AN VNERRABLE CHURCH OR NOON BEING A REJOINDER TO THE UNERRING UNERRABLE CHURCH Against D R Andrew Sall's Reply entitled The Catholic Apostolic Church of England.  
Written by J. S. and dedicated to the most illustrious Prince, James Duke of Ormond, etc.  
He presented to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. Ephes. 5. 27.  
Anno 1678.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
AFter twelve full months that this Treatise leys by, ready for the print, it comes to light; too late in the Author's opinion; better late than never, in the judgement of others; and some perhaps will say, better never; each one as he fancies; but the book, which is a Debtor Sapientibus & Insipientibus, to the Wyse and foolish; goes near hand to please both: to the foolish who would not have it come out; its some satisfaction, that its come out so late; to the Wyse, who so earnestly desired it, its a satisfaction, that it comes out, though later than they expected it. They who liked the former Treatise, probably will not mislike this: the blind with ignorance or prejudice will like neither. As it has met with a foreign Printer who understands not the language, so it may unluckily meet some Homely Reader who understands not the sense of it; the First has been so ingenuous as to confess his Erratas, and given you a Catalogue of them in the end of the book; but I do much fear● the second will not be so humble, as to acknowledge his Ignorance: Pardon the first, and Pray for the second.   

TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE James, Duke, Marques, and Earl of Ormond, Earl of Brecknock and Ossery, Viscount Thurles, Baron of Arklow, Lord of the Regalities and Liberties of the County Palatin of Tipperary; Chancellor of the Universities of Oxford and Dublin, Lord Lieutenant General, and General Governor of his Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Somerset, the Cities of Bath and Wells, Lord high Steward of his Majesty's Household, one of his Majesty's most honourable privy Council, of his Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and Knight of the most noble order of the Garter.  
MAY it please your Grace,  
The Catholic Religion has been twice charged with foul crimes and errors, before the supreme Tribunal of our Nation, in two distinct books, presented by my Antagonist to his Excellency the Earl of Essex; Its just I put in my answer before the same Tribunal, which I humbly present to your Grace: and though I may not expect a favourable doom for the cause I defend, from so vigorous a stickler of the Church of England, as your Grace has in all occasions appeared; yet I may expect a check of the affront cast by my Adversary upon your noble Predecessor the Earl of Essex, and upon your Grac's own Person; I accused him of impiety in having passed his sentence of eternal damnation against his Maecenas, the Earl of Essex's Ancestors, who almost all died in the Roman Catholic Religion, in which, he says, there's no Salvation: in his Reply he denies that execrable Position to have dropped from his pen; but in the 2. Chap. of this Treatise I prove evidently it did, and that it follows avoidable out of his Principles; does not the Author of such a Position deserve your Grac's frown? And though your generous contempt of the Envious of your glory, may forgive him the injury he does to your own Person; but, may it please your Grace, you will permit us to be deeply concerned for the wrong of so eminent a person, who, by the general acclamation of our Realm, is the Darling of the Commons, the Ornament of our Peers, the Cabinet of our Sovereign, the Oracle of the State, and so prime a Pillar of the Protestant Church (worthy to be of a better.) One of the glories of your most illustrious Family, May it please your Grace, is to have had in it a Saint of so incomparable a courage in the defence of God's cause; of so undaunted a constancy in persecutions and adversities, as S. Thomas Arch B●shop of Canterbury, by surnam Becket; in whose kindred the Butlers of Ireland did ever yet religiously glory; the world revered him as a most renowned Saint, which name he purchased with the price of his blood; My Adversary blots your Grac's Scutchon, by effacing out of your family this glorious Saint; he was he says, no Real Saint; he was but only a Titular one; your Saints, says he, are but Titular Saints, who purchased their Titles by public authority, as Earls and Lords do theirs pag. 228.  
Nor is this the only injury he does your Grace; the world was persuaded your Religion was Protestancy, and nothing else but Protestancy; and I believe your Grace would esteem it an affront, to say your Religion is Quakerie or Presbytery; but Dr. Sal is so kind to your Grace, as to given it you in print; for he prefixes this Title to his 12. Chap. against N. N. The large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England; and there runs upon all the Sects of the world, Lutheranism, Presbytery, Hugonotism, etc. and says all are the Christian Religion professed in the Church of England. Your Grac's Religion is the Christian Religion of the Church of England; and the Christian Religion professed in the Church of England, says our Doctor, is Presbytery, Quakerie Lutheranism and all other Sects; consider, may it please your Grace what a Religion my Adversary gives you, One and the Same Religion with the Quakers, Seekers, Mukhultonians. Not Protestant in England will deny he is In, and Of a Fallible Church; but no Protestant in England, I believe, will, acknowledge he is of a Falls Church, actually plunged in horrid errors; but if the Religion of the Church of England be one and the same with all those Christian Sects, which profess contradictorily opposite Tenets, it must be a falls Church, and deeply plunged in innumerable errors.  
May it please your grace, if the Protestant Church be such as my Adversary sets it forth, I wish you out of it with all my soul; and because I know its not much better, what ever dress, he or any other may given it, Pardon me, May it please your Grace, that without any If or And I wish you in that which is the only true and Saving Church; that as your Grace is the Best of subjects, you may be the best of Christians, and for an earthly Transitory Dukedom, which comes short to your vnparallelled Merits, you may enjoy an everlasting Diadem, which is the constant Prayer of,  
May it please Your Grace. Your most Dutiful and obedient Servant. J. S.   

THE PREFACE.  
THe plausible outside and fare cunning dress of I S. his discourse in his Vnerring Vnerrable Church, says our Dr in the first Page of his Reply, has put him to the trouble of searching into its hidden diseases by Incisions and Dissections of Anatomy: he has spared us this labour I thank him, the distemper of his discourse appears so visibly in its exterior parts that we need no Incisions or dissections to lay it open: but since he has played the part of a Chirurgeon, let him given me leave to act that of a Physician and present him a Doss of Pills, which shall have nothing of bitterness, but what Truth carries with it to ill tempered Palates. Those rude expressions, Scurrilous, Impudent, Liar, Impostor, Profligatly bold, and such flourishs (wherewith his book is thick set) become very well the cause he defends, which is of no better Alloy; yet it cannot but surprise me, to see him promise' in his printed sermon such a gentle temper, challenging only to a sober exchange of Scripture and reason; and in his late book I found him so peevish and boisterous, that he yields to noon of his Reform Writers in their accustomed style; but Alas! he who broke thofe sacred ties which he had to God and his Church; its not to be admired he infringes bonds of a small seyse: I confess I am apt to believe this coin is not of our D rs stamping; nor yet of any school man of that noble University of Oxford, as some do imagine; doubtless it must have been fetched from Billingsgate; but our Dr is to be Blamed for permitting a book so filthily worded to be published in his name, without any thing that might be a bait to the attention of an ingenious Reader, but injuries, tales of Popes, Friars, parities of turnips, rotten apples, and Spanish Proverbs, saluting Modesty a far of in his 13. Page; Pardon me, o Sacred Laws of Modesty, and this compliment being made, he bids Modesty A Dieu, and no more news of it in all his book, but rattles and scolds beyond measure without any thing that relishes a scholar, or an answer to his Antagonist; but some little words here and there (like few grains of corn in a heap of chafe) without any connexion, or sense, either to enervat his Adversari's arguments or establish his own Doctrine; that you would think its some old book made to some other intent, and a new Title given it, for to make it an answer to his Adversaries.  
And this is the strain of Protestant Writers, the unhappiness of their cause, and the goodness of ours being such that they cannot better their own, nor worse ours, but by passion in lieu of reason, and invectives and calumnies, instead of solid arguments; in which art the two late Champions which Ireland has given to the Church of England, Dr Egan and Dr Sal, do so excel, that noon but the first could parallel the second: and I cannot but admire the particular study which Dr Sal seems to make of treading the footsteps of the other, as if he did strive, to copy out his actions; Dr Egan cast of his habit and become a Protestant; Dr Sal soon after did as much; Dr Egan goes to England to reap the benefit of his change in Religion; Dr Sal runs after him to do the like; Dr Egan preaches and prints his sermon, Dr Sal must do not lesle; Dr Egan takes the degree of Bachiller in the University of Oxford; Dr Sal must have that of Doctor in the College of Dublin; Dr Egan styles himself Confessor General of Ireland; Dr Sal think's Irish Titles to be too mean, and fetches them from Spain, Lector of Moral Theology in the Royal College of Salamanca etc. God bless the couple; its no small glory and comfort for the Church of England to have got them, and I wonder why they begin to be weary of them.  
But though he be very bitter all along in his book, in no where does his irascible faculty appear so sharp edged as in the defence of his imaginary Titles of Professor of Divinity in Tudela and Palencia in Spain; Lector of Moral Divinity in the Royal College of Salamanca; Professor of Controversies in the Irish College of Salamanca: He will prove me a Liar, and a Profligatly bold Impostor for disputing him these Titles; and how? mary by an Epigram made to his praise by a Prince; By Testimonial Letters of the great credit he had in Spain; by a Letter of a Venerable Prelate written in his commendation, and by a Licence under the Inquisitor General's hand for to read prohibited books, in quality of a Lector of Controversies in the Irish College. I beseech you good Reader ask him has he kept the testimonial letters of his Priestly Ordination; its a thousand to one if he has not lost them; but the testimonial letters of his great credit and empty Titles he has carefully preserved. But that you may see how far he is from proving me a Liar, and a Profligatly bold Impostor; remember, I pray, what he advanced in his printed, Sermon and observe what his testimonial letters import.  
In his Sermon he told us he was Professor of Controversies in the Irish College and his Auditory were Spaniards, french and Irish: will not any who reads this, and knows not the D rs humour, conceive that this Professorship of Controversies was some public employment, attended by so great an Auditory? I replied there was no professor of Controversies in the Irish College with Spanish and french Auditors; and this I do again aver, and will prove it; for I do not deny but that either he, who is there in the office of Rector, or some other jesuit who lives with him, (commonly he is alone) has the Title and name of Lector of Controversies; but this is but an empty Title, (as the Duke of Lorraine is called King of jerusalem,) and never yet had any other exercise, but to teach half a dozen lads, Collegians of the College; and this very slender exercise itself, it has it but very seldom; but never yet was it seen, or permitted that any extern Schoolars either Spaniards, french, or Irish should enter into the College to be taught: as I writ this I receive a letter from the Rector of the Irish College of Salamanca, a Man of credit for his virtue and learning; he writes thus in answer to my letter. Some time there has been in this College the Title of Professor of Controversies, but a mere Title without any exercise, because the employment of that Person, was only to repass and expound to the youth of the College, their Dictates, which they writ in school; nor was it ever permitted that any extern scholar should come into the College to be taught, but only the Domestic Scholars of the house: sometimes perhaps, he that was in that employment did read some lesson out of Bellarmin or Becan, which M Sal might have done; but as for to have been Professor of Moral Divinity in the Royal College of this town; there's no such thing; for there was never yet any Professor of Moral Divinity in it: as for to be Lector of Divinity in Tudela and Palencia; in Tudela there never was any Divinity taught; but there is there a Master of Cases of Conscience, whose Auditory never exceeds the number of four or five, and commonly he has noon: in Palencia there's no Divinity taught that ever I could hear of. Thus goes the letter from the Irish College of Salamanca, and you may see, that Dr Sall's censure against I S. of Profligat boldeness and a Liar, has more of good English than of truth and common civility.  
His testimonial letters of his great credit prove just nothing; for Example, a Prince forsooth made an Epigram in his praise; suppose that be true; what then? do not we all know the privileges of Poets and Painters? a Prelate banished, meets him in Pamplona in Spain, and expecting he might be of some service or comfort unto him in that strange Country, he writes in his commendation, what he would have him writ, and he thought might avail for to stop him there; what does all that amount unto? That the Prelate was desirous to have a friend and Country man in that City; and seeing him teaching Divinity, without any further examine believed him a brave man: His licence under the Inquisitor General's hand for reading heretical books as being Professor of Controversies; proves, at most, that he had that Title; but says nothing of the exercise of it; which was no more but to be a Pedagogue, as we have said, to half a dozen Collegians, and says nothing of the Spanish and french Auditory: Our Dr tells us there are Several jesuits now living in Ireland, who were Students in Divinity, when he was a Professor of Moral Theology and Controversies in Salamanca, who did see him sit with the other Lectors of Divinity examining yearly their sufficiency for promotion. Never did man speaked lesle truth and with more courage; had not misfortune frustrated, or at lest delayed our hopes, of seeing that witty Treatise entitled Haudkins Letters, the product of an exquisite judgement, and of a not lesle learned man; we should have an exact and pleasant account of the D r ' s great employment and credit in spain: but since he has cited some Jesuits now living in Ireland for spectators of his glory in Salamanca; I will declare what they depose, and I have that satisfaction of their truth and sincerity, that I am sure they would not for any passion either impose upon me, or diminish of any man's credit: two of them knew him in Salamanca, and so far from shouldering with the Lectors of Divinity in the Royal College, that his credit did not reach to be thought worthy, to carry their books; never was he of so much credit as to be either invited or permitted to argue, as much as in their Domestic Theses; never was there any Moral Divinity taught in the Royal College; nor Controversies in the Irish College but as we mentioned before; never was he a Coexaminator with the other Lectors of Divinity, but in one occasion, that some Lectors of Divinity being absent in the time of examen, they honoured the Charge of Rector of the Irish College which he had, by calling him to be one of the Examinators: and if of this little accidentarie substitution he be so full, as to reckon himself among the Examinators, and to cope with the Lectors of Divinity of that Royal College; likly, if at any time, some one did consult him in a case of Conscience, when he was in Salamanca is all the ground he has, for to call himself, Lector of Moral Theology in the Royal College; and by this Rule, if he has heard any on's Confession in spain, he might have called himself Confessor General of Spain with as much reason as his friend Egan styles himself Confessor General of Ireland.  
But will you see how this man, who so mightily magnifies himself, speaks of others; not well, to be sure; for self admirers, are ordinarily despisers of others: in his 5. chap. he touches that ridiculous Consecration of his first Protestant Bishops at the Nagshead Tavern in Cheapside, and says, its a slanderous fable invented by Papists, long since refuted, and lately revived by a Person of a great calling, to his shame and confusion; being convicted of impostures by B. Bramhal: And dare you, Dr, to charge a Person of so great a calling with impostures? a Person of so known honour and reputation, with shame and confusion? if, to have given signal testimonies of his Duty to his exiled Sovereign in the most renowned Courts of the world; if, to have the whole Royal family for Panegyrists of his Loyalty and good services, be a shame; you may accuse him of it: if, to have had Rome and Portugal for admirers of his Wit and learning; if, to have given to the world many learned Treatises; if, to have been the only man named in the last proclamation for the banishment of Prelates and Regulars be a confusion, and not a proof of his merit, that he was singled out, as the David of our Camp; if this be a confusion, you may charge him with it: if to be honoured and esteemed by the best of Catholics and Protestant's; and hated by noon, but by the worse of both, be a shame and confusion; you may charge him with it: if to have been esteemed and applauded in the Community, whereof he was once a Member, and from which nothing, but an indispensable necessity of the Church, and king's service could separate him; which he not sooner performed, and the Charge he now has, was offered him; but he religiously sacrificed that Eminent charge in the hands of the superior to God, earnestly ask to return to that Community; which was denied most prudently, because it was known his Eminent Talents would shine with more lust to the glory of God, and benefit of the Church in that great employment, than in a private life; if you call this a shame and confusion, you may charge him with it; but to call his convincing discourse of the Nullity of your Clergy, his shame and confusion, and your B. Bramhal's weak Reply a conviction of his impostures, is to betray your judgement, to be an injust balance of what is honourable, glorious, judicious and witty.  
And truly you have given no small testimony of this, in that great Title you given your Book; The Catholic Apostolic Church and faith of England: as you hope to be saved, Dr, did not you laugh, when you were writing that Title; if the frights of a biased conscience can permit you to laugh? when first I viewed it, and met in the Frontispiece of the book, The Theatre of Oxford, I thought it was a Comedy acted in that University; but since that he will have it pass for a serious discourse of Religion, we must demonstrat how ill qualified his Church is for to carry so glorious à Title; and though this has been sufficiently evidenced in my former Treatise, and my arguments in no wise answered; yet I will again so enforce the truth in this Rejoinder, that my impartial Reader will I hope be convinced that the Roman Catholic Religion: is the true Catholic, Apostolic Religion; and that Christ has no Church on earth, if there be not an Unerring Unerrable Church, and as I, to eat a tedious repetition of what I formerly said, do omit the strong arguments of my former book, which convincingly prove the points here handled; so I hope my Reader for to be fully satisfied, will not be content with reading this Treatise, but will also cast an eye upon the former: As neither passion nor prejudice has any share in my intention, so I hope my Reader will lay both aside in the perusal of my endeavours, which aim at nothing but his spiritual advantage, as being  
His friend in C. J. 
 J. S.   

