preach it to our people: or else we shall make but ill work with them.  15. That the unregenerate can prepare and dispose themselves to justification.  

16. Many by congruous merit do mean no more than the foresaid aptitude comparative to others.  16. That a wicked man by doing his best may congruously merit the grace of justification.  

17. This also some Protestants hold: But no wicked man ever did his best.  17. God necessarily giveth grace to him that doth his best.  

18. There is a common grace whose efficacy is laid on the will, as adam's was; And a special which shall infallibly bow and change the will.  18. That the efficacy of preventing grace dependeth on the freedom of the will.  

19 A self-contradiction: to deserve pardon.  19 That every transgresgression of the Law (which yet pronounceth every man accursed that continueth not in all things commanded in the Law to do them) deserveth not death: But that there are many sins of themselves, and of their own nature venial, and deserving pardon.  
20. 
20. Some sin is but consequentially against love; and other sin directly, but all is against God's Laws.  That charity is not violated by venial sins, and that they are not against God's precepts, but besides them.  
21. 
21. Who ever denyeth that sin may be done away without Christ's blood doth know little of sin or Christ.  That the blood of Christ is not necessary to wash them away, but that they may be done away by Holy Water, knocking the breast, Episcopal benediction, and other ridiculous means.  
22. 
22. Mortal sin, 1. As to merit, is all sin: 2. As to signification, symptomatically, it is all sin inconsistent with regeneration. 3. Effectually it is all that eventually kills: which is in several degrees and sorts.  That sin is called mortal because it brings death upon the soul, that is, depriveth it of God's grace.  
23. And they teach that by every mortal sin, grace is lost and charity expectorated.  
24. That this mortal sin is any that shall obtain the wills consent, though the act be not performed.  
25. That the sins of the regenerate are in the same sense mortal, even those committed of ignorance and infimity.  
26. 
26. O unmerciful men! that will dig so many pits then to entrap poor souls in mortal sin.  And that it is such a mortal sin to neglect or not observe any Ecclesiastical law, or tradition of the Roman Church.  

27, 28. Many of the ancients also were of this mind: of which see my Treat. against infidelity Part. 3.  27. That the sin against the Holy Ghost is not unpardonable.  
28. Nor that its impossible for him that commits that sin to be renewed by Repentance.   

§ 4. Of Christ.  
IN Christ are considerable, 1. His Person, 2. His Office. About his Person he erreth who thinks not rightly of his Godhead, or of his Manhood.  
1. About Christ's Godhead those Papists err that deny Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself, for that's as much as to deny him to be Jehovah.  
About the Humane Nature, both Soul and Body they err.  

2. Of this see the writings between Dr. Hammond and Mr. Jeanes: many Schoolmen say otherwise.  2. For they deny that the soul of Christ did increase in wisdom and grace (which Luke expressly affirmeth) Luk. 2.52.  
3. Or that he was ignorant of the day and hour of the last judgement (which yet himself confesseth, Mat. 13.32.)  
4. They seem to give him a fantastic body that neither consisteth of dimensions, nor occupieth a place, which when he was born did not open the womb of his mother, and when he rose did penetrate the stone of the sepulchre, and when he instituted his Supper, lay hid under the Species of Bread and Wine.  
5. Yea that they may establish that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation, they feign him to have a body that can neither be seen, nor felt, nor circumscribed, that is in innumerable places at once: which is not made of the substance of the blessed Virgin, but of bread (as wine of that water, Joh. 2.9.) and which sustaineth the accidents of bread (as their subject) For they can devise no other subject after the transubstantiation of the bread: Whence it follows, that they are no more accidents of bread but of Christ's body.  
6. 
6, 7. Saints on earth must intercede under Christ for others, especially Pastors whose office it is. And we may pray them to pray for us: But not the Saints departed.  And as to Christ's Office, they teach that Christ is Mediator only according to his humane nature.  
7. They deny Christ to be the only Mediator of intercession but join with him Angels and Saints.  
8. They teach that we must pray to Saints to intercede for us.  
9 That we are heard by the Saints suffrages and Merits.  
10. 
10. All Pastors of the Church do hold their office in a subordination to Christ's Prophetical Office: And many a Prophet there hath been under Christ: But none that hath the Office of being the universal infallible Teacher of the Church as the Pope would be.  They deny Christ to be the only Prophet, whose voice only must be heard, spiritual King, and Priest of the New Testament.  
But they make the Pope also the chief Prophet and Pastor, King and Monarch, and Priest. Whence it follows that the Pope is not only opposied to Christ as his adversary, but as his Rival.  

11. All Christians are Priests to God, to offer up spiritual sacrifice, metaphorically so called: And Pastors offer up Christ Representatively, Commemoratively and Sacramentally, but not really. The name Priest is not worth contending about.  11. And they make other sacrificing Priests also of the New Testament, having an external visible Priesthood, and that according to the order of Melchizedeck: whose office it is to sacrifice Christ again and offer him to his Father.  
12. That the (unchangeable) Priesthood of Christ the eternal Priest, is made eternal by the succession of such Priests.  
13. That an Eternal Priesthood requireth an Eternal Sacrifice, but is not Eternal, unless it be often sacrificed.  
14. That this Eternal sacrifice can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the mass.  

15. No doubt but Christ merited the glorifying of his own humane nature: But that was but consequential to his meriting for us.  15. That Christ (who is God over all blessed for ever) did merit for himself,  

16. Some of them profess that by merit, they mean but Rewardableness by promise: which we maintain.  16. That Christ's merits are not the only meritorious cause of salvation; But they hope to be saved by their own and other men's merits.   

§ 5. Of the outward means.  
LEt us now come to the external means, to wit, God's Covenant, and the administration of the Covenant in the Ministry of the word and Sacraments. The Covenant is twofold, 1. Of works, or the Law. 2. Of Grace, or the Gospel.  
1. 
1. It's no Covenant of works in Paul's sense, or as Moses Law was; But humane Actions are its condition. And as all the Ancients use to call it the new Law, so it's justly, seeing Christ is the King of the Church and it hath the nature of a Law. But the promise is the chief part: and the moral precepts prescribe no other obedience than they did before in nature: But Positives are added.  These two the Papists do almost confound: for they plainly make the Gospel a Covenant of works, and call it the new Law, which prescribes a more perfect obedience then the Law itself, for the obtaining of Justification and Salvation.  
2. That faith is stirred up, and so sins forgiven by the preaching of the word, they say is a fiction of the Heretics of our Times.  
3. 
3. In this they have some new friends among ourselves.  That the Sacraments are not seals of the promises or Covenant of God, nor instituted to confirm the promise.  

4. So say some Anabaptists.  4. That Circumcision was a seal of the Righteousness of faith only to Abraham.  

5. I would we could see this in the fruits and proof. But de opere operato they are not themselves agreed of the sense.  5. That Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace that makes us acceptable, or justifying Grace, ex opere operato, i. e. upon that very account, because the external Sacrament is administered, if they put not the Bar of mortal sin.  
6. That grace is contained in the Sacraments as in a vessel, nay that the Sacraments are Physical instrumental causes of Grace, and that they do work holiness by a power put into them by God, as the heat of the fire is the cause of the burning of the wood.  

7. His real intention is necessary to make it a lawful administration as to himself, but not to others: but his seeming intention, and their own seeming intention is necessary to the external being of the Sacrament that it be no nullity: And the receivers real intention is necessary to the effects and well being of it to himself.  7. That there is necessarily required the intention of the Administrator to the truth of the Sacrament, at least of doing what the Church does.  

8. It is not the name of a Sacrament that we contend about, but the nature and definition.  8. That there are seven Sacraments of the new Covenant instituted by that, neither fewer nor more.  
9 
9 They know not what to make of this Character themselves many Schoolmen make it to be but a Relation: And we confess that Baptism, Ordination, etc. do fix us in a Relation to God.  That in the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order there is imprinted in the Soul by God a Character or certain spiritual and indelible sign or mark, so that they cannot be reiterated: In the other Sacraments there is only an ornament or dress imprinted instead of a Character or mark.  
10. 
10. They that think it their duty to serve God by such inventions, will easily be drawn to think too well of their invented works.  That the observation of the Ceremonies which they use in the Administration of Sacraments (though invented by themselves) through will-worship is m●ritorious and part of Divine worship.   

§ 6. Of Baptism.  
1. 
1. By nature all are Satan's captives, which exorcism will not deliver us from.  THat all Infants before are possessed by the Devil.  
2. 
2. This error (in case of Necessity) some ancients and Councils held.  They grant a power to women (even such as are unbaptised themselves) to baptise.)  
3. 
3. Some of them except those that have the to●um baptismi: none can be saved without the thing signified in Baptism: but they may without the sign.  That Baptism is not only necessary, by necessity of precept (which we confess) but also to be simply necessary to salvation by necessity of means: for none can be saved without Baptism.  