THE INTRODUCTION CONTAINING SOME FEW Reflections Upon the first Part of Doctor Sall's Book in answer to his Adversary N. N.  
THE Doctor has divided his Book into two Parts; the first against N. N. the second against J. S. and though I am directly concerned in the second; yet it might be unkindly taken by my Reader, that I should let the first pass untouched. I do most profundly revere the eminent pen of N. N and am sufficiently persuaded he wants not my concurrence for to answer Doctor Sal; but I am no lesle convinced by the experience I have of his civility, that he will pardon me, that I satisfy the public expectation (as I am informed) with this bries discourse, while himself prepares a more acomplisht confutation of his Antagonist in a completer work: for I do not intent an exact Anatomy of his whole discourse; but some few reflections upon the chief heads of it; yet such as will, I hope, sufficiently refute his errors, disclose his forgery and insincerity, and help my Reader to a more perfect understanding of what I discourse in my Book: therefore I premiss these Reflections by way of an Introduction to my Treatise.  
In his 2. Chapped against N. N. he pretends to prove the Church and faith of England to be Catholic Apostolic, and discourses thus: Whatever Church that faith is professed in, which was taught in the first called Catholic Apostolic Church; that Church and faith is truly Catholic Apostostolic: In the Church of England that faith is taught and believed; because, says he, the faith taught in that ancient Church is contained in the Apostles Creed, and in those of the four first General Councils, and the Church of England professes and believes all the contents of those creeds; therefore the Church and faith of England is truly Catholic Apostolic: for, says he page 17. if the contents of those Creeds were sufficient to gain the name of Catholic Apostolic to the Ancient Chürch, first so called; why should not they be sufficient to make a Church Catholic Apostolic in all other ages.  
The weakness of this discourse is evidenced by a clear instance. In the Apostles days, when there was no creed but theirs, the faith then taught was the system of Articles contained in that creed; the Church was then Catholic Apostolic by believing the contents of it; in what ever Church that Doctrine and faith was taught, that Church was truly Catholic Apostolic; but when in succeeding ages the four first General Councils delivered their Creeds and declared some Verities opposed by Heretics; to be revealed Truths; then for to be a Catholic Apostolic Church, it was not sufficient to believe the contents of the Apostles Creed, but it was needful to believe the contents of the four Councils Creeds: Observe I pray Reader, that all Heretics will prove their own Church to be Catholic Apostolic by our Doctor's discourse, for (say the Arrians, Nestorians and Pelagians) we believe the contents of the Apostles creed, which alone, before any Council of Nice, Constantinople, etc. gained the name of Catholic Apostolic to the Church in the Apostles days; and say they, indeed it must appeur strange (they are your own wonds page 17.) to any impartial man that the system of Articles contained in that Creed, which gained the name of Catholic Apostolic to the Church, first so called in the Apostles days, should not be sufficient to make a Church Catholic in all times. This is your argument, Doctor which the Arrians, Pelagians, and Nestorians borrow from you to prove their Churches and faiths to be Catholic and Apostolic, as well as yours: does it prove them to be such, or not? if not; nor does it prove your Church to be Catholic Apostolic: you must answer them, as we answer you; that in the Apostles days until the four first General Councils, the system of Articles contained in the Apostles Creed was sufficient to given the name of Catholic Apostolic to the Church which believed them; but when afterwards the Church by its General Councils declared other Verities opposed by Heretics, to be revealed Truths; then for to gain the name of Catholic Apostolic Church, it was not sufficient to believe the contents of the Apostles Creed, but it was requisite also to believe those Verities declared by the Councils to be revealed Truths, though not expressed in the Apostles Creed: even so we say to you; though the Apostles and four first General Councils creeds were once sufficient to given the name of Catholic Apostolic; but after that new declarations were made of other Verities by succeeding Councils; for to gain the name of Catholic Apostolic, its not sufficient to believe the contents of those Creeds but that we must belleve all verities proposed to us by the Church in succeeding ages and Councils to be revealed Truths: And this our Doctor cannot gainsay, for pag. 60. he confesses that Inferior Verities are not contained in the Creeds; and yet are to be explicitly believed whenever we are ascertained that they are revealed Truths.  
In the 8. Chapt. of the Venerring Vnerrable Church, and in the 9th. Chapt. of this Treatise I prove the Doctrine of Protestancy (as condistinct from Catholicism) to be but mere Probable Doctrine; (Read I pray those Chapters) but its evident that the Doctrine contained in those Creeds, nor the Doctrine believed by the Ancient Church, which gained it the name of Catholic Apostolic, is not Probable Doctrine; therefore its evident that the Protestant Doctrine, as condistinct from Catholecism, is neiher contained in those Creeds nor was believed by the Ancient Catholic Apostolic Church. The Ancient Church believed S. Peter and his successors supremacy, as I will prove in the 14. chap. of this Treatise; they believed the Canon of Scripture (wither this, or that; it matters not for the present) they believed the Sacraments) if two, or seven I will not dispute now) their Matter, form, and effects; you believe Figurative Presence; the King's supremacy; Communion in both Kinds; and not à syllable of all these in the Creeds; how can you then, affirm that all the Doctrine believed by the Ancient Church first called Catholic Apostolic, is contained in the Creeds?  
In his 3. c. there's nothing worth the taking notice of, but two gross calumnies; the one that Bellarmin l. 3. de Ecclesia. c. 20. (and that book has but 17 chapped) teaches, that to be a member of the Church, its sufficient to profess exteriorly, without any interior Assent, the Popish Doctrine and supremacy: the second is against two Popes, Paul the fourth, and Pius the fourth; that they should have offered to Queen Elizabeth to ratify the Reformation, if she did own their Supremacy, and them to be the Authors of the Reformation: such a ridiculous story could never be better couched than in our Doctor's book. Yes indeed; the Pope would become a Protestant to curry favour with Queen Elizabeth and make the Emperor, the Kings of Spain, and France, and all Catholic Princes his Enemies? the Pope would become a Protestant, for to get a Bishopric, or Pension from Queen Elizabeth (for this is all he could expect, if perhaps he did not expect to marry her) and forfeit his Popedom; for à Pope who becomes an Heretic loses his Dignity and revenues: and can it sink into any man's brains but of Dr. Sal, that an Italian would make such an exchange?  
His 4 the. chap. has as little of substance as his 3 d. some few fragments of Suarez his Doctrine, without any answer, but, How. can Suarez make this out etc. Suarez proves irresistably that the Protestant faith, where with they believe the contents of the Creeds, is no divine faith for true Catholic Apostolic faith, must be an infallible undoubted Assent; Protestant's can have no such, whereas they have no undoubted infallible Motive or ground to rest their assent upon, as I have largely and convincingly proved in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church and in the 10. chap. of this Treatise.  
From the 5 the. to his 12. chap. he rambles upon the valid and legal Ordinatioe of his Protestant Clergy and will not allow that Pageant of the Nags-ead Consecration; a ridiculous forgery he says invented by Papists: but before we enter into a nearer inspection of this matter, we will premiss two things; first; that for a true and valid Consecration of a Bishop, besides the Form, or words of Consecration pronounced by the Ordainers; Imposition of true Bishops hands is requisite essentially; and if this be wanting the Ordination is quite Null; secondly it is requisite to tell you the passage of the Nagshead Tavern; it was thus.  
Queen Elizabeth, to maintain by sacrilege the Royal Diadem, which by injustice she usurped against the undoubted Right of the family of the Stuarts; recalled the Reformation, which Queen Mary had banished from the land; and pereiving the Prelatic Portie of it, was the mosl useful for her ends; she resolved to have Bishops, and named for that dignity, Parker, Horn, Grindal jewel, Scory and others: No Protestant Bishops Bishops of Henry the VIII. and Edward the VI were then alive; that spurious Race of Prelacy having ended in Ridley and Latimer, executed in Queen Mary's time for Heresy and Treason: and our new elected Bishops were Non plust for to be consecrated; because no Catholic Bishop would undertake it: their first address was to Richard Creagh. Lord Primate of Armagh, then Prisoner in the Tower of London, offering him his release if he did lay his hands on them; but he religiously preferred an innocent imprisonment to so criminal a liberty. Than they addressed themselves to B: Landaff, a Walsh B: who at their first on set, gave some marks of flexibility; but Bonner B: of London threatening to excommunicate him if he attempted any such thing in his Diocese; he would not yield to their importunity; they led him to the Nagshead Tavern at Cheapside in London, with a design to put him in a merry humour, and thereby to persuade him: but they come short of their expectation. Scory, a resolut blade, nothing daunted at this repuls, resolved not to let slip a Bishopric for want of Popish Ceremonies: what, quoth he? do they think we cannot be Bishops if we be not greased? (alluding to the Chrism, where with Bishops are anointed.) and commanding Parker and his Comrades to kneel, bid them; Get up lord Bishorps' of England: and this was that famous Consecration of the Nagshead Tavern in Cheapside; without any other Keys but those of a Tavern, nor any Chrism but à glass of Wine. This is no new story, like that of Mr Mason's forged Registers; Mr Neale a professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, who forfeited his chair for not taking the Oath of supremacy, was an eye wittness of the whole Passage, and related it to several Bishops: Bonner and other Catholic Bishops then living related it to Kellison, People, Holywood, Champney, Reynolds, Harding, Stapleton, and other Catholic Writers, who immediately published it in print and cried out against the Nullity of Parker and his Associates Ordination, as appears in their Books, and particularly in the Nullity of the Protestant Church and Clergy, writ by the Author of that most learned and solid Treatise of Religion and government.  
Now we will demonstrat that this passage is true, and no invention of Papists as our Doctor pretends; and that the Protestant Bishops were not other wise ordained, than as is related. For we may without offence, and aught to believe that Parker, Horn, and their other Associates, in their Ordination acted conformably to the Laws and Statutes of the land; to the Acts of Parliament; to the Doctrine generally professed by the D rs. of the Reformation; to their own Bible, and 39 Articles of England; is it a calumny, or is it unlykly that they did? But in that Ordination, though ridiculous it be in itself, and you confess it to be, there's nothing (the circumstance of a Tavern excepted) but what is warranted positively, and conformable to all those: observe Reader that if that Ordination was in a Tavern (which the Author of the Nullity of the Protestant Clergy convincingly proves) is not material for our present Controversy; the Choking bit is not that; but if that Consecration was performed without any imposition of true Bishops hands, only by virtue of the Queen's letters Patents, and Election; and this I will prove by the Acts of Parliaments, by the Doctrine of the Church and State, by the Protestant Bible and by their 39 Articles of England.  
That there's no other Priesthood in the law of Grace but Baptism; that all Christians as well Women as Men are Priests and equally impower'd. For to administer the Sacraments and to exercise Spiritual functions; this Doctrine I say sprung up with the Reformation, and was generally taught and practised by the reformed Brethrens, grounded upon that text of S. Peter 1. 2. Christ made us all a holy nation, a Royal Priesthood, and Priests to his father. Whosoever is a Christian, says Luther l. de captain Babyl. let him believe we are all equally Priests; that we have all the same power for to administer the Sacraments. Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and many other Reform Writers, quoted by Brierly tract. 2. c. 2. sec. 10. deliver the same Doctrine: this Doctrine was commonly taught ad practised in king Henry the VIII. and Edward the VI time; for though Henry the VIII. was no Protestant, yet his passion against the Pope was so outragions, that he permitted this Doctrine to be preached and practised; and in his and king Edward's time, Latimer, Ridley, and Barlow without any consecration by imposition of Bishops hands, exercised the functions of Bishops, and sat in Parliament in that quality; and Fox in his Martirol pag. 1064. relates that when Latimer and Ridly were sentenced to death, in Queen Mari's time; Doctor Brooks Bishop of Gloucester, who degraded them, declared they were degraded of their Priesthood, and not of their Episcopacy, because they had not been duly and truly consecrated.  
Nor was this the practice and Doctrine of the first Reformers only, but also of the whole Protestant Church, declared in their 39 Articles, which is the stress of the whole Protestant Religion, and the Creed of their Church: Crammer and his Associates in ●ings Edward's time composed them; in the 25. Article they declare five of the Sacraments, (whereof Holy Oder is one) to be noon, as having no visible sign, and consequently no imposition of hands, instituted by Christ for their administration: and in the 23. Article they deny any Character of Priesthood (and consequently of Episcopacy) but Baptism, and that the office of Priesthood is common to all Christians. But Parker and his Comrades newly consecrated Bishops by Virtue of the Queen's Letters Patents and Election, judging that Crammer had not sufficicienly declared the sufficiency of the Prince or Magistrates Election for Episcopal Consecration, and the uselessness of imposition of Bishops hands, they assembled together the year 1562. and set out a new Impression of the 39 Articles, and corrected the 25 the. wording it thus: Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Pennance, Order, Matrimony and Extrem-Vnction, are not to be counted Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles; parily are but states of life allowed in Scripture, but yet have not the nature of Sacraments, as Baptism and the lords supper, for that they have not any visible sign or Ceremony (observe ordained by Christ. You see that not only the first Reformers and D rs. of the Church of England, but that the first Protestant Bishops and 39 Articles or 'Greed of their Church declare that no visible sign or Ceremony, consequently no imposition of Bishops hands was instituted by Christ, or is needful for Episcopal Consecration, Its also the Doctrine of their Reform Bible; for Parker, Horn, jewel and the rest, not contented to correct the 39 Articles, corrected also the Bible; theyset out a new translation of it that very year 1562. interpreting the word Kirotonia which S. Hierom and all Ancient D rs. interpreted Imposition of Hands; they turned it, Ordination by Election to make good, that the Prince's Election was sufficient without any Imposition of Bishops hands; and this Interpretation held until king James his time, then the true letter was restored to the Bible and Imposition of hands put in.  
Now it remains we show that this Ordination by Election without any Imposition of hands, is warranted by the laws of the Land and Acts of Parliament; which if we do evidence, our Doctor is much to be blamed for saying that Ordination of Parker and his Comrades at the Nagshead Tavern was ridiculous, and incredible; for what can there be more Credible, than that Parker and his Associates did, in their Ordination, conform themselves to the Laws of the kingdom, to the Doctrine of their Bible, Church and 39 Articles? and how can Dr Sal or any Protestant say, an Ordination that is conformable to all these, is ridiculous. But to the point: Be pleased to read the Stat. 8. Eliz. 1. its thus: And by the same Act and Statut there is given to the Queen, her heirs &c full pow●rand authority by Letters Patents under the great seal of England from time to time to assign, name and authorize such People or Person, as she and they shall think convenient and meet for to exercise use, occupy and execute under her Heighness all manner of jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminences and authority in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or jurisdiction within this Realm. You see by this Statut that the Queen might have authorised Scory Coverdale or any private Person or People, for to ordain Bishops: why then do you say its incredible that these Blades, should in virtue of the Queen's letters Patents only, have consecrated one an other?  
But hear yet the Queen's Commission to ratify and confirm that which you call ridiculous Consecration, dispensing with any defect in them or any of them in their State, condition and faculty: We do supply by our Sovereign and Royal Authority, if any thing be, or shall be wanting in these things which ye are to do by our commands, either in yourselves or any of you, or in your condition state or faculty which by the statutes of this our kingdom, or by the laws of the Church are required or necessary; the time and necessity of affairs exacting this. And if you will know what thing was this which was wanting in the People commissioned by the Queen for to Consecrat Parker; what necessity of time and affairs obliged her to dispense in these things; read Holywood de investiganda Christi Ecclesia, and you will be satisfied; he relates that Dr Alabaster asked Mr Brancrof● B. of London in the beginning of king James his reign how his first Protestant Bishop Parker was ordained and by whom? Brancroft answered, I hope in case of Necessity a Priest may be sufficient for to ordain a Bishop; granting tacitly thereby, that Parker's Consecrators were no Bishops but Priests; and there was a necessity as the Queen herself confesses of making use of a Priest for ordaining; because there was no Bishop who would consecrat him: by this you may see what was wanting in the state and condition of Parker's Consecrators, and what was the necessity of time and affairs which forced the Queen to dispense with them. And because that immediately after this consecration of Parker and his Companions in the Nagshead Tavern, some exclaimed against the Validity of it, becauseit was done without Bishops, the Queen for to silence all such exceptions, and alloy all doubts, declares in the same Statut.  
And further for to avoid all ambiguities and questions that might be objected against the lawful consecrations, investing, and Confirmations of said Archbishop's and Bishops (that's to say Parker and his fellows) her heighness in her Letters Patents under the great seal of England directed to any ArchBishop, Bishop, or others (observe the word Others, that's to say neither ArchBishop nor Bishop) for the consecration, investing, and confirming of any Person elected to the office or dignity of Archbishop or Bishop, hath not only used such words and sentences, as are acustomed to be used by king Henry and Edward, her Majesty's father and Brother, in their like letter Patents made for such causes; but also hath used and put in her Majesti's letters Patents many other words and clauses whereby her Majesty by her supreme Authority hath dispensed with all causes, doubts, or any imperfection or desability that can or in any way may be objected against the same, as by her Majesty's letter Patents remaining of Record more plainly may be seen.  
Lay prejudice aside, & quando animositatem qua teneris Viceris, tunc Veritatem poteris tenere, qua vincaris; S. Agust. l. 6. count Jul. c. 2. lay says the saint unto you, that animosity and prejudice aside which possesses you, and you will possess the Truth, which is Victorious against you; for if passion does not pinfold your reason you cannot but see in these Statutes; first that the Parliament professes a power in the Queen for to authorize not only Archbishop's and Bishops, but Others, who are neither, for to Consecrat Ordain and invest Bishops; secondly you see the Queen in her commission did dispense in the inability and incapacity of the Consecrators by her supreme Power; which incapacity the Commission says was in their state and condition: can it be denied but that they were by their State and condition enable and incapable? and wherhfore? but because they were not Bishops;  
Against such clear evidences of the Nullity of your first Protestant Bishops Ordination; and of the truth of the Nagshead story, our Dr Brings nothing, though he keeps a great bustle in many Pages, but Mr Francis Mason's Records, which relate the place time, circumstances, and names of the Consecrators of Parker, who were Barlow Hodkings, Scory and Coverdale, who by Imposition of hands ordained Parker in Lambeth Chappel: but to say nothing, if those Consecrators were themselves true Bishops, I will show that those Masonian Registers are forged, and as falls, as their Prelatic Ordination is Null: for, Parker's Ordination was the year 1559. as those Registers do relate; not only Mr Neale; an eye witness of that passage exclaimed against the Nullity of it, but Bishop Bonner ad many other Catholics both of our Clergy and laiety; whereupon those Statutes of Parliament were made to silence them, Harding Champney Fitsimons, Holywood and other Writers, printing against it, challenged Parker and jewel to name the place and People by whom they were ordained; We say to you Mr jewel (says Harding in Confut. Apol. printed an. 1566. and to each of your Companions, show us the Register of your Bishops; show ut the letters of your Orders; but Orders; you have not; for who could given you that, of all your new Ministers, which themselves had not This was the challenge; this was the clamour of our Authors; thus they pressed those new mock Bishops Parker and his Comrades to name their Ordainers; that their Ordainers were no Bishops, and consequently could make noon: If any snch as Mason's Registers were then extant, relating the Pomp of Ceremonies, the concurs of Nobility at Lambeth Consecration, why were not those Registers produced then? was there any thing more obuions than to produce them, and by them, silence, and confounded our Writers, and assert the credit of the Protestant Church, which stood at the stake? But not a word did Parker, jewel, Horn or any other Protestant Writer speaked of those post-dated, enchanted Records; nor did ever any Catholic hear of them, until the year 1613. that is 54. years after Parker's Consecration: do not these Registers think you, smell strongly of forgery?  
Our Dr tells us, that in all prudence we are to rely, as to matter of fact, upon the public Records of the kingdom; its very true Dr, when the Records are not justly suspected, and carry, such visible marks of forgery. But good Dr, stand to that Principle, that, as to matter of fact we are to rely on the public Records of the Kingdom. And which do you judge to be the most authentic and public Record? Mason's Registers, which, as they lay hid for 54. years (if any there were) in a private man's hands; so they might have been easily corrupted ad changed? or the Statutes and Acts of Parliament, which are kept with the care and vigilancy we all know from corruption? there's no man of common sense but will rely with more satisfaction upon these second: see then what Masons Records say; that Parker was consecrated by true Bishops: and what say the Statutes of Parliament? that his Consecrators were defective, enable, and incapable by their state, condition and faculty, for to ordain. Mason's Record import that the Consecrators needed no dispensation from the Queen, for to consecrat Parker, because he was ordained by true Bishops: the Acts of Parliament import that they did need a dispensation; and that though Queen did dispense with them in their State and Condition. Which of these two will you believe, Mason's Records, or the Statutes of Parliament?  
Our Dr says these Records were shown to divers of our Churchmen the year 1614 yes; but why not the year 1600 and the other years upwards un till Parker's Ordination, when they were so earnestly called for by our Writers? because they were not then hatched: he says those Churchmen, after having perused and examined those Records, judged them to be true; and what then? that proves not the truth of your Registers, but their sincerity; for men of sincerity and honour are slow in believing such a horrid forgery, until they see good proofs for it: and though they had judged them to be true, what doth their opinion signify, who lived 54. years after, against the testimony of Mr Neale who was an eye witness of the passage; against the testimony of B. Bonner who lived then, and in London; against the testimony of so many illustrious Writers, who immediately writ against it, challenged to produce their Records and letters of their Otders, and were never answered? you know its a sacrilege to reordain a Priest or Bishop duly consecrated; you know also its our practice to ordain such of your Ministers as are converted, and will be Priested; and would B. Bonner, would Mr Neale, Harding, Kellisson Fitssimons and the rest of our Catholic Prelates, and Authors, who lived in Parker's time, and suffered so much for their Religion and conscience, induce the whole Church, by misinformation and impostures to ordain your Ministers converted had they not assurance that your Parker and Associates Ordination was Null and ridiculous.  
Nor are we Roman Catholics only who plead against this Nullity: Remember that in the long Parliament, the Bishops were excluded out of the house of Lords; and an Independent Lord made a speech to prove that exclusion to be just, because the Protestant Bishops were no true Bishops for want of Ordination. Remember the Püritans reproach against your Church, that the profane Order and consecration of Protestant Bishops had its beginning in a corner: Do they allude think you to the Chapel of Lambeth▪ or to the Nagshead Tavern? look with an impartial eye upon this whole discourse, and if passion does not prodigiously blind you, you will confess, the Nagshead story to be not more ridiculous than true; your Consecration to have been without any imposition of hands; and consequently Null; and whereas all your Prelates derive their character from Parker and his Associates, your Clergy is but a Mockery, and your Bishops but laymen with Rockets.  
But our Dr is resolved to be quits with us, since that we have made his Bishop's Leymen, he will not rest till he dethrones our Popes: Not one true Pope does he grant us since Gregory the XIII. The Elections of all the subsequent were quite Null: this is a rare and new discovery: but he says its not new; for he says it was made long since by a learned pen, à Roman Catholic, (he does not name him) who presented à book to king James, and by him to the rest of the Christian Princes, showing the necessity of gathering a Council against Paul the V the Nullity of whose Election, and of his Predecessors he pretends to prove; and our Dr makes it a convincing argument of the strength and truth of this book, that it was never answered by any of our Church; and I think its rather a concluding argument of the Nonsense and frivolousness of the book (if any such book was) that no Catholic Author did think it worth his labour to answer it: and if that book did make out, or with any appearance of reason did show the Nullity of the Elections of thoses Popes, and particularly of Paul the V then living, I know noon to whom it would be more welcome than to some ambitious Cardinal, who in hopes of getting the Tiara for himself would patronise and publish it: But when, notwithstanding the many enemies the Popes have in England, to advance any thing that might be to his desadvantage, we see, that that book was in its first birth so little applauded, that it never deserved to peep out of England, for aught we know; that it never deserved any answer from Catholics, nor yet to have been in any great Vogue among Protestant's; this indeed is sufficient to persuade us, that the book, if any such has been, had as little of substance, as the author of it had of wit and Religion.  
For was the man in his Wits, or what an opinion did he expect could the world have of his Religion, who went to a Ptotestant king for to have a Council conuened against the Pope? could it sink into his brains, if he had any, that a Protestant Prince could be so fit an instrument for that undertaking; as the Emperor, the kings of France and Spain, or some Catholic Monarch? This is the Book, and this book and Author is the warrant our Dr gives you for all the clutter he keeps in many leaves he spends in proving the Nullity, forsooth, of our Popes; and if the book itself deserved no answer, much lesle do the fragments of it copied out by Dr Sal deserve any.  
To his 12 the. Chap. he prefixes this Title; The Vast extent of Christian Religion Professed in the Church of England; and in four long Chapters he runs upon the Sects in England, Holland France, Poland, Russia, and what part not of Europe; nay he reckons up all the Schismatic's of Greece, and all these he says, are of the Religion professed in the Church of England. And is not the Religion of the Church of England a monstruous Body that is composed of so many members, and so deformed? be a Presbiteran be a Lutheran, be a Quaker, be a Seeker, be what you will, so you be not a Roman Catholic; you are of the Religion of the Church of England. Read I pray the first Chapter of this Treatise where I prove out of the D rs. own Concessions that these Sects are Heresies; read also the 8. Chap. of my former Treatise of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, where I convincingly proved that since the Roman Catholic faith is a true saving faith, as the Church of England confesses; and that there is but one saving faith as S. Paul says; any Church of faith which differs from her in any Article or Doctrine, even those which ye call Inferior Truths, must be an Heretical and heterodox Church and faith, which if you had well read, Dr, and understood well, you would not have troubled us again with this ridiculous Doctrine, of salvation in any Christian Society; or you should have been so just to your Adversary as to answer to his discourse upon that subject; but I see you designedly step aside whenever you found yourself Nonplussed.  
When I read this Paradox of our Dr I jndged the Catholic and Protestant Church to be perfectedly represented in the two Women contesting about the living Child before Solomon; she who was the true Mother would not have the Child divided, but to live entire and undevided; she who was not the true Mother would have him divided and shared betwixt both: Solomon adjudged the Child to her who would not consent to that inhuman division; she was the true Mother: This is our case; the Controversy is, which is the true Religion and faith; the Catholic Church cannot endure to hear of any division of the Church and faith of Christ into many opposite Sects; she will have but one Congregation unanimously professing One Doctrine, One Lyturgy, Rites and Ceremonies; The Protestant Church by the mouth of Dr Sal, and other Writers cry out, Dividatur Infans; neither ye Catholics alone, nor we Protestant's only, nor any Congrcgation separatly from the other, is the Church and faith of Christ; each must have ashare; the faith of Christ is divided betwixt us: Is not the Catholic Church think you to be judged the true Mother of the faithful, which detests this Barbarous division of the faith of Christ into so many Sects? and are not Sectaries to be esteemed Tyrants, who rent and tear it into so many pieces?  
But I cannot omit a notorious calumny of our D r. in his 12. chapped where magnifying the great power and extent of his Protestant Religion in several kingdoms, he comes to speak of France; In France says he, those of the Religion have 70 towns with Garrisons of soldiers governed by Nobles and Gentlemen of the Protestant Religion: they have 800 Ministers who retain Pension out of the public Finance and are so dispersed throughout the kingdom, that in the Principalites of Orange and Poitou, allmosl all the inhabitants; a in Gascony the one half; in Languedoc Normandy and the Western Provinces a strong party professes the Protestant Religion; besides the Castles and forts belonging to the Duke of Bullon, Count of Naval, Duke of Trimoulle Monsiour de Chastillon, Mareshal de Diguiers, Duke de Sully and others. When I read this piece of Romance in our D rs. book I turned presently to the frontispiece of it, to see in what year it was printed, for I suspected it might have been in king Henry the fourth's time, when indeed the Hugonots were powerful; but finding it was printed the year 1676. I admired the Author's Boldness, and insincerity in beguiling his Reader.  
For not one town, garrison, fort, or Castle, have the Hugonots in France this day; not one Minister which retains Pension out of the Finance but lives by the gratuity and alms of their Flock, as our Clergy in Ireland: It is true the Hugonots are more numerous in the Province of Poitou, than in any other in France, but to say, that almost all the Inhabitans are Hugonots; its agreat imposture: I declare what I see, and what I hear from french men as well Catholics as Hugonots, that there is not one Huguenot for a hundred Catholics in that Province; about Nyort, S. Maixance, Fontenée, Lucinian, and all along from Poitiers to Rochel, the most part of the Gentry who live in the Country are Hugonots; but of the common People and the Inhabitants of the towns, the Catholics are incomparably more numerous: The Dukes of Bullon, Rovan, Trimoulle etc. which he reckons as Hugonots, are all Roman Catholics; nay for our D rs. comfort, let him know, that there is not one, of the Prime families of France this day a Huguenot exceptone, that's the Count de Russte, a Cadet of the house of Rochfoucaut: Of the Nobility of the second rank, there are some; neither is there any Huguenot this day in France of any Vogue, either in the Court, Army, or civil government except Mareshal de Zumbert, who is no French man. By this you may judge what little credit our Dr deserves in what he tells us of the vast power, and extent of his Brethrens Sectaries in Poland, Transiluania Russia etc.  
He most grossly abuses his Reader in telling him the Greek Church agrees with Protestant's in opposing Transubstantiation Purgatory etc. against Rome; for in Luther's time, when jeremy the Patriarch of Constantinople understood that Luther boasted, his Doctrine was professed by the Greek Church; the said Patriarch assembled a Council of the Greek Prelates, and solemnly protested against, and condemned Luther's Errors; declared they believed Transubstantiation, Purgarory, Prayers to Saints etc. as Rome did: and the Acts and Decrees of this Council were printed and published by the Patriarch himself, whose book is extant in many Libraries in France, and elsewhere: and about ten years agone by occasion of a dispute betwixt Monsieur Arnaud, and Monsieur Claude a Huguenot Minister; the Minister obstinately averring, that the Greek Church and other Schismatics in the Turkish Dominions denied Transubstantiation and other Catholic Tenets; Monsieur Arnaud procured by means of the french Ambassador in Constantinople an authentic public Declaration from the Patriarch and Prelates of the Greek Church and other Schismatics, declaring Vnanimously their belief of Transubstantiation and other Tenets of the Church of Rome, which Declaration is common in France, to be read in Monsieur Arnaud's book De la Perpetuité de la Foy etc. so that though the Grecians be Schismatics, its apparent their Doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory and other Tenets controverted betwixt us and Protestant's, is the same with that of Rome.  
From his 16 the. Chap. to the end of his first part he has nothing worthy of any Reflection but a discourse of Transubstantiation, which we will examine in our 15. and 16. Chapt. He runs much upon the unlawfulness of Subjects raising Arms against their Prince; and I wish he could print this Doctrine deeply in his fellow Sectaries hearts; but he will not persuade them so important a truth (as I will prove in the TWO Chapt. until the Church of England gives her Professors an other Rule of faith, and not Scripture arbitrarily interpreted, believed and practised as each one understands it, without any submission to a supreme Pastor from whom we must receive the true sense of it. Now its time we examine his discourse against J. S.   


CHAPTER I  
A SURVEY OF THE DOCTOR'S Dedicatory to the Earl of Essex; Sectari's Dissension in faith, The Reformers, Reformation and Reform Brethrens briefly described.  
ALL Christian Sects, says our Doctor to his Maecenas are joined with the Church of England; they have all but one and the same faith; and that faith professed by that lovely Company is the Primitive Catholic Apostolic faith; they differ says he Chap. 12. against N. N. only in Rites and Ceremonies; and there is not one of these Sects but is as different from the other, and exclaim against one an other as much as against Popery: ask the Presbiterians what they think of Protestancy? they say, its Popery in English; ask the Quakers their opinion of them both? they are Limbs of Satan: ask the Anabaptiss what they judge of all three? they are Children of Perdition.  
But I pray Dr what is the faith of the Church of England as to the Canon of Scripture? it believes S Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of james and Judas, the second and third of S. John, and the 2. of S. Peter to be true Canonical Scripture; and what is the Lutherans of Germani's faith as to this point? that they are not Canonical: and is this difference but in Rites and Ceremonies? does not the Protestant Church believe the Adoration of the consecrated Host, and the use and prayers before Images to be downright Idolatry; and Lutherans say its not? and do you make but a Ceremony of Idolatry? does not the Protestant Church believe the firgurative only Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; and the Lutherans believe the Real presence, which you say is an Error inconsistent with Salvation? and is this but a Ceremony? or will God condemn men for a mere Ceremony? does not the Church of England believe the Necessity of both kinds in the Communion, and the Hugonots of France in their Ecclesiastical Discipline changed 12. art. 7. deny it, and say it may for just reasons be given in bread alone? This is no Ceremonial difference betwixt your Church and ours; for its, you say, one of our Errors inconsistent with salvation; and why it should be a Ceremonial business betwixt Protestant's and Hugonots I know not: Nor are the Protestant Bishops of England so prodigal of their Ecclesiastical revenues as to say that Episcopacy is but a Ceremony which they believe to be de jure Divino and the Presbiterians deny it: see you Reader with what appearance of truth our Dr can say that the Church of England and the other Sects are joined in one faith.  
O! but, says he changed 12. against N. N. they all agreed in the chief heads and fundamental points of Christianity; and what be they? Blessed be God, that inspired to our good Dr to tell us what be those fundamental points and chief Articles wherein Protestant Writers do so often tell us that all must agreed for to have true faith; and that all other points are but inferior Truths, Rites and Ceremonies: Our Dr then tells us the chief heads and fundamental points of Christianity necessary to Salvarion; The Holy Scripture; the sacred Trinity, the Person of the Son of God, God and man; The Providence of God, sin, free will, the Law, the Gospel, Justification by Christ; faith in his name; Regeneration; The Catholic Church, and supreme head of it, Christ; The Sacraments, their number and use; The state of Souls after death; the Resurrection and life Eternal; these are the chief heads and Substantial points and in these all the Reform Churches agreed with that of England, says our Dr in that 12. Chapt. against N. N.  
But my Reader will not I hope be so easily persuaded of this aggreement betwixt these Sectaries, even in these Chief heads and fundamental points: for the Protestant's believe S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews and the other Epistles mentioned but now, to be Canonical Scripture; the Lutherans utterly deny them: The Lutherans in the Conference of Lypsia, the Magdeburgenses, and the Lutheran Divines in the Conference of Ratisbon believe Seven Sacraments; nor do they agreed in the use of the Sacraments for the Hugonots of France as I observed, believe the Lord's supper may be taken in one kind, the Church of England believes it must necessarily be taken in both; in their Doctrine of God's Providence they are all also far asunder; for not only the Gomarists in Holland following the Doctrine of Calvin, but also many Huguenot Churches in France believe that antecedently to any good or bad work of man, God has created and absolutely Decreed some men to be eternally damned and others to be saved; the Church of England, the Arminians in Holland and many Hugonots of France deny this cruel decree in God, and believe noon is damn'ed by God's absolute Will and decree, but for his fins. You see Reader how the Church of England and other Sectaries are at ears not only in Rites and Ceremonies; not only in Inferior and not Fundamental Articles, but even in those which our Dr himself calls the chief points, and Fundamental Heads of Christianity: How can our Dr say they are all joined in one faith? or how can he say the faith professed in the Church of England and in the other Sects is the Catholic Apostolic faith; if he will not say that one Apostle taught and believed two Sacraments as the Protestant's do; and an other Apostle Seven Sacraments as the Lutherans of Lypsia and Ratisbon did; one Apostle taught that such Epistles were Canonical Scripture; and an other believed they were not.  
But Dr do not you confess that the Church of England differs from Lutherans, Presbiterians and other Sects in inferior and not Fundamental Verities? and no true Protestant of England who understands well his Catechism will say that Protestant's and Catholics differ in more than in Inferior Verities; what greater Union then can you pretend with Lutherans and other Sectaries than with us Catholics? moreover Doctor you say that errors against these inferior Verities are inconsistent with salvation if ignorance does not excuse them; your Brethrens Sectaries therefore will be as Deep in hell as Catholics, Because they hold errors against your Inferior Verities as well as Catholics; and if they have ignorance it must be gross, Wilful and obstinately blind, as that of Papists because they have the Scripture which you say, plainly declares your Doctrine to any that is not wilfully and obstinately blind: lastly Dr you say in your Dedicatory that the true nature of Heresy consists in Doctrine opposite to Scripture: but all the Doctrine that Lutherans, Presbiterians etc. hold in opposition to your Doctrine of England, is quite and plainly opposite to Scripture; because you tell us a thousand times over both in your Sermon, and in your Book that your Doctrine of Protestancy, figurative Presence, Communion in both kinds two Sacraments etc. is plainly setdown, and seen in Scripture to any that is not wilfully blind; therefore the rest of Sectaries, (who deny your inferior Verities) faith and Religion is plain Heresy: behold Reader the faith and Religion wherein the Church of England and the rest of Sectaries are joined.  
Our Dr goes on in his Dedicatory Epistle, and tells his Maecenas that the Protestant Curhch and other Sectaries are Reform Churches; that the faith of the Church of Rome was once praised throughout the World; its his and the Reform Churches wish, he says, that we may return to our primitive lustre and join hart and hand with them to the edification and increase of Christianity; But they being so separated and divided in Doctrine among themselves as we have shown; its impossible for us to join with them until they agreed among themselves, and tell us with which of them shall we join; for with whatever Sect of them we join, we shall have all the rest on our backs, and so never be at rest: the Presbiterians will never consent that we join with Protestant's; nor the Protestant's will never condescend that we join with Lutherans; and so Dr Sall's Wish that we join with the Reform Churches is ridiculous.  
Nor is it lesle ridiculous to call his Sects Reform Churches. Observe Reader who be those they call Reformers; who be they, that are called Reform Brethrens, and what is that they call Reformation; and you will confess no Names were ever more abused. As for the first and Chief Reformers, the Author of that learned Treatise of Religion and Goverument, in his first book, and N. N. in his Doleful fall of Andrew Sal gives you an exact description of them; Dr Sal very wisely declines their vindication from the wicked life N. N. says they led; for he says the Reformation may be very good in itself, though Luther and some other Reformers were nought; as in the Apostolical College, says he there was a Judas; its very true Dr, but if all the Apostolical College was but a pack of judases, and not one honest man among them; could any man in his wits be persuaded to believe their Doctrine was from God? this is your case Dr, we defy you to name as much as one among your first Reformers, who was as much as an honest man; do you name Luther? he was an Apostate Friar, learned his Doctrine against Mass, prayers to saints etc. from the Devil with whom he was frequently conversant as himself confesses to. 7. Wittemb. an. 1558 de Missa Privata fol. 228. & to. 6. Germ. jen. lib. de Missa angulari. Do you name Calvin? he was a sodomit burnt in the shoulder for that crime at Noyon, lived a continual Scandal to the world at Geneve, and died a horror to nature as his own bosom friend Bolseck relates in his life: do you name Beza? a man prostituted to lust and sensuality as the same Bolseck who knew him relates: Zuinglius, Oecolampadius Carolostadius, Goodman, Jacobus Andreas were of the same stamp. Neither were your first Reformers of England of a better alloy; Cranmer a mere contemporiser who married and unmarried Henry the VIII. as often as he pleased; in his time he writ a Treatise in favour of Transubstantiation, for to please his Prince; and in king Edward the VI time Zuinglianism being the swaying Religion, he altered his note, and writ an other Treatise against Transubstantiation; Zuinglianism he professed until he was sentenced to death for heresy and Treason by Queen Mary; then in hopes to save his life he declared for the Catholic Religion, but seeing the sentence was not repealed, he renounced again this and died a Zuinglian. Ochinus of a Capuchin become a Reformer, and so good an one, that he ran further and become a Jew. Martin Bucer, of a Dominican Friar become a Lutheran, of a Lutheran become a Zuinglian; he become again a Lutheran, and returned again to be a Zuinglian: Hooper and Rogers both runagat Monks; Coverdale an Augustin Friar; Bale a Carmelit; Peter Martyr a Canon Regular, all married, and these were your Reformers, judge you what the Reformation could be; and tell us Dr can you name any one of this company that was famous for his Virtue, Miracles, or holy conversation; nay any that was an honest man  
And you will be not lesle surprised Reader when you consider what kind of men are called Reform Brethrens; Monks friars and Priests, as we have lately seen run from the Catholic Church to Protestancy; and why? because Popery is full of Errors forsooth; Transubstantiation, Images, Purgatory, etc. and out of a tender conscience and love of Truth they forsake these errors, and snperstitious practices of Rome. Very well; let us suppose those Articles of Popery are Errors, and many practices of the Church of Rome are Superstitions and against God's Word; let us commend and praise you for renouncing those Errors: but why do you renounce and lay by, other practices, Doctrines, ad Devoirs to which you were obliged by Vow in the Catholic Church, and which in the judgement of all the Church of England are Holy, commendable and conformable to the Word of God? Be it so, let Purgatory be against God's Word; renounce it; but its not against God's Word to fast from flesh in lent and other days, your Common Prayer Book commands it; Why then do not you, Friar, who obliged yourself under sin to fast the greatest part of the year from flesh, why do you lay a side this practice? you renounced but the errors of Popery contrary to the Word of God; this is noon: let Transubstantiation be an error; renounce it; but its no error, nor contrary to God's Word to say your Office, your Matins and Laudes; to discipline yourself sometimes in the week; to live in poverty without any rents or revenues; to live in Chastity; these practices are no Errors nor Superstitions; why do you forsake them? let Prayers to Saints and before Images be Idolatry; sorsake them, if you will be mad; but its no error nor profane or Superstitious practice, but the Counsel of Christ and the Practice of his Saints to forsake richeses, lands, estates, Honours and dignities for Christ his sake and live in poverty and humility for his love; this you vowed to do when you were a Roman Catholic; why do not you keep that part of Popery; If the king and Parliament did enact (and it would be Much to the credit of the Protestant Church, it were enacted) that there should be a house in some Country town wherein all Monks and Friars who become Protestant's should live together in Community under Obedience to some Superior as they did in the Catholic Church, (this is not against Scripture,) that noon should be permitted to eat flesh in lent nor fasting days, but fast as they did in their respective Orders (nor is this against Scripture) that noon should be permitted to have any Ecclesiastical Benefice nor any Rents, but live upon the charity of the People as they did when they were Catholics (nor is this against Scripture) that noon should be permitted to mary, nor to wear but mean attire (nor is this against Scripture) that all of them should be obliged to say their divine Office, or a number of spalms equivalent to it every day, and Discipline themselves sometimes in the week as they were acustomed or obliged to do in their Orders; in such acase indeed we might think that such as revolted from the Catholics and become Protestant's were moved by devotion and a tenderness of Conscience, and they might with some appearance of truth be called Reform Brethrens; But that a company of Friars should run from the retirement of their convents to the court and houses of great ones, from poverty and beggary to look for Benefices and rents; from fasting, and other austerities to which they are obliged, to eat and drink and cherish their flesh; casting aside their Breviaries and Meditations, and marrying; what half witted man in the world will call such men Reform men but rather men prostituted to licentiousness and bankrupts in Honesty.  
By this discourse you may perceive how little or rather nothing the Protestant Church has for to deserve that plausible name of Reformation; no name in the world more unbecoming it: for a Reformation is a change of a large life into a strict one; its a Profession of a more austere life, and of more moderation than formerly was: how then can Protestancy be called a Reformation of the Catholic Religion; put the case in Luther, Calvin, and the rest of Priests and Friars who change the Catholic for the Protestant Religion: its evident by what I said and by what the world sees, they leave a narrow, strict, and austere manner of life, for a more easy large and pleasant one; for in the Catholic they were obliged under sin to say their Breviary every day; to fast the greatest part of the year, to several austerities of rising at midnight to the Quyre, of Discipline and hairecloths; never to mary, never to have any rents but live in poverty, to live under Obedience of their Superiors with a total submission of their Wills to his; they were obliged to confess their sins to a Priest, to submit their judgements in matters of Religion to the Pastor of the Church, to obey the Precepts of the Church. This manner of life is it which they vere obliged to led in the Catholic Religion: And they forsook this for Protestancy, where they are not bound to any Breviary, nor other Prayers under sin; where they can without a remors of conscience make good cheer all the year; where they can mary and get a good Portion and an Ecclesiastical Benefice besides; where they are not obliged to confess, nor obey any Commandments of the Church (noon obliges them in conscience;) where they may believe whatever they judge is the Doctrine and sense of Scripture, let their Pastors and Church believe what they list: who can deny but this exchange of life is from an austere to a large, from a rigid to a more easy, from a strict to a more pleasant life: and is this it we call Reformation? In the Catholic Church we can have but one faith; we are obliged to profess one and the same Doctrine, practice Vniformly the same Rites and Ceremonies; in the Reformation you have many different faiths; you may with a safe conscience profess what Doctrine you please, either the Lutheran, Presbiterian, Calvinian etc. for what ever of them you believe you will be still of the Reformation. And can this be called a Reformation? which destroys unity, rends the Flock into so many Sects, and gives us such liberty to believe as we fancy?  
Perhaps our Dr may answer that Protestancy is a Reformation of the Doctrine of Popery, because this swarms with many Errors; but what is Doctrine for, but for to reform our lives? and how can that be a Reformation of Doctrine, which leads to such a corruption of Manners?   

II CHAPTER.  
THAT THE DOCTOR HAS IN HIS Sermon passed his sentence of Damnation against our Saints; he retracts this Sentence in his Book; but cannot in his Principles.  
OUR Doctor in his two first Chapters against J. S. pretends to cast that impious position from his door. That in the Catholic Religion there's no salvation; he says we may; and when he says, salvation may be had in our Catholic Church, any man would think he intended to grant a grater capacity for salvation in our Religion, than in Turcism, or Paganism; but not a jot greater: for if you ask him how a Roman Catholic can be saved, our Tenets being as he says, inconsistent with salvation; he answers that by Ignorance or Repentance, and avers very positively that Protestant's allow no salvation in Popery, if either of these two does not protect us: and so much capacity for salvation, the Roman Catholics, who are accused by him and his fellows to be uncharitable for denying salvation out of their Church, do grant to Pagans' and Turks; it being the Doctrine of most learned Divines, for not believing the Bible to be God's Word, for not believing the Sacraments, nay nor the Incarnation and Passion of Christ, a man will not be damned, if he has invincible ignorance of these Mysteries, or Repentance of his Errors: and this is that great charity of Protestant's beyond Catholics, when they say that Roman Catholics may be saved in their Religion; that's to say, that they are in as great a capacity for salvation as Pagans' and Turks.  
He screws up the pegs of his indignation against me for making him author of that wicked Position, That in the Roman Catholic Church a man cannot be saved, and to prove him the Author of it, there needs no more, than to hear him speaked: Page 116. of his Sermon he says, No learned Protestant does allow the Popish Religion generally and absoluty speaking to be a secure way of salvation; for all do agreed that many of their Tenets and practices are inconsistent with salvation; though ignorance may haply excuse some of the Simple sort, but not such as know, or with due care and enquiry may know their Errors. Now you shall see him, like the Dog's head in the pot as in the post-signs, struggling to get out, and cannot: Many of their Tenets says he, are inconsistent with salvation; and is not this, as much as to say in good English, that we cannot be saved? But he adds that Ignorance may save some of the simple sors; by your favour he does not say absolutely that ignorance may save even some of the simple sort; Haply it may, says he, that's to say, perhaps it may; nothing Sure as to that: Tenets inconsistent with salvation absolutely block us the entrance into heaven, if ignorance does not desobstruct it; and its not certain that ignorance can do it, Haply it may, says our Doctor so that if Catholics do not renounce their Errors by repentance, its a thousand to one, if any of them ever goes to Heaven.  
And observe he does not say this Ignorance itself will●, as much as Haply excuse all Catholics; Not but some; and what some? of the simple sort, but not learned men, who know, or with due care and enquiry may know their errors; shutting up heaven's gates to all wise men; ignorance will not excuse them: How Dr? but some of the simple sort? have you made no Proviso for that noble Prince, who made the Epigram in your praise? or will you rank him among the simple sort, for beiug so simple as to make an Epigram in your praise? No Proviso for so many Earls, Lords and People of high quality your own bosom friends with whom you were so conversant and familiar? no Proviso for Bernard, Aquinas, Bonaventure and other Saints, Pillars of the Church, and Eagles of the Schools? had I not reason, Reader, to say our Dr denied Salvation in the Catholic Church, first because he grants no greater Capacity For salvation in her, than in Turcism and Paganism; secondly because it appears by his own words that all wise and learned Catholics are excluded by him from salvation, whereas he says that nothing but ignorance can save some of the simple sort; thirdly because he does not grant it to be an assured Verity that ignorance may excuse some of the simple sort itself: Haply it may, and no more but so. And is it not a pretty thing to see our Dr of so squeamish a stomach, as not to endure that proposition should be fathered on him That there is no salvation in the CatholicChurch: My good friend what do you drive at in your whole Sermon and new book, but to prove we are Idolaters for our Adoration of the consecrated Host, Images and Prayers to Saints? and will you boggle at saying Idolaters cannot be saved?  
You have heard our Dr say our Tenets are inconsistent with salvation; and nothing but Ignorance can excuse their Professors from damnation; and this saving Ignorance he granted it only to some of the simple sort in his printed sermon; but not at all to such as know, or with due care and enquiry may know their Errors: and being advertised by J. S. what an impious thing it was to pass his sentence of damnation against S. Thomas of Aquin, S. Bernard and the rest of our learned D rs and Saints; he retracts in his book what he advanced in his sermon, and says that saving Ignorance reaches also to learned men, to Aquinas, Bernard, and others; they were he says ignorant, and by their ignorance they were saved: see you Reader what straits our Dr is put into; either to say that Aquinas, Bernard, Scotus, Bonaventure, and our Saints and D rs were damned knaves, or Ignorant Coxcoms; and to cast such an affront upon two, the learnedest Schools in the world, Thomists and Scotists, as to say their Masters were two ignorant Dolts. Who can pretend to know if such men, esteemed the Oracles of the world, were ignorant? or who can expect to overcome his ignorance, if the ignorance of such men was invincible, after so much time spent by them in reading and studying the Scripture, fathers, and Councils: but Ignorant they must have been says Dr Sal, or they never went to heaven: and the mischief is that he does not grant them Ignorance itself; for though he says they were Ignorant and saved through Ignorance, yet I will evidence out of the Church of England, and the D rs own Principles, they could not have invincible Ignorance; consequently that according our Dr and his Churches Principles they must have been avoidable damned.  
Our Dr pag. 9 of his Reply gives us the Definition of Invincible Ignorance; It's such as one cannot remedy by means obvious to him according his state and condition. He therefore who has the means obvious to him according his state and condition of life for to remedy his Ignorance, and remains still ignorant; his Ignorance cannot be called Invincible, but Supin and gross, because he does not make use of those Means obvious unto him; But Aquinas, Bernard and all our learned Saints and Doctors had the sufficient and necessary Mcans obvious to them for to remedy their Ignorance; for they had the Scripture which our Dr says pag. 29. of his sermon, and also often in his book, abounds with all heavenly light and clearly sets down the Protestant Tenets to all those who are not wilfully blind. If therefore they were Ignorant, their ignorance was not invincible; they did not use the means they had, they did not search with due care and enquiry, and Ignorance will not excuse, says our Dr, those who Know, or with due care and enquiry may Know the truth. Is it not by Scripture alone that Luther and Calvin espied out the Errors of Rome? is it not by Scripture, Councils and fathers our Dr says, himself was convinced of the truth of Protestancy? S. Thomas Aquinas, Bernard and the rest of our D rs and Saints had the Scripture Councils and fathers and studied them more than Dr Sal; they had therefore the Means obvious to their state and condition for to remedy their Ignorance; it was not therefore invincible.  
I doubt if any but our Dr would utter such à Paradox, and I am sure noon would prove it more ridiculously; Aquinas says, he pag. 8. and the rest were invincibly ignorant, because the errors of the Church of Rome were not so many in his time as now; they increased daily; they were not so known and cleared in the crucible of public opposition; noon dared to check them, and so they kept credit; they be 'gan to be in use in his time or some what before and were not opposed. Was there ever such a wild ramble of talk, and such a heap of untruths couched in so few lines? we must not attempt to retort him by the testimony of any Catholic Doctor, for he'll say they are all Ignorant as Aquinas; but I hope he will given credit to his own illuminated Brethrens Humfry in Jesuit. par. 2. rat. 5. Charon in Cronol. l. 4. pag. 567. Osiand. in Epit. Cent. 6. witness, that S. Gregory Pope and Austin the Monk (our Dr will say they were also Ignorant) brought into England Mass, Purgatory, Transubstantiation Prayers to Saints, Indulgences and the rest of our Catholic Tenets about the year 600. was this but In, or but Somewhat before Aquinas his time, woe lived the year 1270? Osiander Cent. 8. witnesseth that Venerable Bede who lived the year 730, was plunged in all the points of Popery wherein we now differ: Perkins in Exposit. Symb. pag. 266. acknowledges that Transubstantiation and other Popish Heresies were spread over the world the year 900. and Fox Acts and Monum. pag. 1121. says, it was an Article of faith the year 1060. and Berengarius condemned an Heretic for denying it; was all this but In or a little before Aquinas his time? But where was the D rs Memory or ingenuity when he spoke thus? is it not the uniform saying of Calvin and all Heteredox Writers that the Church of Rome fell into the Errors they accuse us of, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Prayers, to Saints, Indulgences etc. some say the first 300. years, others the first 500 others the first 600. and our Dr has the courage to tell us they began but In or somewhat before Aquinas his time?  
To say our Tenets were not examined nor publicly opposed, nor arguments and books against them permitted to come to our sight, is a gross ignorance of the transactions of ages: did not Berengarius as your own Fox acknowledges, and before him the Bishop of Sans, and many others, their Abettors, publicly oppose and writ against Transubstantiation? did not Aetius condemned by S. Augustin, Vigilantius condemned by S. Hierom, the Henricians condemued by S. Bernard, the Witcleffians and Hussits condemned by the whole Church, publicly oppose Transubstantiation, Prayers to Saints, Veneration of Relics, Purgatory, Communion in one Kind etc. and do not you yourself confess. chap. 20. against J. S. that Scotus, Durand and Ocham did examine narrowly and found great difficulties against Transubstantiation yet believed it? where have you or your Comrades better arguments against our Tenets than your Predecessors Heretics have, and you found in Bellarmin, Peron, Becan and our Catholic Writers; but suppose S. Thomas Aquinas and the rest of our Saints and D rs had no other Books nor arguments against our Tenets but the Bible, Conncils, and Fathers; do not you say that the Bible alone plainly convinces our Errors, and abounds with heavenly light to such as are not wilfully blind; they had the Bible, you cannot deny it; why then did they not found out our errors? or how could their ignorance be invincible?  
Let any Impartial Reader judge if I have been injust to our Dr in saying that its his opinion, and a necessary sequel from his Principles, that all our Saints and learned Doctors who died in the Profession of our Tenets (inconsistent, he says, with Salvation) are damned: the Position is impious; but must be sustained by him; for he leaves no manner of means for salvation in the profession of our Tenets but Invincible Ignorance; this, I proved they could not have had, both by reason and by the D rs own Principles; because they had sufficient means obvious to them according their state and condition, for to remedy their ignorance, and they did not; therefore their ignorance was not invincible, and they were avoidable damned.   