4. There is a ground work laid for the pardon of future sins, but no actual pardon of them.  4. That the efficacy of Baptism does not extend itself to the future, but only to that which is past.  
5. That the laver of Regeneration is not profitable to those that fall after Baptism.  

6. If the Pope were the head of the Church we must needs be baptised into him.  6. That there is in Baptism a silent and implicit oath of obedience to the Pope.  

7. How comes it then to appear in all, as 〈◊〉 as they come to age.  7. That no sin remains or is l●●t in the Baptised: for sin is wholly taken away by Baptism, not only so that it is not imputed, but ●o as that has no being  

8. What goes with i● in m●st, before they come to age.  8. That Baptism also does confer grace to the Baptised exopere operato by the work done, by which he is truly and formally justified.  

9 In many things they agree, and in many they differ more than all confess: Of which see Zanchy oft and fully.  9 That the Baptism of John was not the same Sacrament, nor had it the same force and efficacy with the Baptism which is instituted by Christ; as if Christ were ●ot the Author of Jonh's Baptism.  
10. 
10. So the Ancients thought, and I think it the safest way.  That after the Baptism of John they must needs receive the Baptism of Christ.  
11. 
11, 12. There's no end of humane inventions when once men depart from the Scripture sufficiency and give way to their own self conceitedness and arrogancy.  That the Bells are to be Baptised by the Bishops or Suffragans with a solemn Rite.  
12. They use and urge some unprofitable and super●itious Ceremonies as if they were necessary both before Baptism and after. For,  
1. The Baptised are signed with the sign of the Cross on the forehead, on the breast, on the eyes, on the ears, on the nose, and on the mouth; that all the senses of the body may be guarded with this sign; for by virtue of this sign, are the Sacraments completed, and the Devil's stratagems frustrated.  
2. They give them hallowed Salt to eat, that being seasoned with wisdom, they might be free from the stink of sin; and may not putrify again.  
3. They play the Conjurers about little children, as if they were such as were pulled out of the hands of the Devil, and they blow the wicked spirit out by their breath, That one spirit may be driven out with ●nother.  
4. They touch their nostrils and ears with spittle, saying, Ephata, be opened.  
5. They anoint them with consecrated oil in the breast, that they may be fortified against the adversary, and he may not be able to persuade them unto unclean and hurtful things: They anoint them also between the shoulders, that they may receive strength to bear the Lords burden.  
After Baptism, they anoint the top of the head of him who is newly Baptised with Crisme or Oil. After this sacred Unction they cover his head with a holy veil, that he may know himself to enjoy a Kingly and Priestly Diadem. They give him a lighted Taper, that he may be taught thereby to fulfil that Evangelical command, So let your light shine, etc.   

§ 7. Of Confirmation.  
1. THE Sacrament of Confirmation is more worthy than the Sacrament of Baptism, for as it is done by greater Priests (viz. Bishops) which cannot be done by less, so also it is to be had and held with greater veneration and reverence.  
2. That Confirmation does excel Baptism in regard of its effecting grace to well doing.  
3. That the Sacrament of Confirmation does confer Grace making us acceptable, ex opere operato, and indeed more than Baptism does  
4. In which the fullness of the Holy Ghost is conferred, viz. ex opere operato.  
5. The matter of this Sacrament is Chrism, o●●unction, which they call the Chrism of Salvation  
6. That by this holy Chrism made of Oil and Balsam, and smeered on the forehead in form of a Cross, the sevenfold Spirit of Grace is given.  
7. For that the holy Spirit is given to us by Oil▪ as it was given to the Apostles in the form of fire.  
8. That he will never be a Christian, that is not by Episcopal Confirmation Chrismated.  
9 Instead of Imposition of hands, the Bishop gives him that is confirmed a box on the ear, to confirm him forsooth, and to drive away the Devil.   

§ 8. Of the Eucharist.  
1. IN the Sacrament of the Eucharist they teach and urge the corporal presence of the flesh of Christ. As if that Sacrament were instituted to nourish bodies and not souls.  
2. And that the body and blood of Christ is made really present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the very body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine into his very blood.  
3. That this Transubstantiation is made by reciting the Sacramental words, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. And therefore they call these operative words.  
4. That these words are to be muttered with a low murmuring: as if Christ had spoken them Magically to inchant the Bread, and not to instruct his Disciples.  
5. Thus they expound them, This (i. e. under these figures) is my body, and yet they urge the literal sense, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
6. That the body of Christ is made of the Bread in the Eucharist as Wine was made of water.  
7. And yet that the Priests when they make the Body of Christ of the Bread, do not produce it (as some will have it) but do change the substance of the Bread into the very preexisting body.  
8. That after the words of consecration, the mere accidents, and indeed all the accidents of the bread and wine do remain.  
9 That not so much as the first matter doth remain after the change of the bread.  
10. That the substance of the bread is consumed and ceaseth to be and yet is not annihilated.  
11. That the substance of the bread ceasing, the substance of the body of Christ succeeds, and is contained under the accidents of the bread.  
12. That those accidents are not in any subject, nor do they subsist of themselves, but are upheld by God after a supernatural manner.  
13. That they are in somewhat else, but do not inhere in it.  
14. That the body of Christ does remain in the host, as long as the accidents of bread remain uncorrupted.  
15. That as long as the body of Christ is in the host, It is accompanied with Angels.  
16. That in the corruption of the species, there is matter substituted by God, in that very instant in which those species cease to be, and in which something else is Generated.  
17. That the subject of these Accidents is quantity, which also itself is an accident, and which they feign to subsist without a quantum that hath dimensions.  
18. That the Elements of the Sacrament of the Eucharist do not nourish if taken in a great quantity, without a Divine Miracle. And therefore neither do they nourish the mice that take a small quantity without a miracle.  
19 But as they take away the substance of the Bread and Wine, and so with that the substance of the Sacrament: so they rob the Body of Christ of almost all the essential properties of a true body by this fiction of Transubstantiation.  
20. And as they feign the Accidents of bread in the Sacrament without the substance of it; so they must needs feign the substance of Christ's body without the Accidents of it.  
21. Many do teach the presence of Christ's body, affirming that one and same body of Christ undivided does exist upon innummerable Altars, and every where whole.  
22. That the body of Christ being in many places at once, and yet not in the space between, is not discontinued or divided from itself in respect of its proper substance or quantity, but only is divided from itself in respect of place.  
23. That one and the same body of Christ being in heaven and on earth, yea in innumerable places on earth at once is indeed visible and palpable in heaven, but on earth invisible, and beyond all our senses: There it is limited and circumscribed; here 'tis unlimited, there it has its Dimensions, here 'tis free from all dimensions.  
24. Moreover they teach an Oral and Capernaitical Manducation of the flesh of Christ, for they say the body of Christ in the Eucharist is really and sensually touched, broken, and eaten.  
5. Yea that wicked men receiving the Sacrament of the Altar, do chew the body of Christ, and break it with their Teeth.  
26. And upon the same account, is the very body of Christ devoured by Mice and Dogs, if they chance to eat the host.  
27. By reason of this Mystery of Transubstantiation, they call the Sacrament or consecrated host, their Lord and God.  
28. That the Mass Priest when he makes the Sacrament, or (as they themselves speak) the Body of Christ, he is the Maker of his Maker.  
29. The Priest does adore the consecrated Host, and does offer it to others by lifting it up to be adored.  
30. And for the same end they keep it and carry it in solemn Procession, that it may be publicly adored.  
31. That the Eucharist when it is carried to the sick is to be adored by all those that meet it, those that do adore it are to have indulgences, those that don't adore it are to be counted Heretics, and are to be persecuted with fire and sword.  
32. By this Bread-worship they commit great idolatry, whilst that they adore a piece of Bread, with the worship of Latria, which is only due to God.  
33. In honour of this Breaden-God they celebrate the feast of the body of Christ.  
34. Although they confess Christ did administer this venerable Sacrament with both Elements of Bread and Wine, and though they acknowledge this Sacrament was received of the faithful in the Primitive Church with both Elements: Yet they determine that it is to be communicated to the Laity in one kind or Element only, and forbid the Priests giving it to the people in both kinds, upon pain of excommunication.  
35. They teach that whole Christ is in either of the Elements, and that the whole Nature of the Sacrament is to be found in one of them, neither is any more profit reaped from communion in both kinds then in one.  
36. Nay that he gets more who communicates in one, in obedience to the Church, than he that communicates in both without that huge fruit of obedience.  
37. But this taking away of the Cup from the people may seem a small matter; for it is done but once every year, at which time the Sacrament is given to the people: For in all the rest of the Masses which are continual and daily, they deprive both the people and the Clergy that do not consecrate it of both kinds. For in private Masses it is held forth to be seen by the people and Clergy, and to be adored, not to be received but only by the Priest that makes it.  
38. 
38. This the ancient Church used, and I should not refuse it either way.  They urge a mixture of Water with the Wine in the Cup as most necessary.  
39 And they assert that the Body of the Lord cannot be rightly taken, but of those that fast.  
40. They have converted the Sacrament of the Eucharist by which God communicates Christ to us, into a real Sacrifice in which they do offer up Christ to God.  
41. Also the Table into an Altar and the administrator of the Sacrament into a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.  
42. They say this new Sacrificing is required, that Christ's Body may begin to be an oblation.  
43. That Christ in the last Supper did offer his body and blood in both kinds of Bread and Wine, to God the Father as an oblation.  
44. That Christ did once offer up himself for us upon the Cross, in the Mass often by the hands of the Priests.  
45. That 'tis one and the same sacrifice which is done in the Mass, and which is offered on the Cross, only they differ in the manner of oblation being without blood.  
46. Every Mass Priest offering Christ to God the Father, prays God to accept that Sacrifice, and to command that it may be carried by the hands of an Angel unto the high Altar of God.  
47. And therefore they make the Priest Mediator between God and Christ.  
48. The Priest in offering that Sacrifice to God for there's, is a Mediator between God and the men for whom he celebrates the Mass.  
49. That Christ, when he said in the Supper, Do this, commanded the Apostles and their Successors, that they should Sacrifice him and offer him up to God the Father.  
50. That by the same words Christ did appoint his Apostles to be Priests.  
51. That one never to be repeated offering of Christ, by which he hath consecrated those that are sanctified for ever, They do offer thousands almost infinite times.  
52. Neither do they do it only at divers times and in divers places, but in the same Temple they celebrate divers Masses at divers Altars.  
53. They also celebrate Masses (●●e they offer Christ himself to God) for the honour of the Saints, to obtain their intercession with God.  
54. That the sacrifice of the Mass, which they confess is without Blood, is truly propitiatory for the living and for the dead.  
55. That the same sacrifice is impetratory not only of Spiritual but Temporal blessings: hence they are wont to celebrate Mass, i. e. offer Christ to God, ●or the obtaining of health, for defence, for a prosperous journey, for victory in war, and all other such Temporal benefits; yea for Horses and Hogs, etc.  
56. By the Mass, which being hired they are wont to celebrate for others: They say, they can apply to them the virtue of Christ's death to take away their sins, and to obtain all manner of benefits.  
57 By Masses are souls delivered out of Purgatory.  
58. To conclude, They have most filthily polluted the Sacrament of the Eucharist with a multitude of foolish Ceremonies, which were too long to rehearse; And yet in the observation of them they place the worship of God, and merit, and urge them as most necessary, and not to be omitted without mortal sin.   

§ 9 Of their Sacrament of Penance.  

1. The word (Sacrament) is not fit matter for much contention.  1. THat Repentance [Penance] is a Sacrament properly so called.  


2. There is some difference in the terminus a quo and ad quem as the Law differeth: but not such as to make one a Sacrament and the other none.  
Public profession of Repentance for open scandalous sins, is a needful duty, sinfully neglected by us, as it is brought to a Sacrament and ceremony with them.   2. That Repentance in the New Testament is another thing from that which was in the old, and al● that in the new Testament which is after Baptism is another thing from that which ●s before: For that Repentance which is in the Old Testament, or before Baptism, is not a Sacrament. That saying of Luther is heresy, A new Life is the best Penance.  

3. This is a certain truth: but that freewill is enabled and moved by God's grace.  3. They say contrition is an Act of the Will, done by the power of Freewill, or a sorrow voluntarily assumed.  

4. Many of them by merit mean but that ex pacto, it is the qualification of these to whom God hath promised Salvation.  4. That contrition does deserve forgiveness of sins.  
5. 
5, 6, 7, etc. In flying from their invented way of Confession, we have lamentably wronged the souls of men, by disusing so much as Christ hath made our duty and necessary, and the ancient Churches used, and we must use before it will be well with us.  That its necessary to justification that sins all and every one (as far as may be) be confessed to the Priest as to a judge.  
6. That this confession is meritorious of remission of the fault, the lessening of the punishment, the opening of Paradise, and of confidence of salvavation.  
7. Without Sacramental (which they call Auricular) Confession or the vow of it, sins cannot be forgiven.  
8. That sin which was declared under the Seal of Confession is by no means to be disclosed (though it were the Crime of Treason or Rebellion.  
9 
9, 10. Some of them by satisfying God, mean no more than the answering of his will, concerning so much of duty or suffering as he hath laid upon us. But others worse.  By the doctrine of satisfaction, they do sacrilegiously, and blasphemously derogate from the satisfaction of Christ.  
10. They teach indeed the satisfaction of Christ to be full for all, both in respect of the fault and also the punishment; but by way of sufficiency; not by way of efficiency; but satisfaction by way of sufficiency only deserves not the name of satisfaction.  
11. 
11. The everlasting punishment being remitted, the temporal punishment of God by the Magistrate, or by fatherly castigation may remain. And part of it doth remain on us all. For he chasteneth whom he loveth.  They say the fault being remitted, there remains a debt of punishment to be paid, for which satisfaction must be made.  
12. That satisfaction is required for the compensation of the wrong done to God, and the satisfying of divine justice.  
13. That a justified man may truly and properly make satisfation, not only to the Church, but even to God himself, namely for the guilt of punishment; which remains to be expiated after the fault is remitted.  
14. That it is unbecoming Divine Clemency to remit sin without our own satisfaction.  
Three ways we are said to satisfy the Lord.  

15. As satisfying God, signifieth but a sincere doing our duty, we may be said to satisfy him: But to make him reparation for the wrong we have done him, or satisfy his Law by perfect obedience, or his Vindictive Justice by our sufferings here, is impossible.  15. First, By patiently bearing the scourges and punishments laid on us by God.  
16 Secondly, By voluntary undertaking laborious works.  
17. Thirdly, By undergoing the punishment imposed by the discretion of the Priest.  

18. Chastisement is a true and proper species of punishment agreed on.  18. That all the afflictions of the faithful are to be accounted for true and proper punishments of sin.  
19 That the calamities, which are laid upon the just after conversion, are to be born in some sense to compensate their offence.  
20. 
20, 28, etc. As satisfying God is but pleasing him, all our duties satisfy.  That it is not sufficient that we repent except we also satisfy God by painful and satisfactory works.  
21. Amongst those painful works, they reckon their Whip of themselves, and Pilgrimages unto the places of the Saints, etc.  
22. 
22. Prayer and a holy life is a delight and great benefit; but accidentally may be troublesome so far as we are carnal, and therefore requireth some self-denial.  Prayer they reckon amongst penal works.  
23. Fasting also and Alms deeds they teach to be satisfactory works.  
24. 
24. One man may do a duty that conduceth to another's spiritual good, but not by merit.  That one man may satisfy for another, but less suffering is required of him that satisfies for another.  
25. That the satisfactory and penal works of the Saints may be communicated and applied to others.  
26. 
26. The Right use of Absolution applieth Christ●s blood declar●●●●ly. And is too much laid by in most Churches.  That the virtue of Christ's blood is applied to us by the Priest's absolution.  
27. That by virtue of the Priest's absolution, eternal punishment is turned into temporal, which also the Priest imposes according to his discretion.  
28. That the words of absolution are not only a sign but also a cause of remission of sin, or that they do effect justification: for by the Priest's absolution is sin driven away removed ex oper● operato as a cloud by the wind.  
29. That a man cannot be reconciled to God without a Sacramental absolution.  
30. That Sacerdotal absolution hath that force of justifying; because many desiring reconciliation and believing in Christ are damned, only because they died before they could be absolved by a Priest: or (as they otherwise express their meaning) do perish for that only they could not have a reconciling Priest.  
31. To Papal absolution we refer the Jubilees and their sale of indulgences.  
32. Also in the year of Jubilee (which they have reduced from the hundredth t● the fiftyeth, and thence to the twenty fifth) they promise full remission of all sins to those that visit the Temples of Peter and Paul, and the Lateran Church.  
33. They assert that there is a treasure of overflowing satisfactions in the Church not only of Christ, but also of the Saints which the Pope by indulgences can apply both to the living and dead, by which they are delivered from the guilt of punishment before God.  
34. That souls are freed from Purgatory by indulgences.  
35. They confess there is no need to add the satisfaction of the Saints to the satisfaction of Christ (which they cannot deny to be infinite and always overflowing) yet they (to whom gain ●s godliness) think meet to add them.  
36. Neither do they bestow indulgences for a few days or years, but for many thousands of years: from whence it is manifest they do but make a jest of the Article of the day of judgement which according to their own opinion will put an end to Purgatory, and all temporal punishments.  
37. To conclude in all their Sacramental penance they make no mention of faith at all, and of Christ scarce any.  
38. For Repentance (Penance) which they will have to be a plank after shipwreck they say consists (on the penitents part) in contrition; auricular confession, and satisfaction; on the Priest's part in Sacramental absolution, as the act of a Judge, whose words are, I do absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost.  
39 That that is a pious prayer which some are wont to use in Monasteries after absolution given for sin: let the merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessed Virgin Mary, and of all Saints, the Merit of Order, and the burden of Religion, the humility of Confession, the contrition of heart, the good works which thou hast done, and wilt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, bestead thee for remission of sin, and increase of merit and grace, and for the reward of Eternal Life. Amen.   