III CHAPTER.  
SEVERAL OTHER ATTACKS OF our Doctor against the Saints: the Protestant Calendar of Saints examined.  
I Found Aquinas and others, styled by the name of Saints in our D rs. Sermon; and rejoiced to see him retain that respect for their glorious memory; but it soon repent him of his devotion; he learned in Oxford that was not the true Reform language; the purer Brethrens Anabaptists, Presbiterians and Quakers judge it to be Popish; and the Dr. to given them satisfaction for the scandal they might have taken at his style; corrects it in his new Book: he was not in earnest, he says, when he called them Saints; its but an honorary title, as the Compiler of London Gazettes calls the Popes, his Holiness.  
In the Conclusion of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church I argued, that any wise man tender of his salvation aught to choose that Church where many Saints eminent for their Virtue and glorious for their Miracles lived and died, rather than that, where never any man was known eminent for either; as you would choose to study in a school, where many men eminent for learning were educated, rather than in a school where no learned man was ever known: Hence I concluded the Catholic Church aught to be chusen before the Protestant; whereas in that we reckon so many eminently holy and miraculous Saints and D rs, Aquinas, Bernard, Bonaventure, Gregory Austin etc. and in this noon was ever heard of: Our Doctor answers, our Saints are only Titular ones, no Real Saints; they purchased their Titles (says he pag. 228.) by public Authority as Dukes and Earls do theirs. Is not this a respectful Child of God's Church? who pulls down the Pillars of Christianity, and strips them of the honour exhibited to them by the Orthodox world.  
I pray Reader if you chance to see him before he reads this book, ask him his opinion of those Saints recorded in his Protestant Calendar prefixed to the Common Prayer book: are they also but Titular only and no Real Saints? was it by their merits they purchased their Titles, or by public Authority as Dukes and Earls did theirs? if this second; ask him what public authority was that? if a Popish authority; how come the Church of England to profane their calendar with the foorberie of Rome, and propose to the respect at lest, if not adoration of the flock a company of fellows who are no Real Saints, and place them in the same Catalogue with Christ, his Mother and the Apostles; and the calendar being ordained only for to eternise the memory of men Eminent in Santitie and virtue, and justly reputed Saints by the Church, how come they to stuff it with men who are not real but Titular only Saints: if it was a Protestant public Authority? & Vos in eadem damnatione est is. Are ye also guilty of that foul practice, as through a vain ostentation of your Churches holiness to put in your calendar a company of falsely reputed Saints, who are but Titular ones, and Honorarily called so, as the London Gazet calls the Pope, his Holiness? Are the Saints recorded in the Protestant Calendar truly and Really Saints, or not? if they be not, what a ridiculous thing was't to put them there, more than Cromwell, or Arrius, or Luther; if they were, I'll prove they were Saints of our Church, and consequently prove your Position, that our Saints are only Titular and no Real Saints, to be impious.  
You have in the Month of March in your Calendar, S. Gregory Pope who lived the year 600. and brought into England, as I related out of your own Historians, Mass, Purgatory, Transubstantiation etc. if he was not à Papist, there's noon in Rome; and he is a Saint of your Calendar, and ye have no Titular only, but real Saints, as you say pag. 228. you have in the same month S. Benedict Monk, who lived the year 540; famous for his Monachism, austerity of life, and Religious order: can the Protestant's challenge him to be theirs, who hate Monachism as the Devil hates Holy Water. You have in the same month in your Calendar (but in ours, its the fifth of january) S. Edward king of the Saxons who lived the year 1066. Ancient Chronicles bear witness of his devotion to S. Peter and S. John, his vow of Chastity, his vow of pilgrimage to Rome and the dispensation of this vow granted by the Pope; and the Monastery of Winsmester he built for the Benedictian Friars: was this a Ptotestant Saint think you? yet he must be a real Saint, because he is in your Calendar.  
You have in the month of April S. Richard Bishop of Chichester, who lived the year 1255. he was consecrated Bishop by the Pope himself against all the endeavours of king Richard, who sent his Ambassador to Rome to ●hinder his consecration; and the king was obliged by the Pope to put him in possession of his Bishopric: all this smells strongly of Popery: I pray tell us, why was he put in your Calendar? was it because he was a Bishop? and why were not Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, put there; because he was of an other mould; an Eminent, and not only a Titular Saint.  
You have in your Calendar in the month of May S. Dunstan ArchBishop of Canterbury who lived the year 988. when there was no Protestant, nor any thing like it, he went to Rome to get his Pall from the Pope, which sufficiently evidences he was no Protestant; and a Real Saint he must be, or why should he be put in your Calendar. You have in the same month S. Anstin Monk, Apostle of England, sent by S Gregory to preach the Doctrine which now you persecut  
You have in the month of June S. Boniface B. and M. who lived the year 754. he was no Martyr of Fox's Calendar; nor did he shed his blood for Lutheranism or Protestancy.  
You have in the month of September S. Gyles an Abbot of a Monastery and a Priest: it was his good luck he died the year 550. for had he lived till the Reformation he had forfeited many hundred Marks, and his Monastery too, for the many Masses he said; he lived much in the exercise of corporal austerities, feeding commonly on roots and herbs; lodged many years in a Cave, without any bed but the bore ground; this Saint is nothing like a Child of the Reformation.  
You have in the month of November S. Leonard Confessor who lived the year 559. built a Chapel to the honour of the B. Virgin and consecrated an Altar in it to S. Remigius; these practices sufficiently evidence he was no Protestant; and his being recorded in your Calendar, marks he was a Real Saint, for in your Calendar there is no other. You have in the same month S. Brice Bishop; Nephew to S. Martin and a Catholic he must have been; whereas, being banished from his Bishopric he had his recourse to the Pope for to be reinstalled.  
You have also in the same month S. Hugh Arch Bishop of Canterbury a Carthusian Friar who lived the year 1200. a notorious Papist; not only because he was a Carthusian; but because he was so austere in his manner of living and mortifications, that being made a Bishop he would never eat flesh, and even at his dying hour had no other bed, but the bore ground whereon he caused himself to be laid, wrapped in a hair cloth and ashes.  
I know the Nativity of our gracious Sovereign is mentioned in your Calendar for to mind us to pray for his long and happy life; also Gounpounder Treason day, for to given God thanks, for the Preservation of the king and Parliament against that horrid plot, but why those Saints should be recorded in your Calendar, but for having been men of Eminent and known Holiness, and for our example and encouragement to the imitation of their Virtues, you never can tell; it would be therefore an impiety in you to deny they were true and real Saints, and it would be want of sense and judgement in you to deny they were of the Roman Catholic Church, for how can the Protestant's challenge, Carthusians, Monks, Abbots, Bishops consecrated by the Pope, and appealing to him in their grievances, to be of theirs.  
Now if you will act the part of a Defender of your Church, (and the credit of it, depends of your good success heerin) you must show us, some Saints, or one Saint of known publicly reputed Holiness of life and conversation, who cofessedly was a Protestant, and whom we cannot with any appearance of reason deny to be yours; as you cannot deny those Monks, Abbots, Carthusians etc. named in your calendar to be ours: you say Friars Monks and Abbots are superstitious Bigots, and foorbs; for all that, there have been some of that Profession so honest men, as to have deserved a place in your calendar; which is a manifest proof, that the Tenor of life which they professed is not superstitious, nor the Tenets of Religion they believed, are not errors inconsistent with salvation: I pray show us any one Minister or Bishop of the Protestant Church, since the beginning of the Reformation; show us any of the Image breakers, ryflers of Monasteries, Persecutors of Priests and Friars, believers of Figurative Presence, Scoffers of Indulgences and Purgatory (this is Protestancy) that was so honest a man as to have deserved a place in your calendar: and if you can show noon; then the prudent Reader will judge my discourse to be good that any wise man tender of his salvation aught to live and die in the Catholic Church, where many Eminent and illustrious Saints have been; rather than in the Protestant, where never any was known.  
But our reckoning is not at an end Dr; you remember that old charge against your Reformation, never yet answered; that your Separation from the Catholic Church was a Spiritual Rebellion, a formal schism: your answer is that the Schism is Causally ours; that by our Idolatry, and many other errors, we forced you to separat from us; That we separated from the Doctrine of Christ, and therefore you separated from us. But all this appears to be an idle talk without any sense; for, Eminent Saints, glorious for their virtues, Holiness and Miracles, are not to be found, but in the Profession of the true faith of Christ; if therefore in our Church such Saints of known Sanctity be found; its a manifest and undeniable proof, that the true faith of Christ is in our Church: Now I ask you and your Comrades; when did our Church separate from the Doctrine of Christ? some of you say, in the first 300. years; others of you say, that about the first 600. This appears to be manifestly falls; for in the ensuing ages all along until the year 1255. (then Richard Bishop of Chichester lived) there were Eminent Saints of known and renowned Holiness and Miracles in our Church; (for all those forementioned Saints recorded in your calendar were ours as I have proved) therefore the true faith and Doctrine of Christ continued still in our Church, and your Schism is not causally ours, but without any cause yours.  
And truly whatever you may say of your Separation; I cannot imagine how your Church or you will excuse your Oversight in prefixing that calendar to your Common prayer book: I do not think there could be a more shameful reproach to your Church: Quakers were never so tempted to swear, that this calendar smells more of a Popisn Conspiracy than Gunpounder Treason day; they will never believe but that some Papist had a hand in making it; for can he be a Child of the Reformation, who pur Gregory Pope, and Austin the Monk in Our Reform Calendar, for being the first who brought Popery into England; and left out Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr and others who first preached the Reformation? can he be a Reform Child, who put Benedict, and Austin Monks and Hugh a Carthusian Friar in our Reform calendar, and in the mean time we hung men in Tyburn for following their Profession, and Tenor of life: Either the Reformation had any one Eminent Saint since its first rise, or not? if it had; why have not you put him in your calendar? if it had not? had it not been more to the credit of your Church, to have made no calendar; than by making one, given fo public a testimony to the world, how poor your Church is of Saints, that to furnish your calendar you must borrow them out of our Breviary: besides Dr, even for the Reformation of particular Cities, and Provinces, God makes use of Holy men, of an exemplar life; and to say that God should have entrusted the Reformation of the whole Church, to a company of turbulent Spirits, and not as much as one man in the whole company to be of Eminent Holiness, nor exemplar life: its against the grain of Man's reason to believe it.  
Our Dr not content to attack the Titles of our Saints; comes with a fresh charge against their manner of life: for I argued in the Conclusion of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, that Christ's Counsels, of forsaking lands, estates, and means, and embracing poverty; was commended, preached, and practised in our Chutch, witness the many Religious Orders, where several People have forsaken their plentiful estates; and no such Doctrine was ever preached or practised in the Protestant Church; also Christ's Counsel (recommended to us by S. Paul's Doctrine and example) of corporal Austerities, Disciplins hairecloths, sleeping on the bore ground, rising at midnight to sing Psalms in God's praise, etc. was and is practised frequently by all sexes and ages in our Church; and what Minister or Protestant was ever heard of that ryses at midnight to sing God's praises; that disciplins himself, etc. Hence I concluded, that to be the Church of Christ, which followed his Counsels, and consequently the Catholic to be Christ's Church. Our Dr answers like a good Christian, that our corporal Austerities and mortifications are like to them of Pagans' and Heathens, tending to the destruction of Body and Soul; that the Protestant's use corporal austerities, but discreetly: that our Austerities are desperate and indiscreet. And what Christian will hear with patience, Christian Austerities undertaken for the love of God, and practised by the greatest Saints of the Church; to be lykned by Dr Sal, to the Austerities of Pagans', to be condemned as destructive to Body and Soul? The Austerity of the great Baptist, so much commended in the Gospel, exceeds far that of our Monks and Friars; and if theirs be destructive to Body and Soul, the great Baptist is undone: the Austerity and Mortifications of David surpassed far, that of our Monks, Friars and Nuns; and if these have destroyed their bodies and Souls by their Mortifications; if their Austerities be indiscreet and desperate; if they be like the austerities of Pagans': in what a condition will David be?  
Henceforth I hope, he will not pretend that S. Benedict was a Protestant (though in his calendar) but a Catholic or a Pagan, for rising at midnight to the Choir to sing God's Praises as David did; for his many indiscreet and desperate austerities like them of Pagans'; to which he obliged his Monks by the Rules of his Order. S. Gyles also mentioned in the Protestant calendar must have been a Papist or a Pagan; so indiscreet and desperate he was in his austerities destructive to body and soul, sleeping on the bore ground for many years, feeding on herbs and roots; no Protestant was ever so indiscreet. To conclude, noon who forsook silks and satins for a poor habit; good cheer for a poor portion; pomp and vanity for a retired and austere life as the great Baptist did, and innumerable of our Church; noon I say of them were Protestant's, they are not so indiscreet and desperate: Dr Sal indeed was once so indiscreet, as to have undertaken this course of life; but now in his old age, he is become wise, and has changed his habit for good attire; his scant and poor fare, for good cheer; his religious retirement for a court; his poverty for Rents; his religious humiliation for a Deanery (which they say he has) his Obedience to Superiors, for a full possession of his own Will; his austerities and mortifications, for more pleasure and satisfaction than euer he had; and this is the Discretion of Protestant's, and the way to Salvation.   

IV. CHAPTER.  
OUR DOCTOR'S CONFUSED DISCOURSES of our Rule of faith: a Parallel of Protestant's and Ancient Heretics.  
HE perceived the main Controversy whereof the resolution of all others depend, to be that of our Rule of faith, and the necessity of a living Judge for to determine our doubts in Religion: therefore I so carefully handled this point in my former Treatise and with strength of reason and Scripture proved, that Scripture alone, without an infallible living Interpreter was not our Rule of faith. But my Antagonist, resolved to continued, rather than to end wrangling, hand les this question so superficially and so confus-edly that he does but hint at it here and there in several Chapters; nor can we fixedly perceive what Rule of faith he establishes for himself. For Now, he says Scripture alone is his Rule; then he lays that aside, and sets up the Apostles, and four first General Councils Creeds; again he waves that, and brings in a third Rule; that's to say for fundamental points necessary to salvation, the Apostles Creed alone; and for points not fundamental or inferior Truths the Word of God, whither Written that's the Bible; or unwritten that's Tradition: thus he hops from branch to branch much indeed to his credit; for when others found it a sufficient task to hit on one Rule of faith; his wit is so fertile as to found three, but his luck is nought that noon is good.  
His first Rule is Scripture alone; this he asserts pag. 29. of his Sermon and page 24. against I S. in his new book; and what is to be admired in so fertile a Wit, that he could not hit on any proof for so considerable a point, whereof the resolution of so many Controversies depends, but that only Text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3. Holy Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation, that the man of God etc. out of which he concludes pag. 29. of his Sermon, that Scripture alone is sufficient; abounding with all heavenly light for instruction to those who are not wilfully blind; and this alone, and nothing else of Scripture or reason he answers to my two long Chapters against the sufficiency of Scripture for our Rule of faith: and though I proved in my former Treatise, by many instances, that this Text of S. Paul does not prove the sufficiency of Scripture; I have no other answer from him, but that I am a Twice Impious Sophister; that I mend the text instead of interpreting it; that I given the Apostle the lie: truly his mistake is in some measure pardonable; for the Apostle was once called Saul; our Dr haply, mistook Saul for Sal; and thought I corrected the text of Saul the Apostle, when I checked the inference from it, of Sal the Apostate.  
I answered the Apostle did not say Scripture alone was able for to instruct us; and besides the many proofs I delivered for this in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church; I do now again prove it: for its manifest Sctipture cannot instruct us to salvation, if it be not rightly understood; its also manifest that the true understanding of Scripture is not had with assurance, without an infallible Interpreter; for says S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. 20. No Prophecy of Scripture, (that's to say assured interpretation) is of any private interpretation; for Prophecies come not in old times from the Will of men, but the holy men of God spoke as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Therefore its manifest that Scripture alone, interpreted by private People, and without an Infallible Interpreter is not able to instruct us to salvation. He replies its ridiculous to say, Scripture is able, if Scripture alone be not able; as it would be ridiculous, says he, to say you are able to carry two hundred weight; and when you come to the trial you must have a horse to help you: And by this Dialect, we must affirm the Dr was not able to answer J. S. his book, because when he come to the trial, he must go to Oxford for Englih; nor must we say he is able to read, because without spectacles he cannot; and it will be ridiculous to say you can make a voyage to England, if you cannot go alone without ship and seamen. Pray Sr. was the Apostle ridiculous when he said Men are saved by Hope Rom. 8. 24. for its evident his meaning was not that Hope alone can save us: was he ridiculous when he said we are justified by faith; for its apparent that faith alone does not justify us: and why should it be ridiculously said by him that Scripture is sufficient for to instruct us, though Scripture alone be not sufficient? OH but, say you, in other places the Apostle says we must have charity and other Virtues; and thence it appears his meaning was not that Hope alone, and faith alone can save us; and so do I say, the Apostle in other places bids us hold Traditions, and the Scripture in several places bids us consult in our doubts, and hear the Church; consequently S. Paul when he said Scripture was able to instruct us, his meaning was not that Scripture alone was able.  
Wise men have more than one string to their bow; our Dr foreseeing this Rule of faith was not sufficient; sets up an other, which is the Apostles Creed alone: pag. 10 against N. N. and pag. 60. against J. S. Points necessary to salvation, says he, and to the constitution of a true Church are those contained in the Apostles Creed, which is a summary of Articles, that those sacred fountains of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men, and necessary to be believed explicitly. After having thus magnified the sufficiency of the Apostles Creed alone; in the same place against N. N. he alters his note, and will not have it alone to be a sufficient Rule of our faith, but jointly with the Creeds of the four first General Councils; and as he wavers in his Doctrine, so his proof is absurd, which comes but to this; That its strange any man not blinded with partiality should imagine the Apostles entrusted to preach saving Doctrine to all the World should not have given sufficient notice of it in the system of Articles they left unto us: that those Venerable fathers of the purer ages of Christianity congregated in the four first General Councils should given us but a Diminut account of Catholic belief.  
But Sr if the Apostles Creed alone contains all necessary Articles to salvation, as the first part of your discourse pretends, what need had you to ad the Creeds of the four Councils as a part of your Rule of faith? and if the Creeds of the Councils contain any thing necessary to salvation, which is not expressed in the Apostles Creed; then that of the Apostles alone is not a sufficient Rule: I pray Dr is this a good discourse, Christ entrusted to teach us to salvation preached a Sermon to his disciples Math 18. therefore all instruction, and Articles neccssary for our salvation is expressed in that Sermon; surely you will say this is a very frivolous and Silly discourse; given me leave to say so much of yours, which is this; The Apostles and Councils entrusted to teach us to salvation, delivered us these Creeds; therefore all Articles and instruction necessary to salvation are contained in them.  
Moreover, when you say that those Creeds of the Apostles and Councils contain all necessary points to salvation to be explicitly believed, and are a sufficient Rule of faith; Do you mean, that to be saved it is necessary to believe explicitly all the contents of those Creeds? what sort of men do you speaked of? if of People who never had any instruction, you require too much; for no divine will stick to grant that men, even after the promulgation of the Gospel may be saved, believing explicitly the Mysteries of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Passion of Christ for our Redemption, though they should ignore explicitly other Articles expressed in the Creeds: if you speaked of People sufficiently instructed in Christian Religion; we must know, how far they are instructed; if only of the contents of those Creeds; then indeed it is sufficient to their salvation to believe the contents of those Creeds, and no more is requisite to be believed explicitly; but if they be instructed also of other Verities, which you call inferior Truths, as Infant's Baptism, Episcopacy, Communion in one kind, the Canon of Scripture, and two Sacraments; then indeed though these Verities be not contained explicitly in them Creeds, its needful to salvation to believe them explicitly; and I hope I need no more proof to convince you of this truth, than your own concessions; for pag. 60. you say, that these inferior Verities are of equal objective certainty with fundamental Verities and are to be believed explicitly when they are sufficiently proposed to us to be revealed Truths: you cannot deny but that those inferior Verities are sufficienrly proposed to you and to your Church; for you say they are clearly contained in Scripture; you engage to prove them by God's Written Word; in so much that you say its an error inconsistent with salvation to deny them; therefore whatever you may say of Pagans' or ill instructed Christians, its evident in your Principles that you and your Church are obliged to believe explicitly those inferior Truths, because they are sufficiently proposed unto you to be revealed Truths; but not one of those Truths is explicitly contained in the Creeds; therefore all points of necessary explicit belief to your, and your Church's salvation are not explicitly contained in the Creeds.  
Mistake me not Dr, the question is not what may be a sufficient Rule of faith to People who are not well instructed; who never heard, but little of Religion: I have, and do again grant that the Creeds contain all points of necessary explicit belief to the salvation of such People, who have been instructed of no more, but what is contained in them, nay I say more, that in regard of some People who never heard of those Creeds, and were instructed only of the Mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation and Passion of Christ; those Creeds contain more than is necessary to be explicitly believed by them: But the question is, what is a sufficient Rule containing all points of necessary explicit Belief to your Church and ours, which abound with light and instruction to faith? whither the Creeds alone contain all points which your Church is obliged under pain of damnation to believe explicitly? and its evident they do not; for you say you are obliged to believe explicitly those Inferior Truths, because they are sufficiently proposed to you to be Revealed; its an error inconsistent with salvation to deny them, you say; and yet they are not expressed in the Creeds: therefore the Creeds are not a sufficient Rule of faith to you and your Church.  
I have in my former Treatise evidenced the insufficiency of Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter for to regulat our faith; and because our Dr does boast much of the conformity of his Church in Doctrine with the first and purest ages, I will briefly show, their Conformity with the first and impurest Heretics; for who regulate their faith by one and the same Rule; though they may differ in some material points of Doctrine, they have one and the same faith. The Ancient Heretics would have no Rule of faith but Scripture; and that, not as interpreted by the Church, but as each one understood it; what they found, according their best understanding in Scripture; that they believed; what they did not found expressed there, they rejected; though the Councils or Church did teach it. These things are not found in Scripture (said the Arrians disputing against the Consubstantiality of the son of God with the father) and what is not read there we reject. Athan. in Epist. de Syn. Arm. & Seleu. If you bring Scripture (said Maximinus to S. Augustin) we will listen unto you; but these Words which are not in Scripture we do not value. In what Scripture are two Natures of Christ mentioned (says Eutyches) we follow nothing but Scripture, and care not what exposition of it the Church gives. Let us believe what we read in Scripture (say the Pelagians) and what we do not read in it, let us not believe it. This was the precincts of Ancient Heretics belief; Scripture alone, their Rule of faith; thus they trampled the authority of the Church, for to vent their fancies without curb.  
If you read the Doctrine and books of our Modern Sectaries, you will suspect a Transmigration of souls; and that the old Heretics are come again upon the stage to act of the new, in the persons of Luther, Calvin, etc. what they have already done in former ages. Our Rule of faith, says Luther l. de Ser. Arb. & to. 2. Wittem: is but Scripture as each one interprets it; we receive nothing but Scripture. We are not to submit our judgements to the Decisions of Synods or Councils (says Calvin, l. 4. Instit. c. 9) if after having examined Scripture, we do not found their interpretation and Doctrine to be according the Word of God. It's needless (says Barlow, in Defence. Religionis Protest pag. 199.) that either Pope or Council, Man or Angel should teach us; the Spirit Working in our hearts and the Scriptures are to each one assured Interpreters Our Rule of faith is Scripture, as each Person of sounded judgement in the Church understands it: says the Church of England in the 39 Art Did ever any egg resemble more an other, than our Sectaries do the Ancient Heretics in their Rule of faith? so far from agreeing with the first and purest ages, that the Primitive fathers expressly denied Scripture alone to be our sufficient Rule of faith; which I will prove with some few passages; it would be tedious to relate many.  
S. Denis Areop. de Eccles. Hier. c. 1. says Some things have been recorded in Holy Writ; other higher and more sublime Mysteries, our holy Leaders and Masters, have from hand to hand, by preaching and Doctrine without any written Word delivered to Posterity. So far he was from believing Scripture alone contained all necessary points to salvation; that he says the most sublime mysteries are not contained in them: and of this sentiment is also S. Chrysost. Ho. 1. in Act. Of the mysteries of the Trinity and Divin Nature of Christ, the Apostles written but very little and again S. Chrysost. ad 1 an. These c. 2. orat. 4. Its clear the Apostles did not deliver all their Doctrine in writing, but many points without any Writing, which also are to be believed Origen lib. 2. count Celsum, S Basil l. de Spir. Sancto. c. 27. and Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 6. expressly teach, that the Apostles did purposely omit to writ plainly of the most excellent and high Mysteries of our Religion, contented to teach them lightly, because the Vulgar sort was not capable of such sublime Doctrine, and therefore committed them to the Pastors of the Church to be declared more particularly, as occasion required and time permitted: Epiph. Haeresi 61. says, All things cannot be taken from Scripture; the Apostles have declared some things by writing, and some by Tradition. Of the Nature, form, Matter, and effects of the Sacraments, (Points without doubt of necessary belief to salvation) we know so little, that they are known to us, only by Tradition, as S. Augustin observed lib. 1. de Fide & Oper. c. 9 upon the passage of the Eunuch baptised by Philip, The Evangelist signified all things were fullfilled in that action; which though for brevity's sake they are sylenced in Scripture; we know by Tradition they aught to have been done.  
And will our Dr persuade us, that Scripture alone is sufficient for our instruction to salvation, against such emphatical expressions of the Ancient fathers? Not; he has a greater respect for them; though he has hitherto so eagerly asserted the sufficiency of Scripture alone; then of the Apostles Creed alone; then again of the Apostles Creed jointly with those of the four first Councils; now he quits these engagements, and runs upon an other as desperate.   

V CHAPTER.  
OUR DOCTOR'S THIRD RULE OF FAITH, Tradition as described by Lirine●sis: his Opinion of the true Church.  
PAg. 84. he resolves his faith into its ultimat Motive whereon it rests: I believe, says he, the son of God was made Man, because I found it in Scripture (observe he says, because I found it, not because the Church finds it,) I believe what's written in Scripture because its the Infallible Word of God; I believe its the Word of God because the Apostles preaching it, did confirm it by many Miracles; and finally, that they confirmed it with Miracles; I believe it in force of Universal Tradition, according the celebrated notion of it delivered by Lirinensis, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod apud omnes est creditum, what was always, in all places and by all men believed, that is to be taken for Universal Tradition.  
The ultimat motive therefore of his faith, and Rule of his Belief is Universal Tradition, as we have heard him describe it; To this, (says he pag. 29.) we are resolved to stand, or fall, as well for discerning the Canon of Scripture, as for Understanding the truc sense of it. A Dieu henceforward S. Paul's text, and so many pages of good English unfortunatly spent to defend the sufficiency of Scripture alone for our Rule of faith: now our Dr has pitched upon an other; he will believe no Scripture, no sense of Scripture; no revealed Truth, but what is warranted by this Apostolic Lirinensis (as he understands it) Tradition; that is to say, but what is believed in all places, in all times and by all Christians: whatever was denied in any time, in any place, or by any Christians, our Dr will not believe it, not, he'll sooner hung; because its not of Apostolic Tradition; and hence it follows, as you shall see that you may hid all our Doctor's faith in a Nut's shell.  
For if he will believe nothing that was denied in any time and by any Christians, he must not believe S Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, James and Judes' Epistles, nor the second and third of S. John, nor the second of S. Peter, because all are denied by the Lutherans the Older Brethrens of the Reformation: nor must he believe the Old Testament, denied by the Valentinians and Manicheans; nor the Ghospels because they were denied by the Marcionists, all as Good Christians, as our Sectaries: finally as I have shown in the 2. Chap. of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, hardly any part of Scripture but was denied in some time, some place and by some Christians. Nor must he believe figurative Presence denied by Luther and his sect; nor the king's spiritual supremacy, denied by Calvin, as I have proved in my former Treatise; nor Episcopacy denied by the Presbiterians; also hardly any sense of Scripture but was denied by some Christians, and in some time; and consequently if he will believe no Scripture nor sense of Scripture, but what is believed by all Christians, in all times and places, his faith will shrink to the bulk of a grain of Mustard, and Protestant's may expect he will with it, move mountains, and work other Miracles in confirmation of their new Religion.  
But we are not to quarrel with our Dr for this ridiculous Rule of faith for discerning Scripture and the true sense of it; in quality of a Defender of his Church, he could do not lesle, whereas the 6. Article of the 39 of England speaks thus In the name of holy Scriptures we understand those Canonical books of the old and new Testament of whose authority there never was any doubt in the Church, and by the word Church they mean, as the Doctor, the whole Conhregation of Christians: so that whatever Book the Lutherans, Valentinians, Calvinists, Ebionits', or Marcionists ever doubted of (and hardly any but they did) must be utterly denied to be Canonical.  
Our Doctor's mistake springs from the misunderstanding of that Notion of Apostolical Tradition, delivered by Lirinensis: if it be rightly understood, its a true Notion, and may be a good Rule of faith▪ the true meaning of it is; that what was believed in all times, and places; by all Orthodox Christians sufficiently instructed, is of Apostolical Tradition, and nothing is of Apostolic Tradition, that was denied at any time or place, by any Orthodox Christians sufficiently instructed: for if a Doctrine was, or was not believed or denied by Hetherodox Christians, or heretics, matters not a pin for to be of Apostolic Tradition; What is Apostolic Tradition but the Depositum of Christ's pure Doctrine delivered by the Apostles to their successors; and for to know which is Christ's true Doctrine, we must not go to Heretics, Turks, or Pagans'. Let our Rule of faith then be Apostolical Tradition; now it remains we distinguish true Apostolical Tradition from what's not such;  
The Apostles delivered all Christian Verities either in their Written Word, which is Scripture; or their unwritten Word, which is Tradition; The succeeding ages began to doubt, if this or that was the Apostles Written Word; that's to say, if this or that was true Canonical Scripture; so also they began to doubt, and do this day doubt, if this or that Doctrine, or unwritten Word, be Apostolical Tradition: And by what test did the Ancient Fathers distinguish Apostolical Written Word, from not Apostolical? and Apostolical unwritten Word, or Tradition? S. Augustin l. 3. conr. Cresc. discerns the Apostolical Written Word, or Scripture from not Scripture by the judgement of the Church; Evangel●o non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. I would not believe the Gospel to be such, if the authority of the Church did not move me: where, by the Church, he did not mean all Christians; for he knew that as well in his own time, as in precedent ages, many Christians denied some parts of the true Canon; but he meant the true Orthodox part of Christianity: And by what test did the Ancient Fathers discern the Apostolical unwritten Word, or Tradition, from not Apostolical? by the testimony of the Church also; for in S. Cyprian's time, he and his Abettors held that Rebaptisation of Heretics, was of Apostolical Tradition; S. August. l. de Bapt. count Donat. says it was not; and how does he prove it was not? by the Authority of the Church: Multa non inveniuntur in Scriptura, etc. Many things are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in ihe Councils of their Successors, but because they were observed by the Church they are believed to be delivered by the Apostles. He did not believe the Validity of Heretics Baptism to be of Apostolical Tradition, because it was believed in all times and by all Christians, (for he knew it was denied by S. Cyprian and many others) but because it was believed by the Church, to which (says S. Augustin) S. Cyprian, without doubt would have submitted, had he lived to hear the judgement of the Church upon the Controversy. Our Dr therefore, since he has pitched upon Apostolical Tradition for to be his Rule of faith; for to know what Apostolical Tradition is; and if this or that Doctrine be truly of Apostolical Tradition, must go to the Infallible Church for to be assured; and if he does not he will never rest satisfied, nor the controversy be ended: which appears in controversies betwixt the Protestant's and other Sectaries; for Protestant's say Episcopacy is of Apostolical Tradition; Presbiterians say its not; Lutherans say its of Apostolical Tradition to adore the Consecrated Host; Protestant's say its not: That the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture, Protestant's say its Apostolical Tradition; Lutherans say it is not: I pray Dr when will ye decide these Controversies? when will ye agreed among yourselves? never whilst the world is world, until ye come to some Infallible living Judge (which is the Church) to whom it apertains to declare which is the Apostolical Written Word, or Scripture; and which not: which is the Apostolical unwritten Word or Tradition; and which not.  
Its therefore I ptoved in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, Chap. 4. the Necessity of a living Infallible Judge, and that to be the Catholic Church, for to instruct us as well in this as in other doubts of Religion: but our Dr cannot endure this arrogance and pride of ours. appropriating to ourselves the name of Catholic and Ox●hodox, excluding all other Christian Societies from any share of that, Title: Not says he you are but a part of the Church, and a corrupt one of the Church Universal, which is composed of all Christian Societies: this is our D rs opinion of the true Catholic Church, declared in the first part against N. N. 12 Chapt. and often in several Chapters of his second part against J. S. Nor did this Paradox drop first from out Dr; D r Morton in his book of the kingdom of Israel pag. 91. says, The Arian Church is to be esteemed a true Church because it holds the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in jesus Christ son of God, and Redeemer of the world: and again in his 4 Chap. whose Title is, Heretics are Members of the true Church he speaks thus; whosoever believes in jesus Christ, though by wickedness of life, or heresy in Doctrine he should err, he is still a member of the Church.  
It was neither Wit nor maiice that put our Dr upon such a desperate engagement but want of memory; for had he remembered many propositions advanced by himself, he would not have overthrown them all by this one. Pag. 63. he tells us Protestant's are Members of the Catholic Church; hecause they received that dignity in their Baptism, and it is not lost but by formal Heresy or Infidelity: Therefore by Heresy that dignity is lost, and Heretics are not membes of the Church: Now I ask you what do you call a formal Heresy? you answer in your Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord of Essex; that it is an obstinate adhesion to a Doctrine opposite to Scripture: But all Christian Societies distinct from yours, and whose Tenets are opposite to yours, hold obstinately and wilfully Doctrines opposite to Scripture; for you say often, that your Tenets are plainly set down, and their Errors clearly convinced by Scripture, which abounds with heavenly light to all those who are not wilfully obtinat; therefore all those Congrations are guilty of formal Heresy and consequently are not Members of the Catholic Church.  
Again; had our Dr remembered what he said in his 10. Chapt. answering to my syllogism in Ferio, that the true Church of God is obiectevely Infallible; that's to say cannot teach any Doctrine obiectively falls; certainly he would never have said, Christ's Church is composed of all those Christian Societies: because the Tenets of those Congregations are contradictorily opposite; Lutherans hold Real Presence; Calvinists deny it; Lutherans hold that S. Paul's Epistles to the Hebrews is not Canonical; Protestant's say it is etc. therefore some of those congregations do hold Doctrines Objectively falls; therefore some of them are not the true Catholic Church, nor any patt of it; for he confesses the true Catholic Church cannot teach any Doctrine objectively falls. The Catholic Church also as he acknowledges is the Pillar of Truth, and its clear, that those Christian Societies taken all together, are not the Pillar of Truth, being guilty of so many errors.  
Lastly its evident, and our Dr will not deny it, that any congregation which holds fundamental errors against the chief and prime Articles of Christianity, is no part of the Catholic Church: its no lesle evident that some of these Christian Societies hold Errors not only against Infertor Verities but also against the Fundamental and chief Articles of Christianity, as I have proved in the Introduction of this book and as your own Brethrens the Lutheran Writers do expressly confess, as you may read in Brierlie trac. 2. c 2. sect. 10. sub 13. read Samuel Huberinus (a Lutheran) his book, whose Title is An ti●hesis Lutheranae & Calvinisticae Doctrinae in praecipui fidei Articulis; the Contradiction of Lutherans and Calvinists in the chief Articles of faith. Reade Conradus de Theol. Calvin. l. 1. art. 18. The Calvinists have passed so far, as to bring in doubt, no small number of chief Articles of Christian faith; the omnipotency of God; the Personal Union of the two Natures in Christ; the Communication of names in the Blessed Trinity; the glorious Body of Christ; his Ascension; the difference of Sacraments, of the old and new Testament; the force and efficacy of Grace; the Prerogative of Infants born of Infidels, the Lord's supper, and Predestination: in all these (which our Dr will not deny to be chief and Fundamental Articles of Religion) the Lutherans and Calvinists disagree; and therefore the same Conradus writ three books of the irreconcilable difference betwixt Lutherans and Calvinists, and in his second book: art. 13. says, nos negamus inter nos & Calvinistas in Doctrinae fundamento esse consensum; Wce deny any agreement betwixt us and Calvinists in Fundamental Articles: and therefore Stancarus a Lutheran, l. count Calvin: advertises his Reader; Beware Christian Reader of the Books of Calvin, especially in the Articles of the B. Trinity; the Incarnation, and Mediation of Christ; the Sacrament of Baptism and Predestination; for that they contain impious Doctrine, and Arian Blasphemies. And in his book count Minist Genu. says, that the Church of Geneva and Zurich are Arians: and Nauserus, who of a Calvinist became an Arian, and of an Arian become a Turk in his Epistle ad Gerlachium a Protestant Preacher, says. I know noon of our age who became an Arian, who was not first a Calvinist; if you will eat Arianism, you must beware of Calvinism: Go now Doctor and tell us, that your Sects agreed in all the chief and Fundamental Articles of Religion; Go and tell us, that all these Sects so monstruously divided, compose the Catholic Church.   

VI CHAPTER.  
MY ARGUMENTS FOR THE NECESSITY of a living Infallible judge of Controversies, and that to be the Church, unanswered.  
IN my former Treatise I argued thus; either 'its lawful to each one to follow that sense of Scripture which bona Fide, after mature consideration and prayers to God, he thinks to be the sense of the text; and if so all the world, though at ears for their different Tenets, are in a good Religion; and the General Councils have been rash in condemning Arius, Nestorius etc. because all Heresiarcks and Heretics will say (and why should not we believe them) that they judge in their Conscience before God, their own sense of Scripture is the true: Or God has required of us, that we should all believe and profess one only sense of Scripture; that, and no other, which he has revealed; and if so; certainly he has appointed and commissioned some supreme Authority for to teach us what sense of Scripture is that which he will have us believe; and we are bound to acquiesce and yielded to that supreme authority, though the sense he proposes, may not seem to our private judgement to be the best: for if God has not appointed such an Authority, how shall I know, which of the different senses given to the text, is that which God has revealed: and if we be not obliged in conscience to obey that Authority, and believe the sense proposed by it; then I may, and so may every other, without any scruple reject that sense, and each one hold his own, and so there will be no imaginable way for us to be of one and the same faith. This supreme Authority I proved to be the Church, and I have no answer from my Dr to all my discourse but a very civil compliment page 29. he says; if he thinks Scripture is not sufficient for to decide our Controversies, we will admit with S. Augustin, the Authority of the Church, and Tradition as expounded by Lirinensis: But this compliance to my discourse signifies nothing, if by Church and Tradition, he Understands all Christian Societies; for if we must believe no sense of the text but what they all agreed in, we must believe noon at all. I proved by convincing arguments that this Teaching and Proposing Church must be the Roman Catholic Church; and my Dr answers, that jam a fool as the great Turk for calling himself king of kings: assuredly this is a short and smart method of answering, had Bellarmin and stillingfleet discovered this method of anfwering, they might have reduced their great books to a few sheets of paper.  
I proved our obligation of submitting to the Doctrine of this supreme Authority; because Christ laid his commands, not only upon the Apostles, but also upon their successors in succeeding ages, of preaching, teaching and ruling the flock; and laid his commands on the flock not only of the Apostles days, but on the flock of all succeeding ages, of hearing, believing, and obeying their Pastors and Leaders, for to be conveyed all into one faith: Our Dr answers in the tone of a grave man; What he adds of Obedience due from the flock to their Pastors, is right, speaking of each flock in regard of their ordinary lawful Pastors: This restriction, speaKing of their ordinary lawful Pastors, was foisted in for some mischief: doubtless it was to absolve the flock of England from any Obedience to the Pope.  
But Pray Dr when Luther and his merry Companions began to vent their Novelties, was there not a Church extant, and consequently Ordinary and lawful Pastors, to whom they owed Obedience? were they not obliged to obey those Ordinary lawful Pastors, and acquiesce to their Doctrine as Christ commands us by S. Paul, that we live in Unity of faith and not be carried away with every wind of Doctrine? were they not then, Schismatics, for not submitting to those lawful Pastors? this obligation of submitting to that Authority descended to the Lutherans; for that Church and Authority which he was obliged to obey is still the same; and has still the right of exacting obedience from the flock; consequently the Lutherans are Schismatics for not submitting to it: and if the Lutherans be guilty, the Church of England is no lesle; because you were then under the same Authotity and ordinary Pastors, to which you owed Obedience, and therefore you are obliged to return.  
It was to eneruat this discourse that my Antagonist inserted that word, that each particular flock owes obedience to th●ir lawful Ordinary Pastors; pretending that the Church or flock of England owes Obedience only to the Pastors of England; that as the king in each kingdom is the head of the Church so the Pastors of each kingdom are the lawful Ordinary Pastors in that kingdom to whom the flock owes Obedience; the flock of England must obey the Pastots of England; the flock of France, the Pastors of France and so of the rest. And if you ask what way imaginable is there then, to keep us in Unity of faith; for it may hap that the Pastors of England, France, and Spain may deliver different Doctrines; the one believe the Divinity of Christ, the other deny it; the one believe the true Canon of Scripture and the other deny it: this may, and does hap; in this case all the flock of these kingdoms are obliged to have one and the same faith: which Pastors must they believe? does reason or Scripture oblige the flock of Spain to believe the Pastors of France? or that of France the Pastors of England? Not: why then in this case you have nothing to answer, but that each flock is bound to obey their own Ordinary Domestic Pastors, and so be all of three different Religions one from an other; or that there is one Pastor above them all, to which as well the flock as the Pastors are bound to submit, and obey.  
And this we will prove out of the Church of England: for, in Ireland as there is in each Parish a Pastor to watch over the flock; so there is in each Bishopric a Bishop to rule the subordinat Pastors; in each Province there is an ArchBishop whose care is to keep Unity of Doctrine and Discipline among the Bishops; in the kingdom there is a Primate who has a supreme Jurisdiction over all the Pastors and Prelates. Now as Controversies may arise betwixt the Pastors of one kingdom, so there may betwixt the Pastors of different Nations; why therefore, as besides Scripture and Christ our invisible head you admit a supreme visible head over all the Pastors of each kingdom, will not you grant a visible Universal Pastor over all the flock of Christ and over all the Pastors of different Nations, for to keep them in Unity of Doctrine: for if you read the Scripture, you shall not found that Christ should have made any mention of any particular Pastor for each particular flock; but he made mention of One supreme Pastor for to govern his whole flock, Vnum Ouile & Vnus Pastor: this One flock which Christ spoke of, certainly is composed of all the particular flocks of divers kingdoms; therefore that one Pastor, which he spoke of is the Pastor of all kingdoms.  
The Church of England, and our Dr pag. 60. tells us Inferior or Not fundamental Truths implicitly contained in Scripture, are of so great consequence to our salvation, that it is a damnable error to deny them; that all Nations are obliged to believe them when they are sufficiently proposed to us, to be revealed Truths; surely these Truths were revealed that they might be proposed to, and believed by all Nations: therefore God has appointed some Authority in the Church for to propose unto all Nations, and oblige them all to believe those Truths proposed by that Authority: there must be therefore some Authority which has a power over all Nations; but the Pastors of any particular kingdom are not impower'd to oblige the flock of an other kingdom; therefore there must be one Pastor who has Authority and power over all. Nor will it be a satisfactory answer to say that God gave the Scripture to all Nations, whereby to learn all Truth; first because besides Scripture, its needful that in each particular kingdom there be one supreme Pastor, who has authority over all the Pastors of that kingdom, as we have discoursed but now; so likewise besides Scripture there must be one supreme Pastor, whose charge is to teach and rule all Pastors of all Nations; for Christ gave his commission for to teach certain Truths of Religion to all Nations; Ite, praedicate Evangelium Omni creaturae, in Vniversum mundum; as therefore for to teach Particular kingdoms, you grant besides Scripture, one Supreme Pastor in that kingdom; why not one Supreme Pastor over all kingdoms? Secondly, its not a Scripture or a Written book which Christ gave to teach; (for as I obserucd in my former Treatise, Christ gave no Scripture, nor any Commission to his Apostles to writ it;) but Living Pastors and teachers: thirdly I have proved and its evident that Scripture does not contain all Truths which all Nations are obliged to believe: lastly because the true Canon itself of Scripture is doubted of by many Nations: there must be then a supreme Authority for to answer to this doubt, to whom all Nations are obliged to acquiesce. This supreme Authority was believed by the Christian World to be in the Pope and Council before Luther and Calvin's revolt, to this Authority they gave obedience then, and now they deny it; they are therefore guilty of Schism, and bound to return to that Obedience.  
I proved in my former Treatise of this subject that it was the practice of God's Church in all ages, when ever any Controversy in Religion arrised betwixt two Parties; it was never determined by their altercations, disputes and Interpretations of the Text; but the question was devolved to the Church convened in a General Council, to which both Parties were obliged to submit, and he esteemed an Heretic who would not acquiesce to the Decision of the Council: That no Apellation nor Protestation against the Council under pretence of being a Party, or of being of the contrary Doctrine to the Person accused, was admitted; but he was obliged to submit his Doctrine to the judgement of the Council. I proved also at large that this was the practice of the Reform Church, in the Synods of Dordrect and Delft in Holland; where Arminius protested against the Synod, as being a Party because it was composed for the most part of Gomarists: but the Synod declared him a Schismatic, if he did not wave his Apellation, and submit himself to its Judgement in that Controversy, and declared itself to be the competent Judge in that cause. I inferred hence, the obligation of Luther and the whole Reformation that he aught to have submitted himself to the Church convened in the Council of Trent, to which the Decision of the Controversies apertained. My good Dr answers pag. 31. that the Pope and Council of Trent, were the Party accused; that Luther nor the Reformation did not therefore, nor aught not to submit unto them: this was the answer of Arminius to Dordrect. And Dordrect judged him to be a Schismatic for so answering; this was the answer of Arius and all Heretics against the Councils who condemned them; and they were judged Schismatics for not submitting; and must not our Doctor also be judged a Schismatic with his Master Luther, if they do not wave this Protestation.   