§ 10. Of extreme Unction.  
1. THat the extreme Unction is truly and properly a Sacrament of the New Testament, and indeed an ordinary one.  
2. That this Sacrament doth confer grace, making us acceptable ex opere operato: doth restore health to the sick, and blot out sins if any remain.  
3. That by this Unction (which they apply to the eyes, to the ears, to the mouth, to the loins, and to the hands) God doth grant to the sick whatsoever is wanting by that fault of the senses.  
4. That by this Sacrament a man may sometimes be saved, who should otherwise plainly be damned.  
1. That Ordination is truly and properly a Sacrament of the new Law, conferring to the Ordained Grace making him acceptable ex opere operato.  
2. There are seven, or rather eight Sacraments of Order, all which are truly, or properly called Sacraments, viz. The Order of Porters, of Readers, of Exorsists, of Servitors of Subdeacons, of Deacons and Presbyters, and Bishops.  
3. In every one of is given to the Ordained, the seven fold Grace of the Spirit, yea Grace making them acceptable, and that ex opere operato.  
4. That anointing is required in Ordination.   

Of Marriage.  
1. That Matrimony, though it were instituted in Paradise, is truly and properly a Sacrament of the new Law.  
2. And therefore does confer grace upon the married, making them acceptable, ex opere operato.  
3. That the Church has power to constitute impediments that shall hinder marriage.  
4. That the Church has power to dispense with the degrees of Consanguinity forbidden of God, and to make more degrees which shall not only hinder marriage, but break it.  
5. That marriage confirmed, not consummated, is also dissolved, in respect of the Bond, by the entrance of one of the parties into a vow without the consent of the other.  
6. That the solemn Vow of Chastity, and holy Orders, are an impediment both hindering marriage to be made, and breaking it being made.  
7. Also difference of Religion does not only hinder marriage to be made, but also break it being made.  
8. That marriage contracted between Infidels, when either is converted to the faith, is broken, viz. because that marriage was not a Sacrament.  
9 That the Church of Rome did rightly prohibit marriage of old to the seventh, but afterwards to the fourth degree of Consanguinity, according to the Canonical rule of reckoning (but the fourth degree of Canonical reckoning is the seventh and eighth in the Civil Law.)  
10. The Spiritual kindred (which ariseth forsooth from Baptism and Confirmation) may hinder marriage to be made, and break it being made.   

§ 11. Of the Effects of Grace.  
NOw follow the Effects of Grace or the degrees of Salvation, such are vocation, justification, etc.  

1. God's love or favour is our Radical Grace, from which flow both Relative effects in pardon, justification, adoption, and Physical in our Renovation: all which are called also Grace.  1. Where first the Papists do egregiously err in expounding the word [grace] for when the holy Spirit, speaking of these effects of Divine grace, saith we are justifie● by grace, and saved by grace, etc. By grace they understand not the free favour of God in Christ, but the gift of grace inherent in us: as if the Scripture did not say we are called, justified, and saved by the same grace we are elected and redeemed by.  
2. And then when they divide the grace of God into eternal grace, which they call the everlasting love of God: and temporary such as the benefit of vocation and justification are: again they divide this temporary grace into grace freely given, and grace making acceptable, both which they will have to be a quality inherent in us, as if either all grace which they call temporary, did inhere in us, or that which doth inhere in us were not all freely given.  
3. 
3. To deny either Relative or Inherent Grace, is to deny that without which there is no salvation. The necessity of Pardon at least, many of them confess.  Grace making us acceptable they will not have to be the grace of God, by which he loves us and makes ●s acceptable to him, according to that, Wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved: but to be grace by way of habit remaining in us, by which we love God, therefore they call charity a grace making us acceptable, as if by reason of its force and merit men were saved of God.  
4. 
4. No doubt but all have so much grace that they may believe and be saved, if they will (sincerely) Because though velle credere be not credere, as Doctor Twiss answers it, yet credere est voluntatis, as Austin answers it. But the Papists, especially the Dominicans affirm not, sufficient grace to believe to be given to those that hear not the Gospel: but only sufficient grace to ●● that which tendeth to this further grace.  Moreover when they divide grace into sufficient and efficacious grace they say ●ufficient grace is given to all and every man even without the Church, by which they have a power to will, and they can if they will, believe, and by believing be saved.  
5. If any want sufficient grace to avoid sin, they ●o not truly sin, neither are they guilty of sin before God.  
6 That in the first act of conversion, 
6. The will is first passive in receiving the Divine influx, but active in the eliciting its o●●w●a.  the will is not passive.  

7. The will hath natural Power or faculty to resist or yield, which will not be brought into act for yielding, because it wanteth moral power, that is, it is dis-inclined. But to resist it hath too much moral Power, which is impotency, yet such as grace can heal.  7. That it is in the power of man's free will to resist o● yield to efficacious grace.   

§ 12. Of Justification.  
BUt now the doctrine of Justification they utterly overthrow.  

1. Perverting the term, they cause a strife about a word.  1. For first they confound▪ justification which is an act of God without us, as Redemption, Reconciliation, Adoption, with Sanctification and Inherent Righteousness: and so confound not only the Gospel with the Law, but quite take away Justification itself, the chief benefit we have by Christ in this life.  

2. Some of them make merit of congruity (which they say, precedeth Justication) to be properly no merit. And some of them deny that there is any proper merit of condignity at all: But others are gross in this  2. They teach men to lay the cause of justification and the merit of salvation in themselves.  

3. The term Remission also they abuse, meaning by it, the change of our qualities, or putting away sin itself, though forgiveness they take in with it. And so they make many verbal controversies.  3. They will have remission of sin to be a blotting of them out, by which not only the guilt but also the irregularity itself is abolished.  
4. As in warming, 
4. This is true of Sanctification, which is the thing they mean by Justification: But by this abuse of the terms, they misinterpret Scripture. And also they so much hide the very being of pardon by perverting the words that signify it, that its hard to find in some of them, whether they confess any such thing as pardon.  the cold is expelled by the coming of the heat: so in justification sin is abolished by the infusion of righteousness.  
5. Neither will they understand justification in the Scripture, as a Law-term to be opposed to condemnation, and Sanctification to pollution.  
6. 
6. As to the Act, they make it their own by merited grace: but the habits and the grace assisting, they say is of God, and the act, say most.  The Scripture teaches sanctification to be an action of God: they make the second justification, as they call it, not God's action but their own.  
7. 
7. This is their verbal error: no doubt that which they mean by justification, that is, Sanctification, consisteth in Inherent grace.  Whereas the Scripture reaches that we are justified by the grace of God intimating the inward moving cause of justification, which is the free favour of God in Christ: the Papists understand grace, or rather graces inherent in us: which yet in the Question of justification (wherein the holy Ghost opposes works to grace) are not more opposed to works then their first justification is to the second.  

8. This they say of justification taken for sanctification, but not as taken for Pardon. But they are led still to misinterpret Scriptures by misunderstanding the word.  8. When the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by the righteousness of God, and the blood of God i. e. of Christ who is God (for by his obedience and blood, we are justified, and he is our righteousness) I say by a righteousness which is not revealed in the Law, and therefore not inherent, but which is revealed in the Gospel without the Law. They understand a righteousness infused by God and inherent in us.  