VII. CHAPTER.  
OUR DOCTOR'S DESINGENVITY IN HIS Replies to my Discourse of Church Infallibility.  
AFter I had proved the Necessity of a Living Judge of Controversies, and it to be the Church; and for to avoid all Cavils I purposely advertised, I did not speaked of the Pope alone; because his Infallibility was no Article of faith but a school question denied by many Catholics, and affirmed by many; I declared I would speaked only of the Infallibility of the Church, both Diffusive, and Representative, in the Pope and Council together: and because our Dr objected our Catholics were divided in the Doctrine of Church Infallibility, and quoted Turrecremat, Alfonsus a Castro, and Aquinas to have said, that even the Pope and Council jointly could err materially; I answered that our Article of faith was, that they could not err neither formally nor materially in Doctrine of faith and manners; and challenged him to show me any one Orthodox Doctor which ever said the contrary; and that Turrecremat, Aquinas and Alfonsus a Castro only said they could err materially in matter of fact, but not of Doctrine: I have for Reply from my Dr: that those Authors say, the Pope and Council jointly can err materially; and no squint eyed man but sees this is an impertinent answer, whereas my challenge was, to show any Dr who says they can err materially in Doctrine.  
But what does he answer to my argument for the Infallibility of the Church Diffusive, or Representative? a story of a mile long, of Clermont College and Sorbonists; the one defending in public Theses; and the other impugning the Infallibility of the Pope alone without a Council: And what is all this to our question in hand? for our question was of the Infallibility of the Pope and Council jointly: did not I grant in my 7. Chapt. that many Catholics denied, and many asserted the Pope's Infallibility, and therefore I said it was but a School question, and I would not speaked of it, but of the Infallibility of the Pope and Council jointly? you are desingenuous Dr: and decline the question: but I must not complain; you are very kind to me: you are afraid that my Brethrens of Clermont will take it ●ill I deny the Infallibility of the Pope alone to be an Article of faith: for how will the Jansenists be esteemed Heretics, whereas they were condemned by the Pope alone, without any Council, and its no Article of faith the Pope is Infallible? I thank you for your kindness; but your fear is panic: for its not only the Church Representative in the Pope and Council is Infallible; but also the Church Diffusive, as it comprehends all the Pastors and Prelates; and Jansenism was not only condemned by Innocent the X. and Alexander the VII. but their Sentence was approved by the Universal Church Diffusive and so Jansenism is as legally condemned as Protestancy.  
But is't possible Dr that we have forgot the Controversy of the Infallibility of the Church, which was the question in debate? and fallen into that of the Pop's infallibility which is quite out of our road? not one argument or text does he bring to prove the fallibility of the Church, but that threadbare syllogism which I answered in my former Treatise: Infallibility said he in his Sermon (and is not ashamed to say it again in his new book) is an Attribute proper to God; but its a formal blasphemy, says S. Thomas Aquinas to given God's proper Attributes to any creature; therefore its a blasphemy to say the Church is infallible. The sexton of his Parish of Swords would have saved him his voyage to Oxford for this argument and the answer of it; for doubtless he knows the Apostles and Prophets were infallible, and consequently there is a vast difference betwixt God's Attribute of Infallibility and that which is given to Creatures. I answered him that Intrinsic Infallibility by nature and proper Perfection, is God's Attribute, it being impossible to him in any case or supposition to deceive or be deceived: This is not challenged by the Church of Rome; she is infallible only by God's Protection who has promised not to suffer her to teach or embrace any Error; the Apostles were thus infallible, and the Church in fundamental points, as Protestant's confess; and where is there any thing like a blasphemy in this? or where is our D r ' s sincerity in not taking notice of, or replying against this answer, and repeating again his old syllogism as if no answer had been given to it?  
But he lets fly some Queries against us; first, if God can lend his Attribute of Omnipotency to his Creatures? and thence concludes he cannot given his Infallibility: but the good Man is mistaken in thinking we pretend that God gives his Infallibility to his Church; its not his Attribute of Infallibility he gives; but his promise of not suffering her to err in Doctrine of faith and Manners, as he did to the Apostles: Dr can you deny, but that he gave this kind of infallibility to the Apostles? and dare you say he gave them his Omnipotency? His second Quaere if it be not a damnable arrogance to parallel the Church with the Apostles, God's sacred Organs, as all the world acknowledges? hold Dr; not all the World, for the greatest Oracles of your Reformation (and by this my Reader will see what a pretty Reformation our Dr has choosen) say they were not only fallible, but they actually and foully erred in what they writ and taught. Zuinglius to 2. count Cataph. fol. 10. It's a great ignorance to believe any infallible authority in the Ghospels and Epistles of the Apostles: Clebitius a learned Scribe of the Reformation, Vict. Verit. ar. 5. Luke's relation of Christ's Passion is not true, because it does not agreed with that of Matthew and Mark, and more credit is to be given to two, than to one. Luther your grand Reformer to. 5. Wittemb. printed. an. 1554. and Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. says that Peter lived and taught extra Verbum Dei, beyond the Word of God: and again l. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de Extr. Vnct. says S. james spoke foolishly of extreme Unction, Calvin your Reform Apostle says (in Cap. 2. ad Gal. that Peter added to the Schism of the Church, and overthrew of Christian Liberty and Christ's Grace. Whitaker a Hector of your Church de Eccl. count Bellarm. Contr. 2. ques. 4. says its evident that after the descent of the Holy Ghost, the whole Church even the Apostles erred; and that Peter erred not only in manners but in Doctrine.  
Now Dr tell us that all the World reveres the Apostles as God's Oracles; had you said indeed that all the Orthodox World bear that respect unto them, we would believe you; but when you hear D rs of your own Reformation speak as I have related, and many more of them speak as ill, whom I omit for brevity sake, you need not be proud of your good opinion of the Apostles, nor accuse me of insolence and damnable arrogance for parallelling the Church in the point of Infallibility with them: if it be insolence in me so to do, S. Gregory was as insolent as I: I Embrace, said he, the four first General Councils, as the four Ghospels. Parallelling the Church of the four first ages with the Evangelists in the certainty of their Doctrine; and truly by all I can perceive of your opinion this censure of damnable arrogance reaches to yourself as much as to me; for you parallel the Church with the Apostles; all the Prerogative you grant to the Apostles is, that they are God's Vnerring Oracles; I have with particular reflection observed and cannot found in your whole book that you should have called the Apostles Infallible Orales, but pag. 36. you say they are Vnerring Oracles: also pag. 15. you call the Church Unerring; Not properly Infallible, say you, but by the assistance of the H. Ghost, shall not err in fundamental points; and else where you call her Vnerring Oracle: the same Prerogative of certainty and stead fastness in Truth which you grant to the Apostles, you given it to the Church, and no more, nor no lesle: see you, may I say that you are damnably arrogant in parallelling the Church with the Apostles.  
But we must not let pass this word Unerring, newly coined by our Adversaries for to escape the force of our Catholic Arguments for Infallibility; they will not grant the Church, nor the Apostles, for aught we can see by our Dr to be Infallible or Vnerrable; but they say the Church is Unerring: and if by the word Unerring they understand any thing under Vnerrable so as to say the Church and Apostles are not Infallible or Vnerrable, we will demonstrat their impiety and damnable arrogance; and that the Apostles and Church are not only Vnerring thats to say, will not err; but also Vnerrable, that's to say cannot err. For the Apostles were not only Vnerring, but also Vnerrable in what they writ; other wise Scripture would not be God's Infallible Word: and who can deny but that they were as infallible in what they taught verbally, as in what they writ? whereas S. Paul says Gal. 1. 8. that the word he preached to them, was not of man, but of God. The same we must say of the Church: first because no text of Scripture does warrant the Infallibility of the Apostles (as we have showed in my former Treatise and will appear in the next ensuing Chapter) that does not also warrant the Infallibility of the Church: Secondly you grant the Church is God's Vnerring Oracle, that by the assistance of Gods H. Spirit it will not err: I ask; is this a revealed Truth, that God has promised that Assistance to his Church, or not? if it be not revealed; why do you believe it? or what warrant have you for to say it? if it be revealed; then the Church is infallible as we pretend: for all the Infallibility we claim for our Church, is that God has Promised in Holy Writ, to led the Church into all truth, so as never to suffer her to err; which promise being made its as impossible the Church should err; as it is that God's promise should fail.  
In his 3. Chap. he rallies pleasantly turning one of my Arguments into ridicule: I S. says he, seems not to be very strong in the belief of Infallibility, because all the proof he gives for to persuade his Brethrens to his belief is an imaginary comfort they have in believing their Church, which guides them, to be infallible, which comfort says he, must be grounded, not upon the real existence of that infallibility, but upon a strong appr●hension or belief of it, though it be not extant; and to given some plausible appearance to this calumny, he chaps my discourse and relates the one half of my words: but that my Reader may judge if my argument be as ridiculous, as my Antagonist is desingenuous, I will propose my discourse which was thus: If we consider the testimonies of Scripture, the consent of ages, the multitude of Universities, D rs and fathers, which teach Infallibility; its as likely (to say not more) that you are mistaken in believing Church Fallibility, as that I am mistaken in believing Infallibility: as to the truth therefore of this Doctrine you have no more assurance of the truth of your Tenet than I have of my: thus far we are equal: but I have a huge advantage in believing the Doctrine of Infallibility which you cannot have in believing fallibility; for faith is our road to salvation, you travel in one faith or road, I travel in an other, we are doubtful of the road; my advantage is, that I am guided by a Church which I firmly believe and am fully assured is infallible, cannot err, cannot be mistaken, cannot bias me: I am like a Traveller, who though he does not know the road, he is fully persuaded, and without the lest doubt that his guide who undertakes to lead him is so knowing in the way that he cannot miss it; the Traveller goes on in his journey, follows his guide, his mind is at rest, he is fully satisfied, and has not the lest fear of being biased: so a Catholic being fully persuaded and believing the Infallibility of his Church, lives with a quiet mind free from doubts and fear of going astray because he is persuaded the Church which guides him cannot err; and though really the Tavellers guide were not so throughly acquainted with the road, but that he may stray, yet the Traveller being fully persuaded that he cannot; travels with satisfaction without any fear or doubt.  
But if a Traveller did not know the road, and were persuaded that the guide which leads him, is not so expert but that he may go astray; truly he must be always fearful, dubious, and without rest of mind, doubtful if he goes well, or if he be byass'd. So it is with the Protestant in his faith which is the road to, Salvation he knows not the way well; he is guided by a Church, which he believes may err in the road, aught not he to live and walk in continual fear? Hence I inferred that any wise man aught to choose the Doctrine of Infallibility before that of fallibility: for in believing Infallibility he does not hazard his salvation, because in the actual Profession of our Roman Tenets a man may be saved, say the Protestant's; secondly because in the belief of fallibility its as likely the Protestant's are deceived, as the Catholics in believing Infallibility: the Catholics run no greater hazard of believing an untruth, than the Protestant's; it may be (the Protestant will say) there is no such thing really, as Infallibility; and so the Catholics will be deceived. And it may be, says the Catholic to the Protestant, there's no such thing as fallibility, and so you will be deceived: and since I hazard nothing by it, and I am as likely to believe a true Doctrine as you; why will not I choose the Tenet of Infallibility, which gives me rest of mind without any doubt or fear in the full assurance of the truth I profess; rather than your Tenet of fallibility, which leaves you doubtful and suspense if what you believe, be true or falls; if the road you walk in, be the right road or no? Let my Reader be judge if this discourse be so ridiculous, as Dr Sal thought to represent it;  
To my argument for Church Infallibility, drawn from her long Possession of that prerogative, never denied to her but by known Heretics; therefore not to be denied to her now without evident proof, of her being an unjust possessor, whereas possession of 1500. years is a weighty argument in all Commonwealths to maintain the Possessors, if evident proofs be not produced to prove him an in just usurper: My Dr answers that here I prepare a Sanctuary for Robbers and Thiefs; and that what was Lawful in the beginning, by continuance of time grows not to be lawful; and without any more, passes by, without proving (as he aught to have done) that our Church is a Robber or Thief of this prerogative; and that in progress of time her possession was forfeited, which in the beginning was lawful: He tells us in his 25. chapped that a Possessor may be questioned for his Title; and if he does not prove it must forfeit his possession: We answer; our Title is this, that our Church in the bnginning was settled in the possession of Christ's true Doctrine; (for the Protestant's acknowledge, she we once the true Church,) that Christ promised her the conduct of his assisting spirit until the Consummation of the world, and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her. By virtue of this promise she continued her possession by your acknowledgement, for many ages: she was attacked by several Heretics from time to time, accusing her to have fallen from the truth: she was honourably discharged by General Councils, and never yet condemned by any; but her Title approved and her possession continued. Now our Dr starts up to question this so ancient and so often approved a Title: must he not bring evident proofs against her, or be hissed out of Court like a wrangler.   

VIII. CHAPTER.  
HIS ANSWERS TO THE TEXTS alleged for Church Infallibility examined.  
NOt a word of answer have I from my Dr to all the texts of Scripture, which I alleged for Church Infallibility, but what replies I made myself against them, and I answered: and his answers are two; the first, that what texts import the assurance of God's infallible spirit, are not appliable to the Church, but only to the Apostles; which answer I refuted in a full and large Chapt. proving that the Church even in succeeding ages to the Apostles was and is still infallible and not a syllable does my Dr answer to this Chapter: and its to be admired the Dr should given this answer, if he were not so much acustomed to contradict himself; for he says the Church, is God's Vnerring Oracle through the Assistance of God's spirit; this he cannot know but by some texts of Scripture; therefore those texts are appliable, and if they prove infallibility; they prove that of the Church: but let us hear some of those texts; the first is that of Math. 16. upon his Rock (meaning Peter) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. What Church is that which Christ built upon Peter? is it the Apostles alone? or his Universal Church, which was to continued in succeeding Ages after them? if the Apostles; then you must acknowledge (and that Protestant's will be loathe to do) that Peter is the foundation, head, and chief of the Apostles, that their faith is grounded upon him: If the Church Universal, which was to continued in succeeding ages? then the text is appliable to the Church, and by it we are assured, that the gates of Hell, that's to say Error or Heresy, shall not prevail against her; which is to be infallible.  
An other Text Jo. 14. If you ask any thing in my name I will do it; and I will pray the father; and he will given you an other Comforter that will abide with you for ever, even the spirit of Truth. Three things are promised by this Text: and all three appliable to the Church in all ages, as well as to the Apostles: the first is; If you ask any thing in my name I will do it. This promise undoubtedly relates to the whole Church, and it were ridiculous and erroneous to say that it was made to the Apostles and to noon else. The second; If you loan me keep my Commandments; was this said to the Apostles alone? was the observance of the Commandments required only of them in testimony of their love? The third; and I will pray my father, and he will given you an other Comforter who will abide with you for ever, even the spirit of Truth. If these words be appliable to the Church, its evident the text proves the Infallibility of the Church, as convincingly as that of the Apostles; And that those words are appliable to the Church, it seems undoubted since that the precedent words of the same text are appliable to her; particularly that the later words import the Comforter's abiding for ever which cannot be said of the Apostles own persons, who were not to be for ever;  
The third Text Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations, Baptising ●hem in the name of the father son and H. Ghost; lo I am with you until the Consummation of the world. Blindness itself cannot but see that this text proves Infallibility, and is appliable to the Church, for, whom is he to be with, until the Consummation of the World? with those to whom he gave his commission for to Baptise, Teach and preach: and who were they to whom Christ gave this Commission? not only to the Apostles; but to the Church in succeeding ages; therefore this text is appliable; and the Promise of Christ's abode until the Consummation of the world was made, not only to the Apostles, but to the Church which succeeds in all ages: Nor will you escape the force of this text, by saying the abode of God's spirit promised to the Church until the consummation of the world, was only conditional, if they lived in God's love and observance of his Commandments; because it would follow, that the Commission also given them in the same text of preaching, Baptising and teaching was only conditional, if they lived in God's love, and observance of his commandments; and so noon could exercise those functions, but when he is in the state of Grace.  
And what is to be admired is, that our Dr brings no kind of proof, for to prove that these texts are not appliable to the Church, but his word, and a little quillet which weighs as little as his word: for I quoted a text out of S. John. 15. When ●he Paraclet shall come whom I will sand from my father unto you even the spirit of truth; he will given testimony of me, and ye will given testimony. From which text I argued thus: the witnesses appointed by Christ to given testimony of him and his Doctrine were the spirit of God, and the Church; the testimony proceeds from both jointly, from the Paraclet inwardly inspiring, and the Church outwardly declaring; therefore this testimony is infallibly true: Not, quoth our Dr the texts relate only to the Apostles; and not at all to the Church: no man in his senses will say otherwise: and why so? Because, says he, the Apostles only and not the Church, were with Christ since the beginning, and the text in its last words says they were to given testimony of him, who were with him from the beginning, which last words of the text, he says, I fraudulently left out, and corrupted the text: Reader I'll be judged by you if our Dr has not lost his senses as well as his reason; Only the Apostles he sates, were the witnesses appointed by Christ for to given testimony of Christ, because they alone were with him from the beginning, No man in his senses will say other wise. Therefore the Church of England gives no testimony of Christ nor his Doctrine, because she was not with Christ from the beginning; Nor S. Paul was with Christ from the beginning; nor the four first General Councils; nor a word of the new testament. Therefore noon of them were competent witnesses for to given testimony of Christ or his Doctrine; No man in his senses will say they were. And by this you may see it was neither fraud nor depravation of the text made me omit those last words of the text, but because they did not concern the controversy in hand. And this little quillet is all the answer we have from him to prove those texts are not appliable to the Church.  
If our Dr did contradict but in the end of his book what he said in the beginning of it; it would be pardonable; but to tell us in his 7. Chapt. that the texts importing Infallibility are not at all appliable to the Church: and then again in the self same Chapt. to tell us they are appliable to the Church conditionally if she be in God's love and grace; argues a mighty want of memory: but just now he said, No man in his sense could apply those texts to the Church: the man, surely, has lost his senses; for pag. 44. of that Chap. he says those texts relate to the Church, and were pronounced by Christ in her favour, but still conditionally that she continued in God's love and grace: and because the Church has failed in this condition by the many crimes of her Pastors and Prelates; she has forfeited the conduct of God's assisting Spirit of Truth, and is no more infallible.  
From this Paradox it follows that those Promises were also Conditional in regard of the Apostles; for neither Scripture, nor any thing but a groundless fancy can persuade, that those Promises were Absolute in regard of the One; and Conditional only in regard of the other: read the Texts and you shall see it: and whereas in the Apostles time there were many and grievous sinners in the Church, (though they were Saints themselves) it follows that the Church in their time did forfeit her Infallibility because she was not in the love of God, and observance of his Commandments. Secondly it follows the Church now has not the Assistance of God's spirit in fundamental Points, and so she is fallible in them; which Protestant's will not say: thirdly it follows the four first General Councils had not that assistance, which is contrary▪ to the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
But let us prove directly the absurdity of this conditional Promise: This Proposition is now absolutely true, and independently of any condition; The Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth; notwithstanding the sins of Pastors and Prelates, this proposition is true; as Dr Sal himself confesses as well in his Sermon, as in his Book: also he says in his 15. pag. against J. S. that the Church, though it be not properly infallible yet it shall not err in fundamental Doctrine, because the Church Universal has, and is to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost: therefore the Church now, notwithstanding all the sins and transgressions of our Pastors and prelates, has the Assistance of God's infallible spirit; for if you take the Church separatly from the Assistance of God's spirit; it is not, nor can it be called The Pillar of Truth: since therefore it is now truly the Pillar of Truth notwithstanding all our sins; it has now the Assistance of God's spirit notwithstanding our sins; therefore that Assistance of God's spirit was not promised Conditionally.  
And what is execrable to be said (as I observed in my former Treatise) is, that if God's promise of his assisting infallible spirit, be only conditional, we cannot be sure that the Ghospels are infallible: for if the Evangelists when they writ them were not in the state of Grace, they had not the assistance of God's infallible spirit; as the Dr says; and in the principles of the Church of England nothing assures us that they were in the state of Grace then; for Protestant's will take nothing for sure but what's expressed in Scripture; and no text of Scripture mentions their being then in the state of Grace: consequently nothing assures us that the Ghospels are infallible. Our Dr rings a great peal of insolent impiety against me for this execrable Position, That nothing assures us the Evangelists were in the state of Grace; the censure of insolent impiety is most deservedly past; but its not pardonable, that the Dr should lay it at my door, the Position not being my, but an unavoidable sequel out of his Church's Principles.  
As it is an unavoidable sequel out of their Principles, that we are assured the Ghospels are not infallible, because the Evangelists in the principles of the Protestant Church were not in the state of Grace; whereas its the Protestant Doctrine, that its impossible to keep God's Commandments. Here our Dr will dash out my brains, (if rattling can do it) for so great a Calumny: he never heard any Protestant utter so desperate a Position. Haply he did not; he is but a young Protestant. But Dr do not you tell us in your 12. Chapt. against N. N. that the Religion of England is the same with the Religion of your sectaries in Holland, and France? and do not you know that the Rigid Calvinist, and the Gomarists of Holland do believe God's Commandments to be impossible? in case you do not; read the Acts of the Synod of Dordrect; read Luther to. 1. Edit. Jen. page 46. Cal. Harm. Evang. in Luc. c. 10. & in Math. c. 22. & lib. 2. Instit. c. 7. read W●lle● in Synop. Papis. pag. 564. O! but say you the Protestant's of England detest this Doctrine: I answer that they do, and they do not: they do, because in their Cathecisms and in most of their Authors they deny it: They do not; because they and you with them embrace the Calvinists, Gomarists and others who believe this abominable Tenet, to be your Brethrens of one and the same Religion with you; that their faith and belief is a saving faith: and is not this, as much as to approve that Doctrine as Orthodox and tolerable?  
But Dr did you never read the 39 Articles of the Church of England? did not you meet in the 6. Art and in your Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England pag. 103. that the Rule of faith of the Church of England is, Scripture as each Person of sounded judgement in the Church understands it: if this be your rule of faith, you'll never given a more exact definition of your Protestant Doctrine than this; Whatever any of sounded judgement in your Church interprets to be contained in Scripture: Luther, Calvin, Willet, Gomarus and his Disciples, were men of sounded judgement and of your Church, (for you say all Christian societies are of one Church;) and they all teach the Impossibility of God's Commandments to be contained in Scripture; therefore this is the Doctrine of the Protestant Church: I confess Protestant's in England deny it; but I say they must and aught to believe it, or change their Rule of faith and 39 Articles.   

IX.. CHAPTER.  
MY SYLLOGISM IN FERIO, PROVING the Protestant Church, not to be the Church nor any part of the Church of Christ, vindicated and enforced against Doctor Sall.  
IUndertook to prove in the 8. Chap. of my former Treatise that the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it, because it does not teach his Doctrine; and no Church can be called the Church of Christ further than it teaches his Doctrine: That Protestancy or Doctrine of the Protestant Church, as it is condistinct from Catholecism, or the Doctrine of the Roman Church, is not the Doctrine of Christ nor any part of it, I proved it with this syllogism in Ferio. Not fallible Doctrine is the Doctrine nor any part of the Doctrine of Christ; but Protestancy as it is condistinct from Catholecism, (that's to say the Doctrine wherein they differ from us, and for which they separated from us) is altogether fallible Doctrine; therefore Protestancy is not the Doctrine nor any part of the Doctrine of Christ. That Protestancy is altogether fallible Doctrine, I proved it; because the Doctrine wherein Protestant's differ from us, is altogether of Inferior Verities, of Points not fundamental; This, no ingenuos Protestant will stick to grant; for its the express confession of Protestant's, that Catholics and Protestans agreed in fundamental points; and therefore they pretend we are all of one Religion as to the substance, and that we may be saved in our Religion, because our Errors are only in Inferior and not fundamental Doctrine, which shocks not the foundation of Religion; But the Doctrine of Inferior Verities, and Points not fundamental is altogether fallible Doctrine; Nor will any Protestant deny this Proposition who understands well the Doctrine of his Church; for its the constant Doctrine of Protestant's, and Dr Sal himself says it pag. 15. against J. S. that the Church cannot err in fundamental points of faith, but that it may and has erred in points not fundamental or Inferior Truths. Therefore Protestancy or the Doctrine wherein Protestant's differ from us is but fallible Doctrine, and consequently not the Doctrine of Christ.  
Its a pitiful thing to see how my poor Dr is entangled in this argument: his first, and best answer is to say my Thesis is Insolent, and a big promising Title; but if his answer be not good, it will prove as performing as it is promising: let us hear his answer: He will have us premiss (says he) that Protestant's allow Papists not to err in points fundamental. What shuffling, and ambiguous terms be these? He will have us premiss; what? do you think I beg that of you as a favour? is it not your own acknowledgement in your Dedicatory Epistle to the Earl of Essex, that the Church of Rome was once the true Church? is it not also your acknowledgement pag. 15. that the true Church is to have the continual assistance of the Holy Ghost for not to err in fundamental points of Religion? do not you acknowledge in the beginning of your book that Roman Catholics may be saved in their Religion? and can any be saved in the profession of fundamental errors? I proved in my former treatise that almost all your sectaries confess rhis truth, and it is the constant Doctrine of the Church of England.  
He goes on, but quite out of the Road, and tells us, that fundamental points are those which are contained in the Creed; and this is nothing to our purpose; for to answer my argument, it matters not a pin's head to know where the fundamental points are contained; or what they are; what avails us, is to know that the Doctrine wherein you differ from us, is only the Doctrine of, not fundamental points: after his long rambling he comes at last to my syllogism: He grants the Mayor proposition, that no fallible Doctrine is the Doctrine of Christ; he denies the Minor, that Protestancy is all fallible Doctrine: to the second Syllogism he, gives me for granted (and no thanks to him for it) that Protestancy, or Doctrine wherein they differ from us is altogether of points not fundamental; but the Minor stings him, that the Doctrine of points not fundamental is fallible Doctrine; stop here, says he, and an eternal stop should be put to your tongue: but what will it avail you to stop my tongue, if you do not cut of my fingers? and why must my poor tongue be stopped? because he says its a formal blasphemy to say the Doctrine of points not fundamental, or Inferior Truths is fallible: Indeed? and why is it a blasphemy? because quoth he, its to say the Word of God is fallible, for inferior Verities are implicitly contained in God's Written Word and Tradition. Stop here Dr and an eternal stop should be put to your Logic: my Argument is this; Inferior Verities are fallible Doctrine and therefore not the Word of God, nor to be found in Scripture; and you answer me, Inferior Verities are infallible Doctrine because they are God's Word contained in Scripture: is this your Logic? to given your Conclusion in debate, for a reason? you challenge me to acknowledge often in my book, that points not fundamental are Inferior Verities contained in the Word of God: for shame Dr; you impose upon me, and deceive your Reader; you shall not found any such acknowledgement in all my book; nay pag. 147. of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, I deny any distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in our Catholic Principles '; because any Doctrine which is sufficiently proposed to us to be a revealed Truth, is to us a fundamental point of necessary belief to salvation; and whatever Doctrine is not sufficiently proposed to be a revealed Truth, is neither a fundamental, or not fundamental point of faith.  
But let us see how did I prove the Doctrine of points not fundamental and inferior Truths to be fallible Doctrine; for in this consists the force of my argument: I proved it by the Protestant's own Principles, for the Church, say they, can err, and hath erred in the Doctrine of points not fundamental; therefore the Doctrine of points not fundamental is fallible; consequently not the Doctrine of Christ: Observe Reader, that my Consequence is not, as the Dr disingenuously draws it The Church can err in teaching points not fundamental, therefore points not fundamental are in themselves fallible. Not, that's not my consequence; but thus: The true Church may err in teaching points not fundamental; therefore the Doctrine or teaching (mark I say the Doctrine, not the points themselves) of those points not fundamental, is fallible and consequently not the Doctrine of Christ: for that a Doctrine may be truly called the Doctrine of Christ, its not enough that the points delivered and proposed be in themselves objectively true, but that the proposal, teaching and deliverance of them by the Instructor or Teacher be infallibly true; because our Act of faith or assent to Christ's Doctrine is infallibly true, and this infallible assurance of it, is not bottomed only on the objective real truth of the points proposed, but on the Authority of the Proponent or Teacher; its therefore requisite he be infallible in teaching.  
And that you may see howfar he is come short of answering my syllogism, I will show you how he plainly grants all that I pretended to prove by it: for as well in his 10. Chapt. where he pretends to answer it, as in his 4. Chapt. he distinguishes Subjective and Objective Infallibility; and though he mumbles like one that's ashamed or a afraid to speaked; yet he gives us to understand, that the Church is Objectively infallible, that's to say the Verities and Tenets she teaches, whither fundamental or not fundamental, are certainly and infallibly true; but the Church is subjectively fallible; that's to say the Teaching, delivering and proposing of those Verities by the Church, is fallible: and this is a downright concession of all I pretend; for I never pretended by my syllogism to prove that the Tenets, or points delivered are objectively fallible or falls; but that the Teachers in delivering them, their proposing and Doctrine of them, is fallible; and before we pass further, My Dr will not take it ill, though I be but a Master of Grammar, as he says, to given him a piece of instruction which he wants: that distinction he makes of Objective and Subjective Infallibility is very improper, and relishes nothing of a schoolman for the Objects in themselves are not fallible or infallible, Probable or Evident; we do not say This is a Probable stone, or this is a fallible horse: those terms are not appliable to the objects a part rei; but to the Vital intellectual Acts of our mind, which tend to the Objects: only the propositions or Acts of our understanding which we elicit on the Objects, are said to be fallible, infallible, probable, or improbable; and so our D rs distinction of Objective and Subjective infallibility, is pure non sense.  
But since it has been our D rs bad luck to hit on this distinction, we will make it serve for to better our cause; he grants therefore that the Church is subiectively fallible: I'll propose him an other syllogism and it shall be in Ferio, for I see he is unlucky in that figure and Mode: Not Church Subiectively fallible, that's to say in teaching and delivering her Doctrine, is the Church of Christ; But the Protestant Church, as our Dr confesses now, and I hope will remember it next year, is subiectively fallible in teaching her Doctrine; therefore the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ. I prove the Mayor proposition: The Church of God is to be believed before an Angel, who would teach us the contrary Doctrine to what she delivers, as S. Paul says Gal. 1. 8. But if the Church were fallible in teaching, we aught to believe an Angel rather than the Church: therefore the Church is not subjectively fallible. That an Angel is to be believed before any fallible Church, its manifest: for that Church subiectively fallible must not have the assistance of God's infallible spirit in teaching; if it were guided by God's spirit when it teaches it could not err; it must be a congregation of men, left to their own wisdom and prudence for to deliver what they judge to be the best Doctrine: and who doubts but that an Angels judgement, which is of so sublime and piercing an understanding, incomparably surpassing all human intellects, is to be preferred before the opinion of all congregations of men?  
By the way let me ask my Adversary; Is his Church fallible subiectively in teaching fundamental points? probably he will say, Not, for pag. 15. he tells us, the Church is to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost in fundamental points: It is subjectively fallible therefore only in teaching Not fundamental and Inferior Truths; which is the Doctrine wherein Protestant's differ from us; therefore the Church of England has not the assistance of the Holy Ghost in teaching what Doctrine she differs in from us (for to be fallible in teaching, and not to have the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in teaching, is the same thing) therefore the Church of England does not teach the Doctrine of Christ when she teaches Inferior truths; now it remains, that our Dr tell us, by what spirit is his Church guided and inspired in teaching Inferior Truths wherein they differ, and for which they have separated from us; if she be not inspired and guided by the spirit of God?  
I prove again that Mayor proposition, tbat no Church Subiectively fallible is the Church of Christ; The Church of Christ essentially requires not only divine Verities objectively infallible, but Teachers infallible in teaching, proposing, and delivering them to us; I prove it; for, the Word of God, as Dr Sal himself says, is Written; (which is Scripture) and Unwritten (that is Tradition) both are of equal infallibility; God's Written Word is not only infallible obiectively in the Verities it contains; but also subiectively in the Recital, Relation, and rehears of them to us; otherwise what respect would there be due of us to Scripture, more than to any other profane book, which would contain those Verities; or to our Cathecisms, and Commentaries upon Scripture: therefore God's Unwritten Word, or Tradition is not only obiectively infallible in the Verities it contains; but also subiectively infallible in the Relation, teaching and proposing of those Verities unto us; this Relation, proposal and deliverance of these Verities is the Doctrine of the Church, which hands them from age to age to Posterity; therefore the true Church is not only Obiectively, but also Subiectively infallible.   

X. CHAPTER.  
PROTESTANT FAITH, NOT divine: a Survey of the Reformation's sense and letter of Scripture, not able to convert any to Christianity.  
ANcient fathers and Divines were so deeply persuaded of the absolute and infallible certainty of Divin faith, that it was the common Maxim among them, Scientia plus habet luminis, sed fides plus habet firmitatis & adhaesionis: Science has more of light and perspicuity, but faith has more certainty and assurance; for, all the certainty that Science has, is grounded upon Principles of Nature; and that of faith upon Divin Authority, which surmounts the certainty and assurance that Nature can given: that Protestant's have not this certainty in their faith, I proved it in my former Treatise, bccause they rest their faith upon Scripture as interpreted by them, and though Scripture, rightly understood be infallibly true, yet Scripture as interpreted by them, can have no more assurance than the fallible interpretation of them who interpret it: I proposed my syllogism thus: He who can err relying upon a Principle, can never be sure he does not err, while he relies on that Principle only, and upon no other: but Protestant's relying on Scripture as interpreted by them, comparing one text with an other, may err (for they confess the Church may err in the interpretation of Scripture) and they will not bottom their faith upon any other but Scripture, as interpreted by them comparing one text with an other: therefore Protestant's can never be sure they do not err; their faith therefore has no absolute infallible assurance.  
Our Dr answers in his 4. Chap. and in several other places of his book; We have for security of our faith, God's infallible Word, clearly containing all necessary points to salvation and a good life; We have also in the general Tradition of the Church, a full and sufficient certainty that God has revealed these Verities. But how full is that assurance? how great is that certainty you have, that God revealed (for example) his Son's Incarnation? We have a moral certainty, says he, which joined with an absolute certainty, that whatever God revealed, is true; makes up all the certainty a pious and prudent Believer aught to desire: I am much mistaken if I will not evidence, that our Dr has not a crumm of Divin faith: for here is his Belief; He has Absolute infallible certainty that Christ's Incarnation is true, if God revealed it; and this is no faith, but mere Science: He has no Absolute infallible certainty that God revealed the Incarnation; he has but Moral certainty of it; so that the act of faith wherewith he believes the Incarnation, is but Morally certain; but a faith only Morally certain is no divine faith; for take Moral certainty in its highest pitch you can imagine, it implies a possibility of being falls; for example, that there is a kingdom extant called England, from which we departed but three days ago; is so morally certain, that it excludes all reasonable doubts of its being true; yet in effect its possible there may be no such kingdom, but drowned all in water: so that Moral certainty, though it excludes all reasonable doubts of its objects existence; yet it does not assure us that the object cannot be otherwise than as it affirms; but an act of Divin faith is of a higher certainty, for it not only assures us of its object's being so, but that it cannot be otherwise; it not only excludes all doubts of its objects not being; but it excludes all thoughts of judging the object can be otherwise than as it represents it to be: what is Morally certain is true, and can in effect be falls; what is of Divin faith is true, and cannot be falls: therefore what is only morally certain is not divine faith. That an Act of faith is not only true, but that it cannot be falls; its lamentable that blind passion, and a desperate engagement in an error has hurried men so far as to doubt of it: what man's heart will not tremble to think it may be falls, that the son of God become man, that he died for us, finally that all the mysteries of our Religion may be fables? yet all is so, if faith be but Morally certain; for what is only Morally certain may be falls.  
And to what purpose do you and your Church so earnestly pretend God's infallible Word for to warrant your faith? your Reformation has from the beginning rejected Traditions as being human inventions, Fathers, Councils, consent of ages, nothing will serve you for a test of faith, but Scripture, God's Infallible Word; and what to do? if your faith be only Morally certain; would not a ground only Morally certain suffice for to rest it on? what needs an infallible ground for a fallible Act, if that infallible ground does not communicate its Infallibility to the Act? either it gives to the Act all the assurance it can given it, or not? if not; what is it good for, more than a fallible ground? if it does, therefore it makes the Act absolutely infallible.  
And if your faith be only morally certain, and your Church and Religion fallible; I commend the prudence of your Church in never having attempted the conversion of Pagans' and Heathens: for its impossible any wise man should embrace your Religion, if it were proposed unto him in the colours we have seen you set it out, in these precedent Chapters: Imagine two Reform Preachers did go from England with their Bible to convert the king of China, and let them preach to him, what we have heard our Dr say hitherto: Sr We are absolutely sure that whatever God has revealed is true; Our faith and Religion is ground upon this book, which we believe to be the pure Word of God, and all the contents of it are infallibly and absolutely true; because they were revealed by him; yet its not absolutely certain, they were revealed by him; but we are Morally certain of it, and therefore we believe them; this book says, our God is one in Nature and three in People; and the second Person of the Trinity become Man, died for us upon a cross, and arose again from death; of all this we are only Morally certain, and we firmly believe it. This second Person God and Man, established a Church on earth wherein his Doctrine and faith should be taught, whereof his Apostles were the chief Masters; he gave to this Church in his Apostles time; his infallible Spirit for to led and conduct her into all truth; but soon after the Apostles time, he withdrew from the Church his Infallible Spirit, and she fell into many erroneous Doctrines; and now we have no other guide to direct us, but this Bible; the sense of it is very doubtful, but we are certain, that sense of it which we hold is the true sense; and of this we have only Moral certainty: and though it be obscure and the sense of it so doubtful, that many sects of Christians differ from us, and understand it in a quite contrary sense to that which we hold; we will admit no judge for to alloy these doubts and decide these Controversies but the Bible itself: There is a kind of people among us, which they call the Popish Church; which was the Church established by the son of God, and was once a pure and Orthodox Church; But Martin Luther a learned man, arrose and found that the Doctrine professed by this Church for many hundred years before, was erroneous; our kingdom of England followed his example, and we do not approve either the Doctrine of that Church; nor that of Luther; we have made a new Reformation of both; there are many other sects in England who have sprung from us, and are, as so many Reformations of our Church; but our Doctrine is the best of all, and of this we are Morally certain, In the Popish Church there have been in all ages many men esteemed by the world of eminent sanctity, and holy life and conversation, which has gained them the name of Saints throughout the world; we say they were all hypocrites and no true Saints; and we do confess ourselves never had any man of publicly known Sanctity, esteemed so by the common vogue of Christians; in that Church there has been in past ages, and in these last ages since we are in the world many Miracles, and supernatural signs wrought by the Professors of her Doctrine, in confirmation of her Tenets; and the wisest men and greatest of the world, have been eyewitnesses of many of them, and judged them to be true Miracles, and recorded them in their books for such; but we say they were no true Miracles, and that since the Apostles time there has been noon; its certain no Miracle was ever wrought in our Church: there have been very many in that Church in all precedent ages, who were esteemed the Oracles of their times in learning, and whose Books are highly esteemed by us; and we say they were Ignorant Souls, because they taught the Popish Tenets contrary to ours. This is our faith and Religion which we are come to preach unto you, and of all this faith, and all that we believe, we have only Moral certainty: if you believe our faith and Tenets God has promised, you shall be saved; and perhaps you may not be saved, for its but Morally certain that God has made any such promise; and what is only Morally certain may be falls: if you do not believe our Doctrine, but the quite contrary you may also be saved, for we are so charitable as to believe that all the other Christian Sects who hold quite contrary Tenets to ours, may be saued; all is but Morally certain; all may be falls.  
Now let my Reader consider if all this be not pure Protestant Doctrine, and what we have heard Dr Sal say in the precedent Chapters; and let him judge if the king would not be surprised at the boldness of these men in obtruding such a faith upon him, and would answer them; my friends, you confess you have but Moral certainty of the truth of what Doctrine you deliver; and what is but only morally certain, implies a possibility of being falls; therefore possibly all you have said, may be falls Doctrine, and why would you have me change my Religion for yours, which for aught you and I know, may be worse than my own: you say that whatever God has revealed is absolutely and infallibly true; I do, and did ever believe the same; you say its morally certain he revealed all the contents of your book, I say also its morally certain he revealed all the Tenets of my Religion; If God has withdrawn the conduct of his infallible Spirit from the Church, and that the Popish Church has fallen into so many Errors, you may also fall into as many; and I would come to be in as bad a condition in your Church, as I am in, in my own Religion: I see no proof you have of the truth of your Doctrine; nor any encouragement for to embrace it, not any proof, for the Bible which you so much esteem, is challenged by your fellow sectaries and by your Popish Church as well as by you, and what have you, besides your bore word for to prove your sense of it, is better than that of your fellows? particularly that you confess I may be saved by believing their sense of it, as well as by believing yours: and if your God has left no Judge to decide your Controversies, and who by a definitive Sentence should declare, which is the true sense of it; its a mark that he is equally pleased with any sense that is given and believed of it; or if; he intended to oblige all to be of one sense and meaning of that Bible, he must have appointed some judge for to declare what sense is that: neither do I see any encouragement you given me to embrace your Religion; for its no commendation of it beyond the Popish Church, which you have forsaken, to tell me that you never had any Miracles, and that the Popish had; which though you say, they were no true Miracles; yet you confess many esteemed by yourselves to have been eminent men in learning, and esteemed by your forefathers to have been not lesle eminent in sanctity; that these men I say have judged them to be true Miracles; and why should not I believe their opinion before yours: finally since you acknowledge there is but Moral certainty, both of the truth of your Religion, and of salvation in the belief of those Truths; what is only Morally certain, may be falls, and so all your Doctrine and Religion may be a mere cheat.  
Now you shall see Reader how impossible it is to persuade any Pagan to Christianity, or any Christian to piety by the Letter of Scripture which the Reformation uses: you must know, that the Reformation thought it needful to reform the Letter of Scripture, as well as the sense of it; and purge the Bible of some words▪ which smelled as they judged, of Popery; and substitute in their place new terms; for examble instead of Priests, they put Elders; for Church they put Synagogue; for Holy Ghost, put Holy Wind; for Christ, Anointed; for Our Lord and Master, Baal and rain; for Baptism, Washing; for Soul Carcase; for Grave, Hell; for Sacrament Secret; for Altar, Table; for Beelzebub, Lord of a fly; for Angels, Messengers: this famous exchange of terms, you shall found in their Ancient Bibles, particularly of Queen Elizabeth and before her time; now they are ashamed of them, as Doctor Harding observes, who discourses wittily upon this subject thus.  
Let a Preacher speaked to his congregation in the old Catholic terms of the Bible thus; I that am a Priest, placed in the Church by the Holy Ghost, for the feeding of your souls, do denounce unto you in the name of Christ our Lord and Master, that if you be not regenerated by Baptism; and prepared for the Sacrament of the Altar, you shall be condemned body and soul into hell, and your portion shall be with the Devil, I say with Beelzebub and his Angels. This speech indeed has good sense and might make some impression in the Auditory. But if our Dr. steps into a Pulpit, and speaks in the new coined terms of the Reformation; I who am your Elder placed in the Synagogue by the Holy Wind, for the feeding of your Carcases, do denounce unto you in the name of our Anointed, Baal and rain; that if you be not regenerated by Washing. and prepared for the secret of the Table, you Shall be condemned body and Carcase to the Grave, and your portion shall be with the Lord of a fly, and his Messengers. Would not the Auditory think, our Dr raved; and in lieu of compunction, burst out into laughter? by this you may see how impossible it is for the Reformation to convert any Pagan to Christianity, or Christian to piety, if they use their own sense and language of Scripture.   