9 Still they mean sanctification, when they speak of justification. But they confess that Christ's sufferings and obedience are the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Renovation, both which they use to comprise in the word Justification.  9 When the Scripture teaches that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ, as he is made sin for us, and so that the obedience of Christ is communicated to us for justification, as the disobedience of Adam for condemnation namely by imputation; But they say we are justified not by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but partly by the infusion of habitual righteousness, viz. in the first justification, partly by our own performance of actual righteousness or good works in the second justification.  
10. 
16. They may as well talk of a third and fourth justification, for sanctification hath more degrees than two. But doubtless there is such a thing as that which they mean by a second justification, if they leave out merit: for there is actual obedience and increase of grace.  For they contend for a double justification; the first which consists in the infused habit of charity, the other in meritorious works.  
When as the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by faith without works i e. notby inherent righteousness, 
The Scripture saith we are justified by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, By assenting to his Gospel, and accepting him entirely as Christ, that is, by becoming true Christians, or Christ's Disciples. For a believer and a Disciple in the Gospel usually signify the same thing.  but by the righteousness of Christ apprehended ●y faith, and therefore that we are not justified by faith as it is a part of inherent righteousness, for so with other graces it sanctifies us) nor by any other faith, then that which apprehends the righteousness of Christ, or by any other grace (because there is no other beside faith that apprehends Christ's righteousness) and therefore by faith alone.  
11. 
11. It doth sanctify as a part of inherent righteousness: and it is the receptive condition of Pardon.  The Papists on the contrary teach faith to justify as it is a part of inherent righteousness.  
12. 
12. I would they said no more but that it disposeth to it, for than they would not say it deserveth it.  And not so much to justify, as to dispose us for justification, by obtaining remission, and deserving justification.  
13. For, say they, faith and Repentance do justify as dispositions, and meritorious causes ex congruo.  

14. Still they mean Sanctifying.  14. But that charity is properly the justifying grace.  

15. An absurd speech: but they add that it's not the form of faith as faith, but of faith and all other graces, as saving or as a new Life. And we agree that faith is principally in the will: and the Velle is by the Schoolmen called the Diligere.  15. And the form of justifying faith.  

16. It's unreasonable for them to call that justifying faith, which wants that which they take to be the form of it.  16. And yet that true justifying faith may be separated from charity.  
17. And therefore that a man having true faith may be damned.  

18. They say it must be explicit in some points, which we call essential, and that we must believe in Christ as satisfying justice and meriting for us pardon and sanctification.  18. Neither do they acknowledge any special faith which apprehends the righteousness of Christ, but they say that is sufficient, which consists in a general consent, without all affiance (yea even without knowledge) which they call implicit faith.  

19 That's but some of them.  19 For they say faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge.  
20. 
20. They manage this controversy in the dark, not agreeing with us in the sense of the terms of the Question.  Neither can they endure by any means that we say faith only justifies.  
21. 
21. Neither faith nor works are proper causes.  When as the Scripture plainly excludes works as causes from the act of justification, though it require them in the subject or person justified, as necessary fruits of justifying faith, by which believers are justified that is declared to be just; but they assert that we are not justified before God by faith only but also by works as the causes of justification.  
22. And in this matter they make James plainly to contradict Paul.  
23. And they invert the disputation of Paul, as if the Question he disputes were, whether faith justifies without works, but whether works justify without faith.  
24. That men are justified by the observation of Gods, and the Church's commands.  
25. That men deserve remission of mortal sins by repentance, Alms deeds, forgiving injuries, converting an offending Brother, and other duties of piety and charity by which we do not deny but our belief of the pardon of sin is confirmed.  
26. And that venial sins are purged away by the repetition of the Lords prayer, by striking the breast, by sprinkling of Holy Water, and the Bishop's blessing etc.  
27. That a wicked man may deserve justifying grace, ex congruo, and that this merit of congruity is when the sinner doth his utmost.  

28. So did the Ancients, even Augustine himself, and too many Protestants.  28. They deny justificaon be to proper to the Elect.  

29. This also was too common with the Ancients, and is now with the said Protestants.  29. That no man in this life ought certainly to determine that he is of the number of the elect.  

30 Some of them yield a certainty of present Remission and justification, and moral conjectural certainty of Salvation.  30. That every one must doubt of the remission of their sins.  
31. No man can be certain of his justification without a special revelation.  
32. That no man in this world ought to seek an infallible certainty of his salvation or justification.  
33. That doubting of the pardon of sin is not an infirmity but a virtue.  

34. To be certain of it is a great mercy: but to believe that it is a thing written in Scripture, that I am pardoned, is not a duty: for it is not there.  34. For any one certainly to believe that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, is abominable presumption.  

35. About this they differ: See Magro in sent that faith hath certain evidence, which Ariminensis and others confute, ●aying it hath evidence of credibility, but not of certainty.  35. That faith which the Apostle calls the substance, & evidence, and full assurance, they will have to be doubtful and uncertain.  
36. Also hope, which yet the Apostle commends as an Anchor sure and steadfast, and that maketh not him, that hopes, ashamed.   

§ 13. Of Sanctification and good Works.  
1. 
1. The mere appetite is no sin, but the corruption and rebellion of it is.  THat concupiscence in the regenerate is no sin.  
2. 
2. I would we could see one of them do it once. It's a shameful arguing for perfection by bare words, when▪ none of them will give us a proof of it by their own example.  That the regenerate or baptised may perfectly fulfil the Law.  
3. 
3. They that believe this, know not themselves.  That the works of the righteous are simply and absolutely righteous.  
4. That sins are expiated by good works according to the proverb, forsooth, he that steals much and gives a little, shall escape.  
5. 
5. Piscator and other of ours maintain this. Though a meritorious efficiency we all deny.  That good Works do concur by way of efficiency to salvation, or are necessary not only for their presence, but for their efficiency.  
6. And that good works are not only such as are commanded by God: but such as are voluntarily undertaken by men with a good intention.  
7. 
7. The Scotists and many more of them deny this: but so do not Bellarmine and many others.  That the good works of the righteous not only justify, but also by way of condignity deserve eternal life, both for the Covenants sake and also the works themselves.  

8. Waldensis und others of them deny all merit, but that's not common, see instances in my Confession.  8. And that that is merit of condignity by which a man endued with grace and the holy Spirit after he hath deserved the habit of love by former merit doth by his good works and their condignity deserve eternal life.  
9 To the merit of condignity there is required an equality of proportion in the merit to the reward.  
10. To the good works of the righteous eternal happiness is as well due as eternal sufferings to the sins of the wicked.  
11. That in every Christian work, proceeding from grace the merit of Christ's blood is applied.  
12. That Christ by his death merited that our works might be satisfactory for sins, and meritorious of eternal life, or thus, Christ merited that by our own merits we might attain salvation.  
13. That every act of charity, or every good work proceeding from Charity, doth absolutely deserve eternal life.  
14. That good works are meritorious of three things, viz. of remitting the punishment, of increase of grace, and of eternal Life.  
15. That a righteous man may deserve for himself an increase of righteousness by way of condignity.  
16. Neither do they think they must trust to their own, but to other men's merits also.  
17. That one believer may merit grace for another by way of congruity.  
1. That a justified and sanctified man may fall from the grace of God both totally and finally, and perish for ever.  
2. That the grace of justification received, is lost by every mortal sin.  
3. The grace of justification being lost by sin, yet faith is not lost.  
4. That faith is lost by every act of unbelief.   

14. Of good works particularly, of fasting.  
1. OF Fasting I have spoken already, that the Papists place Fasting in the choice of meats.  
2. That their fasts are hypocritical.  
3. And superstitious.  
4. That fasting even as it is observed by them (which indeed is the mere mockery of a true fast) is a work satisfactory for sin, and meritorious of eternal life, they impiously and blasphemously teach.  
5. Their prayers they pour out not only to God but to Angels and Saints.  
6. That we may lawfully and meritoriously beseech and pray the Saints both to intercede for us with God, and to give assistance to us.  
7. They teach men to confess their sins to the Saints that are dead.  
8. That God reveals our prayers to the Saints which we put up to them, and yet that we must go to them as Mediators betwixt God and us.  
9 They call upon God represented under some figure or shape.  
10. They mutter their prayers before images saying, sometimes the Lords prayer before a picture of the Virgin Mary, or of some other Saint, and Ave Maries before a crucifix.  
11 They pray not only in the name of Christ, but also they believe they shall be heard for the prayers and intercession of the Saints.  
12. Neither do they pray for the living only, but also for the dead.  
13. That a general intention of worshipping God is sufficient when they pray, though they neither understand nor mark what they say.  
14. They teach their Disciples to pray in an unknown tongue, and so without faith, without understanding, without feeling like Parrots.  
15. They teach them to number their prayers upon certain Beads, and to pay God, as it were a task of numbered prayers.  
16. In which also they teach them mightily to tautologize, and to hope they shall be heard for their much speaking.  
17. They not only reckon the Salutation of the blessed Virgin, and the Apostles Creed amongst their prayers, but also teach them to say a hundred and fifty Ave mary's, and after every ten Ave mary's, one Pater Noster, and after fifty, one Creed.  
18. And that prayer (even such as they are wont to babble before pictures in an unknown tongue, either for the dead or to the dead, without faith, without understanding, without feeling) is a satisfactory work for sin, and meritorious of eternal Life.  
19 Also Almsdeeds to be meritorious and satisfactory.   

§ 15. Of Glorification.  
1. AS to the state of Believers after this life, they teach, that Heaven was shut, till Christ's passion.  
2. That the thief converted on the Cross, was the first of all believers that entered into the heavenly Paradise.  
3. They make three receptacles of Souls after death, besides heaven and the place of the damned, viz. limbus patrum, limbus infantum, and Purgatory, to which they also add a certain kind of flourishing, light, sweet, and pleasant Meadow, in which they place certain souls who suffer nothing, but remain there for a while, because they are not yet fit for the beatifical vision.  
4. That the souls of the faithful before Christ's resurrection were in a subterraneous pit, which they call limbus Patrum.  
5. That the father's dead before Christ's ascension were not happy.  
6. 
6. Some of them say they are punished also with the pain of senses. See Concius Tractat. in the end of Jansenii Augustin.  All little ones dying before Baptism, they thrust into limbus infantum, to be punished with eternal punishment of loss, not of sense.  
7. The faithful which depart, either with venial sins upon them, or with the guilt of punishment (the sin being before remitted) they cast into Purgatory, to be burnt there with corporeal fire, till they be fully purged.  
8. That the suffrages of the Church such as the sacrifice of the Mass and prayer, penal and satisfactory works, as Almsdeeds, Fasting, Pilgrimages, and the like, do profit the dead in Purgatory: and especially indulgences by which the satisfactory works of others are applied to them.  
9 For the P●pe can communicate the prayers and good works of believers to them; whence it follows, as Albertus said, the condition of the rich in this case is better than the poor, because he hath wherewithal to get suffrages for him.  
10. That the Saints in Heaven do not only pray for the living on earth in particular, but also for the dead in Purgatory.  
11. That the Saints are our mediators and advocates with God, understanding our prayers and necessities, and therefore to be called upon to pray for us.  
12. That the Saints after death do obtain whatsoever they desire of God, because they deserved it in this life.  
13. That their merits do profit us for salvation.  
14. That the Saints are helpers and coworkers of our salvation.  
15. That the faithful living, are ruled and governed by the Spirits of blessed men.  
16. 
16. Bellarmine confesseth, that in such cases of fact and particular judgement there●n the Pope may err: And so no Papists living can be certain, but that they pray to the damned souls in hell, whom the Pope mistakingly canonised.  That the Saints are to be Canonised by the Pope, and being Canonised to be worshipped.  
17. Therefore we must fly to the Saints in our misery.   

§ 16. Of the Church.  
1. 
1, 2. Yet we confess a Catholic visible continued Church.  THat the holy Catholic Church that we believe, is visible.  
2. And always is visible.  
3. 
3. Some of our own say as much of late; but they mean it of the visible Church only.  That it depends not on God's election, nor on true faith and Charity, that one belongs to this Church. But even wicked and reprobate men are members of the Catholic Church.  
4. 
4. This is the heart of Popery.  That the Catholic Church is no other than the Roman, or that which the Roman Pope is over.  
5. That the Catholic Church, and the Pope of Rome are the same terms.  
6. Neither are there any Catholics, but those of the Romish Church.  
7. That he is a Catholic who believes all that the Roman Church delivers, whether it be written in the Bible or not.  
8. That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church.  
9 That the notes of universality, antiquity, unity, and succession in the Apostles doctrine do agree unto it.  
10. That the sincere preaching of the Gospel, and lawful administration of the Sacraments, are not a certain note of the Church.  
11. To acknowledge the Roman Pope, and to be under him as the Vicar of Christ, the only Pastor, the head of the whole Church, is a note of the true Church.  
12. That the particular Roman Church is the Mother, Mistress, and Lady of all Churches: yea the Mother of Faith.  
13. That the Roman Church did obtain the primacy from our Lord and Saviour himself.  
14. That the Roman Church hath power of judging all, neither is it lawful for any to judge her judgement.  
15. That the Roman Church hath authority to deliver doctrines of faith, without or beside the Scriptures.  
16. That the Roman Church cannot err in faith, much less fail.  
17. That the Roman Church cannot err, in interpreting Scripture.   

§. 17. Of the Roman Church 

The Head, viz.  
The Pope.  
The Members.    
1. 
1. Hence Popery, and Papists are denominated.  THat the Roman Pope is the head, foundation, husband, Monarch of the whole universal Church, the universal Bishop, or the Bishop of the whole world.  
2. That the Roman Pope is the rock upon whom the Church is built.  
3. The names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures, from whence it appears he is above the Church, all of them are given to the Pope. Unto this Antichristian throne he ascends by a gradation of most impudent lies, such as these.  
4. That the universal Church cannot consist, unless there be one in it, as a visible head with chief power.  
5. Therefore the external regiment of the universal Church is Monarchical.  
6. That the Monarchy of the Church was instituted in Peter.  
7. That Peter in proper speech, was Bishop of Rome, and remained Bishop there until death.  
8. That the Pope succeeded Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy.  
9 Neither do they give the Monarchy of Ecclesiastical power, but of temporal also to the Pope.  
10 Neither do they make the Pope Christ's General Vicar on earth, but Gods also.  
11. They give a certain omnipotency to him.  
12. They give him power of deposing Kings and Emperors, and absolving their subjects from the oath of fidelity.  
13. Moreover, without shame they defend, that the Pope teaching from his chair cannot err.  
14. That his words when he teacheth from his chair, are in a sort the word of God.  
15. That the Pope cannot err, even in those things which belong to good manners, or in the commands of morality, as well as in matters of Faith.  
16. We must piously believe, that as the Pope cannot err as Pope: so as a private person he cannot be a heretic.  

17. Much of these by the French is ascribed to a General Council, and denied to the Pope: so well are they agreed in their fundamentals.  17. That the chief authority of interpreting Scripture is in him.  
18. That the Pope is the chief judge in controversies of Religion.  
19 We must appeal from all Churches to him.  
20. They give him authority to dispense with humane and Divine Laws.  
21. They give him power of absolving men not only from sin, but from punishments, censures, laws, vows, and oaths.  
22. Also of delivering men from Purgatory.  
23. Of Canonising Saints, and giving them honours, that they may be prayed to in the Public Prayers of the Church, that Churches and Altars may be built for their honour, that Masses and Canonical hours be offered publicly for their honour, and feast-days be celebrated, That their Pictures be drawn with a certain splendour, that their Relics be put into precious boxes, and publicly honoured.  
24. We must believe that the Pope (who sometime puts Murderers, Traitors, King-killers, and other Capital offenders into the Calendar of Saints and Martyrs) never errs in the Canonising of Saints.   

§ 18. The Members of the Church are considered, either as 

Congregated in Councils, or Severally.    
1. THe office of convocating General Councils, properly belongs to the Pope.  
2, That in no case a true and perfect Council can be called, without the Pope's authority, no not if it be necessary for the Church, and yet the Pope will not, or cannot call one, nor if the Pope be a heretic. And therefore that a Council held without the Pope's Authority is an unlawful meeting or Conventicle, not a Council.  
3. That 'tis the proper office of the Pope, that by himself or his Legates, he be precedent of the universal Council, and as the supreme judge do moderate all.  
4. That the decree of a General Council made without the consent of the Pope, or his Legate, is unlawful.  

5. The French agree not to these.  5. That the Power of confirming or rejecting General Councils is in the Pope of Rome, neither are the Councils authentical, unless they be confirmed by the Pope.  
6. That the distinction of lawful and unlawful Councils does depend upon his only will.  
7. That the sentence of a General Council in a matter of faith is the last judgement of the Church, from which it cannot appeal: yet that we may appeal from a General Council to the Pope.  
8. That the Pope can neither be judged nor punished by a Council or by any mortals.  
9 That the Pope cannot submit himself to the coactive judgement of Councils.  
10. That the Pope is absolutely over the universal Church, and above a General Council, so that he can acknowledge no judgement above him.  
11. We must believe with Catholic faith, that General Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot err neither in faith nor manners.  
12. That particular Councils approved by the Pope cannot err.  
13. That the power of the Pope and Council together, is not greater than the Pope's alone. Turrecrem. l. 3. c. 41.   

§ 19 Of the Members by themselves.  
1. 
1. Of the visible Church we say the same.  THat to make a member of the Catholic Church, there is not required grace, or any internal virtue, but a profession of faith is sufficient.  
The Members of the Church considered severally, are, 

The Clergy.  
The Laity.    
2. That Clergy men are not held under civil Laws, by any coactive, but only directive bond.  
3. That Clergy men breaking the Civil Law, cannot yet be punished by any civil Judge, nor be brought before the Tribunal of Secular Magistrates.  
4. That the goods of the Clergy, both Ecclesiastical and Secular, are free from the Tribute and Tax of Secular Princes.  
5. That men are to be prepared for receiving Orders, by the first shaving.  
6. By how much the higher degree of Order any one is in, by so much the larger shaving is he to be crowned with.  
7. That single life is always joined to holy Orders, by Divine right.  

The Popish Clergy a●● either 

Seculars and those either  
Regulars 

Of the lowest Order.  
Of the higher Order▪ which they call Priests and are both 

The less as Presbyters.  
The greater as Bishops.         
8. That the Clergy men of the highest Order are Priests, properly so called, which they say are instituted to offer an external and real sacrifice.  
9 The choice of Bishops does belong to the Pope by Divine right.  

10. The Spaniards hindered the passing of that in the Council of Trent.  That all the Bishops receive jurisdiction from the Pope.  
11. The Roman Church hath Cardinals for sides-men to the Pope, upon whom the universal Church is turned as upon hinges.  
12. These are to be joined with the Pope in the Government of the universal Church.  
13. That those, whether they be Bishops or Presbyters, or Deacons are not only to be preferred before other Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Patriarches, but to be equalled even with Kings.   

§ 20. Of Councils and Monastical vows.  
1. THey teach that there are Evangelical Councils distinct from commands, which no man is bound to perform, but they who profess perfection, and would deserve more and greater things than eternal life.  
2. That the study of perfection is not of command but Councils.  
3. Such Councils are those, of not seeking revenge, of loving our adversaries, of not swearing, etc.  
4. Not to obey a Council is no fin.  
5. 
5. 6. Have the Quakers learned this distinction of perfection, yet?  That some perfection is necessary to salvation, and that consists in the full observation of the commands.  
6. That some other perfection is greater and is necessary, not simply for salvation, but for a more excellent degree of glory: and that consists in the observation of Councils.  
7. By obedience to Councils, men do supererogate.  
8. That vowed Virginity and single life, are most acceptable worship to God.  
9 Yea, and the greatest satisfaction for sin, and merit of eternal life.  
10. A Monastic life is a state of Perfection.  
11. All that's done by vow, is a worship of God.  
12. Monastical vows do satisfy for sin, and deserve eternal life.  
13. Our entrance into Religion, is a second Baptism, or in stead of a new Baptism, by which satisfaction is made for all former sins.  
14. That perfection is to be placed in true Monastic vows, as the vow of voluntary poverty, the vow of perpetual chastity, the vow of Monastical obedience.  
15. That voluntary poverty is rightly vowed to God.  
16. That its lawful; Lawful? yea a meritorious work, a work of perfection and supererogation in Monks to live on begging.  
17. It is lawful, yea meritorious, for the younger men to vow single life for ever.  
18. The vow of single life, is to he kept by them who have the gift of continency.  
19 There is none, but may always contain, if he will.  
20. That 'tis lawful for children to enter into a vow, against their parent's consent.  
21. They allow of great variety of vows, which have various rules of life, invented by men, beside the holy Scripture. And as if there were greater perfection in those rules, then in the doctrine of the Gospel, and a more compendious way to perfection and salvation: they teach, by the observation of them, eternal life and a more excellent degree of glory is obtained.  
22. They give the obedience which is due only to God, unto the men that live after the Rules of the Franciscan, Domincan order, etc.  
23. That the Apostles were the first Christian Monks.  
24 To them who are buried in the Cowls of the Monks, especially of the Franciscans they promise remission of sin in some part.  

25. In all causes materially, they are: but not in all formally, for they are not the supreme in every sort of Government (that is, in Ministerial Directive) but in their own sort, that is coactive.  25. That Princes are not the supreme Governors of their subjects on earth, in all causes spiritual and temporal.  
26. They make Princes subject to the people as well as to the Pope.   

§. 21. Of the Law.  
Of Charity, or things to be done, the sum of which are in the Decalogue.  
1. THat regenerate and baptised persons may perfectly fulfil the Law, so far as they are bound to fulfil it in this life.  
2. 
2. What need you confess sin, that can fulfil the Law so easily? out of your own mouths are you judged now, that do not that which you think so easy.  The fulfilling of the Law in this life, is not only possible but easy.  
3. That every degree of Grace is sufficient to fulfil the commandments and expel all sins.  
4. 
4. Others of them say the contrary.  That we are not bound in this life to love God with all our hearts.  
5. And all our souls, and all our strength: Neither are we bound, not to have evil concupiscence.  
6. That venial sins, as they call them, do not hinder that perfect obedience which is required in this life.  
7. That the regenerate can do more than the Law requires.  
8. They teach their Disciples to worship God under a humane shape or figure.  
9 That Angels are to be worshipped and called upon.  
10. Also Saints that are dead, are to be worshipped and called upon.  
11. That a more than ordinary worship is due to the blessed Virgin: such as they teach Christ's humanity wa● to be worshipped with; but to the rest of the Saints, ordinary worship.  
12. That the members of the Blessed Virgin are to be adored, for so they touch them [I worship and Bless thy feet, with which thou didst tread down the Old Serpent's head: I worship and bless thy comely eyes, etc.]  
23. That according to the five letters of her name Maria, she is the Mediatrix of God and men, the Auxiliatrix or helper of God and men, the repairer of the weak, the illuminater of the blind; the Advocate for all sin.  
14. They name her the Queen of heaven, our Lady and Goddess; the Lady of Angels, the fountain of all graces. Orat. Steph. Patracen. in Concil. Later. Sess. 10.666.6. f.  
15. For her honour and worship they have composed, Duties, Litanies, Rosaries, and a Psaltery all full of Idolatry.  
16. In the Psaltery of Mary, whatsoever almost David had spoken of God and Christ, they blasphemously give to her; as for example,  
O Lady in thee have I put my trust, deliver my soul from mine enemies. In Psal. 7. And I will praise thee, O Lady with my whole heart, Psal. 9 I put my trust in thee O Lady, Ps. 10. Save me O Lady, Psal. 11. Keep me O Lady, because I have hoped in thee, Psal. 15. The heavens declare thy Glory, O Virgin Mary! Psal. 19 To thee O Lady have I lifted up my soul, Psal. 25. Have mercy on me, O Lady, who art the mother of mercies, and according to the bowels of thy mercy cleanse me from all my sins, Ps. 51. And pour out thy Grace upon me. O Lady, Save me by thy name, and free me from all my misdeeds, Psal. 54. Deliver me from mine enemies, O Queen of the world! Psal. 59 Praise waiteth for our Lady in Zion, Psal. 65. Make a joyful noise unto our Lady all ye lands, Psal. 66. Let Mary arise and let all her enemies be scattered, Psal. 68 In thee O Lady, do I put my trust, let me never be put to confusion, Deliver me in thy mercy, Psal. 71. Make a joyful noise unto our Lady all ye lands, serve her with gladness, Psal. 100 And so in the rest, all which they say are to be spoken out of a pious affection to the Blessed Virgin.  
17. They prefer the Saints to the rule of the world, and the Government of the Church, as if they were the world's Precedents, and the Church's Rectors. Yea they set them in the same place, as the Heathens of old did their titular Gods and preservers: and assign unto them several Provinces, Offices, and Jurisdictions (because it would be a vast burden for every one to look to all.) For, every Region, every Parish, every Fraternity of Artificers have their titular Gods and Patrons. So P. Jovius calls them, Histor. li. 24. in the end. And there came forth lately a Commentary of Philip the 39 Bishop of the Church at Eistreet, of the titular Gods of that Church, St Richard▪ St Wumbald, St Walpurg. And we may as truly affirm of the Papists what Gregory de valentia says of the Heathens; For that very thing says he, we may apprehend them to be idolaters, because they distribute their several Provinces of offices to several creatures, as to Gods, etc.  
There are certain Saints for the cure of every disease almost, and for curing of evils: as Sebastian and Rochus for the plague: Apollonia for the toothache: Antony for the Wildfire or Gangrene: Ottilia for sore eyes: Quirinus for Fistula's, Sigismond and Petronella for a Fever, Apollinaris for the Privities (as Priapus of old) Liberius for the Stone, and also Benedict. Wolfangus cures Convulsions, Romanus the possessed, Valentinus the epileptics (as Hercules of old) Anastatius such as are mad.  
The work of delivering Captives is committed to Leonard, of assisting in war to George (as of old to Mars.) Nicholas, and Christopher are Patrons to Seamen: the three Kings, viz. of Cullen to Travellers: Margaret to women in childbirth (as Juno Lucina of old.) Gregory and Katherine to Students (as Apollo and Minerva of old.) To Merchants Erasmus, to Painters Lucas, to smith's Eulogius, to Shoemaker's Crispin, to Tailors Gutman, to Potter's Goacus, to Weavers Severinus, to Carpenters Joseph, to horsemen George, to Hunters Eustachius, to Whores Afra and Ma●dlin (as Venus and Flora of old.)  
They appoint Austin for Divines, Juo for Lawyers, Cosman and Damian for Physicians (as of old Aesculapius)  
John keeps men from Poison, Laurentius and Florianus from fire and burning (as Vesta of old.) Servatius from diseases, Job from the Scab, Barbaca from dangers, Paul and John from Tempests, Christopher from sudden death, Hubert from the biting of a mad dog.  
Erasmus and Anne (as Juno of old) make men rich. Protasius and Gervasius discover thiefs, Vincentius and Hierom restore things lost, Felicitas gives Boys in childbearing.  
They set Vrbane over the Vines (as Bacchus of old) St Lupus over Corn (as Ceres of old) Gallus over the Geese, Wendiline over Sheep, Pelagius over Oxen, Eulegius over Horses, Anthony over the Swine; Medardus has the care of Wine, Ludovicus Minorisa of Ale, etc.  
They worship fourteen whom they call Assistants or Helpers, George, Basil, Erasmus, Pantaleon, Vitus, Christopher, Dionysius, Cyriacus, Achacius, Eustachius, Aegidius, Margaret, Barbary, and Katherine.  
18. The Relics also of the Saints they worship and reverence, of which I will relate twelve errors and abuses of the Papists, as they are noted by Chemnitius.  
1. That the bodies, ashes, or bones of the Saints are to be taken out of their graves, and placed in some high place, as upon the high Altar, or some other conspicuous place, and to be dressed with gold and silver, and silk, etc.  
2. That those Relics ought to be carried in public processions and prayers, and to be showed and offered for Christian people to see, and touch, and kiss.  
3. That such Relics are to be approved by the Pope; and that approbation is to be by canonising them.  
4. That 'tis a singular and meritorious worship of God, if the people to obtain help by it, shall touch, kiss, or walk before with an adoring mind and gesture, or shall do reverence to these Relics, by candles, silk cover, garlands or other the like ornaments.  
5. That the grace and power of God (which they say is in them or present by them) is to be sought for in these Relics: and that they are made partakers of it, who do touch them or behold them.  
6. That 'tis an acceptable sacrifice to God, to offer up precious gifts to these Relics.  
7. Many indulgences for sin, are promised to such as touch and kiss them, etc.  
8. That our prayer is the better, worthier, and more acceptable to God, if it be done by or before the Saints Relics, by whose merits we may obtain help: And therefore in our necessities we must make Vows, and take Pilgrimages unto those places, where the Relics of Saints are held to be, that we may call upon them for their help.  
9 That it adds much to the holiness of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, if the Saints Relics are set enclosed upon the Altar, nay that the Altar is consecrated by their touching it.  
10 That the Saints Relics may be lawfully laid over one, or carried about one's neck in devotion and faith to God, and the Saints whose Relics they are:  
11. Oaths among the Papists are taken by touching the Saints Relics that so the obligation of the oath may be divided betwixt God and the Saints.  
12. All places among the Papists are full of uncertain, counterfeit, and false Relics, to which without difference the same veneration and honour is given.  
19 They make them Pictures to worship them.  
20. They dispute, that Images of God are not forbidden.  
21. That Images are properly and per se to be worshipped.  
23. That Images are to be worshipped with the same worship, as is due to the Person, or Exemplar.  
24. They defend Pilgrimages to holy places, and Relics and Saints Pictures: and they promise large indulgences to Pilgrims.  
25. That the Cross of Christ is to be worshipped with the worship Latria.  
26. That they are in some sort sanctified who touch the Relics or the Cross.  
27. That some holiness accrues to things that are signed with the Cross  
28 That the Sacrament of the Altar▪ or the host consecrated, is to be worshipped with Latria  
29. They adore the Pope as a kind of Deity.  
30. The greatest part of the Popish Religion is mere superstition, and will-worship: yea mere hypocrisy▪ or a form of godliness, resting in external works and observations.  
31. They worship God after the commandments of men.  
32. they defend the ceremonies invented by themselves or taken from Jews or Heathens to be a part of worship pleasing to God.  
33. And to be observed, as the Law of God.  
34 That their observation deserves remission of sin.  
35 That no ceremonies appointed by the Church can be omitted without mortal sin, nor without scandal. 
35. I would they had no company in this error.   
36. That things consecrated by themselves, as holy Water, Agnus Dei's, &c. have spiritual effects, to drive away devils, to blot out sins, etc.  
37. They conjure salt (yea and herbs) and consecreate it, that it may be healthful to the mind and body of those that take it.  
38. They Baptise and consecrate the Bells, making them Godfathers, to fright away devils, and drive away Tempests.  
39 That their ringing does profit the dead.  
40. The Chrism being consecrated the Bishop and Presbyters salute it, in these words, God save St. Chrisma Ave S. Chrisma.  
41. They give it a power to confer upon the anointed health to the body, and holiness to the soul, and so the Holy Ghost himself  
42. That every Church solemnly consecrated, is endued with a divine virtue.  
43. The many abuses of fasting and prayer I touched before.  
44. They teach men to swear by the creatures.  
45. They deny oaths to be fit for the perfect.  
46. Vows made to the Saints they defend.  
47. That the Pope can absolve from the bond of vows and oaths.  
48. They consecreate feast days to the worship of Saints.  
49. And some they consecreate to patronise their own errors as the feast of Conception, the feast of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the feast of Christ's body, and of Peter's chair, and of all souls, etc.  
50. That feast days are in truth more holy than others.  
51. They exempt the Clergy from the secular yoke, i.e. they exempt ecclesiastics, both persons and goods, from the obedience of Temporal Lords, and from their jurisdiction in personals and reals, in civil things and criminal; and therefore that the civil judge cannot punish Clergymen.  
52. That the Clergy is not bound to pay tribute to Princes.  
53. That the Rebellion of a Clergyman against the King, is not Treason.  
54. That the Pope can forbid subjects to keep the oath of fidelity, to Christian Kings, if they be such as acknowledge not the Roman sea.  
55. That the Pope can absolve subjects from the oath of fidelity.  
56. That the Pope has power to depose Princes.  
57 That the subjects of such Princes are bound to obey such a sentence, if it be published.  
58. That if grave and learned men (such as the Jesuits especially are) shall judge any Prince to be a Tyrant, it is lawful for their subjects to overthrow them, and if they want power to poison them.  
59 That the subjects of the most Christian Kings, whom they call Lutherans and Sacramentarians, are free from all bonds, and that they may lawfully destroy their Kings.  
60. That 'tis not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Infidel or a heretic indeavoring to draw men to his Sect, but they are bound to depose him.  
61. That the ancient Christians did not depose such because they wanted power.  
62. That the Pope may give the Kingdoms and Principalities, and Lordships of all those whom he judges heretics unto his Roman Catholics, or may adjudge them to those that can lay hold of them.  
63. That 'tis not only lawful, but meritorious to kill Princes that are excommunicated by the Pope.  
64. They suffer Stews, and stoutly defend their toleration.  
65. They forbid the Clergy to marry.  
66. That Priest does better, say they, that keeps a Concubine, than he that marries a wife.  
67. That marriage after the vow of Chastity, is worse than Adultery.  
68 That single life (even as it is vowed and practised in the Roman Church) is a worship most acceptable to God, and satisfactory for sin, and meritorious of eternal life.  
69. That the Pope with a whorish intention, makes gain (as Leno did) by the prostitution of Whores.  
70. That all faults are sold at a certain price, in the Pope's Tax.  
71. An officious lie they allow of.  
72. They approve and teach the Mystery of equivocation.  

72, 73. This may give us some light into the juggle of our times.  73. The act of counterfeiting and dissembling with great men, they commend, as good and profitable.  
74. They say Faith is not to be kept with Heretics.  
75. That the desires of the will going before assent, are not sins.  
76. Neither is concupiscence a sin in the Baptised.  
77. That in concupiscence there is only the evil of punishment not of sin.  
78. By that command, thou shalt not covet, it is not forbidden, that we have no evil desires.  
I have recited a huge Catalogue of errors, to which I doubt not but many more may be heaped up: As those (which we are refuting in this book) about Antichrist: By all which it appears, that the opposition of the Pope to Christ's truth, is not a particular opposition, as in some heretics but universal, such as we may look for from Antichrist, Thus far Bishop G. Downame.  
FINIS.