XI. CHAPTER.  
OUR DOCTOR'S REFLECTIONS AGAINST my Resolution of faith, a Check of his impiety against the Miracles of our Church.  
FRom pag. 177. to pag. 184. I resolved my faith thus: I believe the mystery of the Trinity, because God revealed it; I believe God revealed it, because the Church by which God speaks, tells us he revealed it; If you ask why I believe God speaks by the Church; I answer, because the Church itself, by which God speaks, says he speaks by her; and I am bound to believe he speaks high her, as she says, because he credits her with so many Miracles, which make it evidently credible he speaks by her; see if you please this Resolution proved at large in the place quoted: My Antagonist says it has as many Circles, as it has words; but not one Circle does he as much as attempt to show, like a Physician who would tell you are dangerously sick, but not mention any disease you have, nor prescribe you any remedy: He fancies I contradict myself, making Miracles some time the ultimat reason of believing the Church: and sometime saying they are not a sufficient motive of the credibility of her Doctrine. But I need no more proof to convince him of a mistake, but my Readers labour in reading the place I cited above, of my former Treatise; there I expressly say, (and in nowhere any thing to the contrary) that Miracles cannot be the Motive of our faith; because if they be absolutely evident, they cannot be the Motive of our faith; which of its own nature is obscure; if they be Morally evident Miracles, they cannot be a Motive of faith, because its Motive must be infallibly true.  
My Dr read in the last line of my Resolution, the word Miracle; and without any more reflection, believed I gave Miracles for a motive of our faith: but there I distinguish two Motives, as my Reader may see; the first is, of my Act of faith, why I believe God speaks by the Church; and this I say is nothing else, but because the Church itself, by which God speaks, tells us that he speaks by her: the second Motive is of my obligation of believing this truth, and my judgement of its Credibility; and this I say, are the Miracles wrought by the Church; for these make it evidently credible to us, that God speaks by her, as she says, and when such Miracles intervene, we are obliged to believe God speaks by her: Our Adversary says this distinction of Motives, the one for our Act of faith; and the other for our judgement of Credibility and obligation of believing, is but a patch to cover the incoherency of my Doctrine, and needless for any thing else; for the same reason which makes me believe, makes the faith credible, and shows me my obligation of believing. This is pretty good English, but very bad Divinity; for before we elicit the Act of faith, the judgement of its credibility must precede, and our obligation of believing must be made known to us; the Motive therefore of this credibility and obligation, is different from the Motive of the Act itself; for after that this Motive of credibility is assented unto, and our Obligation acknowledged, the Act of faith may be denied, through wilfulness and Obstinacy; and thus men become Heretics: but our Dr does not love to dive into these subtleties; its to flay a flea, he says.  
Now you shall see a new discovery of the Church of Rome's impiety made by my Antagonist in my Resolution of faith: pag. 184. I said, the chief and last motive, whereon our faith doth rest is the Word of God speaking to us by the Church; the Church I say, by which God actually speaks unto us in this present age; for we do not believe because God did speaked by the Church in the 1. 2. and 3. age, but because he speaks now unto us by her, as he did to the primitive Christians in those ages. A plain confession, quoth the Dr of the guilt of the Church of Rome: they exclude the primitive Church of the three first ages, from being the Mistress of our faith, and substitute the corrupt Church of this age; and here he rattles at the Pope and Rome. For my part, I see no discovery here, but of his disingenuity, shutting his eyes that he might not see; for I say, that God speaks to us by the Church of this present age, as he did speaked to the primitive Christians by the Church of the first ages; where then do I exclude the Primitive Church from being the Mistress of our faith; the Church in the primitive ages was the Mistress and Oracle, by which God spoke in those ages; the Church in this present age is the Oracle by which he speaks to us, the Church in all ages is the same, and speaks but the same; but its not enough for us in this age that the Church spoke this Doctrine, but we must have the testimony of the Church of this age, that this is the Doctrine that was taught by the Church in those former ages, for to confounded Heretics and Novellers, who deny our Doctrine was taught in the primitive ages; and this is the reason, why I have said, that the motive of our faith is the Word of God speaking by the Church, not in the 1. 2. and 3. age, but in this age; for it would little avail us for our faith, that God spoke by his Church in those ages, if the Church of this age did not ascertain us that the Church then did speaked, as nowshe does  
An othet scruple troubles our Dr that I should say we are bound to believe God speaks by the Church, because he credits her with Miracles; and uhere be those Miracles, says he, wrought by the Council of Trent, which make it credible to me that God speaks by it? if a Council were convened now, to condemn jansenism, I must believe God speaks by the Church in that Council; and are you sure to found Miracles at hand, as soon as the Council is joined? Our Dr rallies merrily; let us follow his mode and help him to sport; Do not you pretend, that your Protestant Doctrine delivered in this age is evidently credible by the Miracles of the Apostles, and the old Testament? so you would persuade us pag. 56. have you any Miracles of this age to credit it? had the Parliament Miracles at hand, cut and dry, when it framed the 39 Articles? Not; you say your Doctrine of this age is the same which was taught by the Apostles; and its sufficiently credited by the Miracles, you say, which the Apostles and Moses wrought, when they preached it: pray Dr take the like answer from us: our Doctrine delivered by the Council of Trent, of Transubstantiation, Purgatory etc. is the same which S. Bernard, Bonaventure, Gregory, S. Austin, preached and Confirmed with Miracles; what obligation then has God's Providence; or what Title has our curiosity for to expect new Miracles for the confirmation of the same Doctrine? besides Dr rhat the Doctrine of the Council of Trent was preached in this our age, by that great Apostle of the Indieses S. Francis Xaverius; and confirmed by him with innumerable Miracles; pray show us but one Miracle wrought in this, or any of the precedent ages in confirmation of yours. Three things I proved in my former Treatise; first that Miracles are uncontrolled proofs of the Infallibility of the Church's Doctrine; it being impossible rath God should confirm the lest untruth by a Miracle: secondly I related some Miracles related by S. Augustin, S. Bernard, Godfredus, John Hierosolimitanus; and believed by them to be true Miracles: thirdly I proved our obligation of believing them to have been true Miracles. Our D r ' s first answer is; Let not I S. expect from me to bestow my time in examining the truth of his Miracles: and aught not any man to expect it? you confess pag. 56. Miracles are a most congruous way and a strong proof of the true Church; when I allege therefore this congruous way and strong proof for my Tenets; aught not you to bestow your time in weakenning them, rather than in scolding and railing?  
His second answer is that all our Miracles are but a stock of Romances; I guessed we should have this short answer; and therefore I did not only relate some Miracles, but proved convincingly they were true Miracles, and that no man in his senses could deny them to be such; if my Antagonist had remembered the duty of a Disputant, he should have endeavoured to invalid my proofs, and not be contented to tell us they are but Romances; Can any man in his wits deny, but that S. Augustin, S. Bernard, S. Gregory and many Ancient fathers of the Church had as good Wits as Dr Sal? they could therefore discern betwixt a Miracle and a Romance as well as he; they relate the Miracles produced by me in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church; they were eye witnesses of some of them; they judged them to be true Miracles and recorded them in their books for such: which will you believe Reader, Dr Sal who says they were Romances: or those Saints, who say they were Miracles? I desired our Dr that he should tell us, by what art did he and his Church come to know, those Miracles were not true ones; for its strange that S. Augustin and other Saints and learned men who lived when they were wrought, did not discern it; and our Dr after so many years has found out they were but fourberies? sure he must be a conjurer; but not a syllable does our Dr answer; ipse dixit, they are Romances, and there's all: I asked would not he be esteemed a mad man, who would say there was no such man in the word as Julius Caesar, of which truth we have no other assurance, but the testimony of Heathen Writers; S. Augustin and our other Saints, are as credible witnesses, I hope, as they; if therefore they tell us they have seen Miracles wrought, is it not great obstinacy in our Dr to deny them, and say they are all Romances.  
Is this the man who professes so much Veneration to the fathers of the Church, to make them Romance Writers? fourbs, who recorded strange passages which never happened; or fools who knew not to distinguish them from a Legerdemain? when we hear such an irreverence against the Pillars of Christianity, and the works judged by them to be Miracles, irreligiously paralleled with the wonders related by Valerius Maximus and Titus Livius in confirmation of their Heathenish superstition, what can we say but with S. Augustin l. de Vtil. credendi c. 18 Nisi pietas & pax mentis accedat, de fide nihil pro●sus intelligi potest: where the Will is not piously inclined, and the heart free from prejudice, nothing can be understood of faith: Excaecavit eos malitia eorum, (says God Sap 2. & nescierunt Sacramenta Dei, their passion pinfolds their reason, and they cannot see the sacred mysteries of our Religion; Our Devotion to them is Hypocrisy; our Austerity of life, is Heathenish excess of rigour; our Images are Idols; our Sacraments are human inventions; our Miracles are Romances; our Indulgences, Processions, and liturgy are but superstitions: this is the humour of our age to scoff and ieer; to turn into ridicule, and against reason, what their reason cannot grapple. Since our Dr is become of this humour let him, with his merry companions scoffers of Miracles, prepare sport for this, which he will call a Romance, and S. Aug. reckons as a Miracle l. 22. de Civit. Dei cap. 4. Apoore Man, says S. Aug. named Florentius, having lost his cloak and having no moneys to buy one, betook himself to the 20. Martyrs whose Memory (says he) was with us very famous, and prayed to them with a loud voice, ask a Cloak of them; some youngmen, who were present, ieered the godly man's simplicity, as if he did expect moneys from the Saints; probably our Dr will keep them company in their merriment: the poor man departed, betook himself to the sea side to walk, and found agreat fish on the shore; he took it and sold it; the Person who bought it opening its belly found in it a gold ring, and hearing what had happened to the good man, gave him the ring, saying, behold how the 20. Martyr's do clothe thee; If our Dr will read more Romances of this kind, let him read Nazian. l. 11. de obitu Gorgoniae; S. Nilus Epist. ad Athan. S. Cyprian in Serm. de Lapsis; Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 6. and Theodoret c. 8. de Graecis Affect.  
Our Doctor's last answer to my proof of Miracles for the truth of our Tenets, is that he accepts willingly a trial of our Religion by Miracles: Very good; courageously Dr; let's see, produce your Miracles, We have, says he pag. 56. in favour of our belief all the Miracles recorded in the Old and new Testament. But to whom do you speaked Dr? if you speak to a Pagan, he will reply, as you do to us against our Miracles; that the Miracles of the Old, and new testament, prove not more the truth of your Religion than the Wonders related by Valerius Maximus prove the truth of Paganism; if you speaked to us Catholics, we ask you; what right have you to those Miracles more than Arians, Nestorians or Pelagians? and who will not laugh to hear the Miracles of the Old testament, or those of the new, alleged to prove Protestancy: yes indeed; Moses his miraculous fasting for 40. days, and the great Baptists miraculous austerity of life and fasting from wine and strong liquor; was to prove the Protestant Tenet of not fasting; Elisaeus his raising the dead, by the touch of his bones, was to prove the Protestant Doctrine against the Veneration of Saints Relics; the Miracles of the Ark of the testament (God's Image as Calvin himself calls it) were directly to credit the Protestant's contempt of Images; Christ turned the Water into Wine for to prove he could not turn the bread in the supper into his body; and that miraculous punishment of Ananias and Zaphira struck dead at S. Peter's feet, for retaining a part of their goods, which by vow they had consecrated to God's service; was to prove the Protestant Tenet and practice, that friars, who have made a solemn vow of Poverty, may break that vow, and look for Rents and Benefices in the Protestant Church. Can any thing appear more ridiculous, than to pretend these Miracles were wrought to prove Protestant Doctrine?   

XII. CHAPTER.  
IF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN Catholic Religion, be inconsistent with Subject's Loyalty to their Prince?  
THe Pulpits in England did ring for a long time with bitter invectives against Popish Idolatry; against the Pope as an Antichrist; against Rome as the whore of Babylon: these were for a time our Adversari's grand charge● scare-crows for to strike popular souls into a fear and hatred of our Religion; the wiser sort perceiving the weakness of it, and that Roman Catholics are not so devoid of common sense, as to adore Images, and Saints as God; nor the Pope so monstruously wicked, as to be an Antichrist; they relent in this attack, and speak but lowly of it in corners, and vulgar ears in so much that Dr Stillingfleet is blamed by his greatest friends for engaging his pen in that calumny, now hissed at by all sober Protestant's. Now the calumny in Vogue is that our Catholic Religion is not consistent with the safety of Sovereigns; that our Obedience to a foreign spiritual father, cannot be matched with that which we owe to our Prince; that if the Pope be our supreme head in Spiritual affairs, we must have two Sovereigns in one kingdom; that we allow Popes may unthrone kings, and consequently kings are but Tenants at Will to him. This is the firebrand which has kindled the combustions of our kingdoms; this pretext of securing our Loyalty by an oath of Supremacy, made our Princes, against their innate benignity, severe to their best deserving Subjects; drowned our land in subjects blood, and rendered our kingdoms and government odious to neighbouring Princes, who secure their peace and safety in the due obedience of their Subjects without oaths or other oppressions of their consciences.  
We must then disabuse the World by examining, how far are the Principles of Protestancy consistent with the safety of Princes, and Loyalty of Subjects; and demonstrat that those of our Catholic Religion are incomparablie more; that though Protestant's be in effect as Loyal Subjects as any others; its that awe which Nature has printed in the hearts of Subjects to be so; It's common honesty and reason leads them to be so. The Tenets of their Religion lead them to the contrary. For to know what is the Doctrine of the Church of England, we are not to be said by Dr Sal, Dr Stillingfleet, or other particular Drs who contradict one an other, and themselves at every turning of a leaf; We are to see the Rule of faith Vnanimously received by the whole Reformation; and by it to judge what Doctrine they profess: the Rule of faith and fundamental Principle whereon the whole Reformation rests, is expressed in the 6. Art of the 39, of England; Our Rule of faith is nothing else but Scripture as each person of sounded judgement in the Church understands it. Luther looked upon this Rule, (and he was a Person of sounded judgement, you will say) and delivered his Doctrine upon it thus, Tom. 2. Germ. de saecul. Potest. & tom. 7. Wittemb. fol. 327. Among Christians noon aught to be a Magistrate, all are equal, noon superior but jesus Christ. Zuinglius read this Rule, and delivered his Doctrine to. 6. in Expl. Art fol. 82. King's aught to be deposed by their Subjects, if they do not govern well: Calvin read this Rule, and delivered his judgement in Dan. c. 6. ver. 22. Kings if they be sinners forfeit their power; aught to he scorned rather than obeyed: Beza, Fox, Knox, Bucanan, and others of the first Reformers, defended by Scripture, as they interpreted it, that it is lawful for Subjects to raise arms against, and deprive their Prince of his kingdom and life, if he does not establish the Reformation; read Bryerly's Apology trac. 3. sect. 2. and that you may not want Domestic Abettors of this execrable Doctrine read the Trial of the Regicides where you will found in the Trial of Parson Peter's innumerable texts of Scripture, which in several Sermons he preached, for to exasperate the people against the authority and life of their king; read th● Hue and Cry of judge Cook proving by Scripture and reason the justice of that vnparallelled Murder of our gracious king: was not this the general Doctrine of all England in those days; and I appeal to the consciences of your Brethrens of the Scotch Kirk, if there be any pure Brother among them, that is not persuaded, (though he may be so wise as not to say it) that the Scotch did very well and like good Christians, when they entered into England with the Bible in one hand, and the sword in the other, for to assert Presbytery, against the king's design of establishing Protestancy.  
And, do not tell us that these Doctors and Incendiaries were not Protestant's, but Lutherans, Presbiterians and Calvinists; for, first you have been so kind to them, and to all other Sectaries, as to say they all have one and the same faith professed in the Church of England; this is their faith and Doctrine; you must not then desown it; secondly, call them by what name you will; you have one, and the self same Rule of faith with them, Scripture as each Person of sounded judgement in the Church interprets it: this is the Rule of Protestancy as well as of Presbytery and Lutheranism; put the case (and this is not any thing impossible) that a zealous Protestant of sounded judgement, did interpret Scripture as Parson Peter and judge Cook did; he will teach and act as they did; and remain still a true Protestant, and act nothing against the principles of Protestancy for he acts according Scripture as he interprets it, and this is his Rule of faith.  
Is it not confessedly your Protestant Doctrine, that Scripture alone as each Person of sounded judgement interprets it, is your Rule of faith; that each Person is lycenced by Scripture itself to read Scripture, to judge of the sense of it, to hold and follow that sense of it, which in his conscience he thinks to be true; that noon is obliged to believe any sense of Scripture against his own judgement; there is not a word in all this but the cream of Protestancy: take away the arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, and oblige men to follow and believe what sense of it is proposed to them by the Councils, King, state Bishops or Pastors and down falls Protestancy, and the whole Reformation; its the spiritual birthright of any Protestant to believe and act as he understands Scripture; which being true, as Ptotestants must confess, its apparent, no Prince can have security of his kingdom or life in the Principles of Protestancy; for what hinders but that we may have again in England, (as we had Cromwell'in the year 40.) a bold ambitious Subject with a Parson Peter, and Judge Cook of each side? the multitude is still capable of any impression; let them speaked to the Multitude, that Popery has crept into the Protestant Church; that the lustre of the Gospel is clouded with superstitious Rites and Ceremonies; that the Bishops and Ministers have degenerated from the purity of the Reformation; and all this they think to be true by Scripture as Presbiterians and Quakers do: what then if these Zealots did persuade the Multitude to demand a Reformation of these abuses; an extirpation of Popish-like Ceremonies; and if they could not get it by fare means, to rise in arms and get it by the edge of their swords, and persuade them not to be amused by king or state, Bishops or Ministers; that the birthright of a Protestant was, not to be constrained in their consciences, but to have free liberty for to serve and worship God; not as others will prescribe, but as we think in our Conscience the Scripture does warrant; and then would cite as many texts of Scripture as Parson Peter, Calvin, Knox and Zuinglius did, and understand them as they did (this has happened once, and why not again and again) that kings must be constrained by force of arms, if need be, to establish the Reformation, to given liberty of Conscience, to banish Popery and superstitions: what say you Dr in this case? here is a multitude who are persuaded by Scripture as they understand it, that your Church is superstitious and erroneous; they are persuaded also by Scripture as they understand it, and as it is expounded to them by your best Doctors, that it is lawful for them to take arms against their king for to reform your Church: can they raise arms or not? if not, then you must change your Rule of faith and deny that Principle, whereupon Protestancy and all the Reformation is cemented; That it is lawful for each one to believe, and act as he understands and interprets Scripture; if you say it is lawful for him to raise arms against his king, because he understands by Scripture that he is bound in this occasion to do it? behold a Rebellion warranted by the Doctrine and Principles of your Reformation; and may be every year raised; for we shall never want in a commonwealth, a giddy multitude, an ambition's spirit to head them for to fish in troubled waters, and deluded souls who misunderstand the Word of God: and what assurance can there be of Subjects Loyalty, or of the Prince's safety in such Principles? This is undoubtedly true, that an Arbitrarie interpretation of Scripture, and liberty for to believe what we judge is the true meaning of it, is the essence and foundation not only of Protestancy but of all the Reformation: this is also not lesle certain, that wherever that Arbitrary interpretation is permitted, and liberty assumed for to believe what your own judgement suggests unto you to be the sense and meaning of Scripture, a Prince can never be sure of the Obedience of his Subjects; for they can, at any time and often have, interpreted Scripture to his disadvantage under some falls pretext of piety and Religion: therefore its undoubted that the Principles of Protestancy is not consistent with the safety of Sovereigns and obedience of Subjects.  
Not sooner was this Arbitrary Interpretation of Scripture set up, and liberty for believing what each one thought to be the true sense of Scripture, but you dethroned the Pope; Scripture as interpreted by you, was a sufficient warrant to you for so doing; and I do not see why may not you make it a sufficient warrant for to dethrone your Spiritual Head of England, as you did with Charles the first: and pretend you as much difference as you will, betwixt yourselves and the Scotch Kirk, but in this you agreed, that your Rule of faith is the same which they have; Scripture as ye understand it; neither are you more infallible in the Interpretation of it than they; as therefore they judged by Scripture, that they aught not to receive that Uniformity of Rites and Ceremonies, with the Church of England, and that subordination to Pastors and Prelates, which king Charles the first endeavoured to bring them into; and entered into England with a powerful Army for to assert their Evangelical Liberty; why may it not be always feared that you may do the like when the Spirit moves you?  
Now let us see if our Catholic Doctrine be so inconsistent with Loyalty; I say our Doctrine; for the sinister practices of some of our Church, is not to be imputed to the Church, but to their malice: all you can say of our Doctrine is, that we believe Popes may absolve subjects of their allegiance to their Prince, and deprive him of his kingdom: and what Power do you grant to the Protestant Church? Was it not the Protestant Church which excluded Queme Marie, the true Heiress of the Crown, and raised the Lady Jean Grey to the throne? was it not the Protestant Church representative in the Parliament, which excluded Queen Marie of Scotland and the family of the Stuarts, and substituted Queen Elizabeth; and what for? but to exclude Popery, and establish the Reformation? was it not the Protestant Church representative in the Parliament, which deposed King Charles and substituted Cromwell; and was it not one of the chief causes against him that he was (as they apprehended) inclined to Popery?) thus you raise your Reformation upon the ruin of the Popes, and fanaticism upon the ruin of kings) and was it not the fear of the like effects from the same Principles of deposing Princes not favourable to the Reformation, which obliged our prudent Statesmen to make it a heinous crime, to say the king's a Papist or inclined to Popery? did all the Popes for 1600 years depose so many Princes in England, as your Reformation has in one age? or did England ever see in 6. ages of Popery, so many insurrecctions, private conspiracies, such frequent attempts, such open Rebellions against Regal authority, as we have seen in one age of Protestancy? what then do you talk to us of the power of deposing Princes in the Pope, when we see a more illimitated power assumed by yourselves, and so frequently exercised?  
In our Catholic Doctrine only the Pope has that power, not of deposing Princes, but of declaring them to be ipso facto deposed as Divines say; in case they should force their subjects to embrace his error; but in our Protestant Principles, there's never a Protestant in England but has it; for whereas you all have by the principles of your Religion, the liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture, and following with a safe conscience what sense of it you think to be true; if a Protestant judges by Scripture that Protestancy, as now it is professed, has any mixture of Popery; if the spirit moves him to demand a reformation of the Church, he wants but a seasonable occasion and power for to ask it of the king, and if he will not grant it; to oblige him by force of arms to do it: moreover this power of deposing Princes belongs not to the Pope, as our Divines say, only because the Prince is an Heretic, provided he does not pretend to force his subjects to his Error; and this being so, certainly our Doctrine is far lesle favourable to the Pope, than to secular Princes, for a Pope if he becomes an heretic, though he never should endeavour to pervert others, he is ipso facto deposed from his Papacy. Finally if the Pope's power were so dangerous as our Adversaries blow in their Proselytes ears, certainly Catholic Princes, who are as tender of their safety and Authority as Protestant's; would be more jealous of his supremacy than they are: and by the way let me advertise my Reader, how much our Adversaries do injure the Frencb, in saying they deny this power in the Pope; its most falls, for though they may pretend by the Privileges of the Gallican Church, to be exempted from that Power; but the Power they do not deny; but all disputes of that point are severely prohibited.   

XIII. CHAPTER.  
THE OATH OF SUPREMACY Unlawful; and not needful nor sufficient for the security of our Princ's Interest.  
THe Protestant's themselves who so vigorously press this oath upon us, more for hopes of getting the goods and employments of them who refuse it, than for any devotion to their Religion or safety of the king, are ashamed to believe it lawful in the genuine and natural signification of it; but do given it a far different sense from that which the words of the Oath import, and their Acts of Parliament and Oath of Homage, exhibited by their Bishops in their Consecration, given it. For the Oath imports in the general apprehension of Protestant's the kings supreme spiritual supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, as we believe it in the Pope; which implies a Power in the king (as in the Pope duly elected and consecrated we believe) for to consecrat Bishops and Priests, for to administer the Sacraments, preach, and all other Ecclesiastical functions; for if the king be supreme Head of the Church, as we believe the Pope to be; its from the king, as their spiritual Head, and the fountain of all Spiritual Jurisdiction, that the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy, must derive their Character, their Jurisdiction, and their power for administering the Sacraments; and if they derive it from him, he must have it in himself; for noon can given to an other, that which he has not. That the king should have any such Power in himself, it appears so ridiculous to the Protestant's themselves to utter it, that noon will dare say it; and therefore they given other different senses to the Oath, nor do they agreed well among themselves in what sense it is to be understood; but when they tender the Oath to the people, and force them to take it, they never trouble themselves to mollify it with any interpretation, but we must take it, understand it as we please.  
That the true sense and meaning of the Oath is to believe the spiritual supremacy of the king, as we have declared it, and which the very Protestant's themselves this day judge to be ridiculous; it appears by the very Words of the Oath; and though by crooked and far fetched interpretations, some Doctors may given it a more mild and tolerable sense, yet the Oath must be judged unlawful, because the genuine, natural and common sense of the words, is unlawful, and heterodox; secondly because the sense of the Oath intended by the Church of England which exacts it, is not that mild and passable sense which this or that private Dr gives it; the Church of England intends by that Oath to persuade us the Spiritual Supremacy and power of the king for to consecrat Bishops, given Spiritual Jurisdiction, authority and power for to administer the Sacraments, and exercise other Ecclesiastical functions; and that this is the sense intended in the Oath by the Church of England, it evidently appears; first, by their Statutes and Acts of Parliament which I cited in the Introduction to this Treatise, which I pray read; secondly by the Oath of Homage which Protestant Bishops take in their Consecration, confessing that they derive their Episcopal and Spiritual jurisdiction wholly and solely from the king. Thirdly I have proved in the Introduction that all the Spiritual Jurisdiction, and Episcopal Character your Church has, is derived from Queen Elizabeth: fourthly king Henry the VIII. who was the first that usurped this supremacy, which now you pretend; made Cromwell, a Layman, his Vicar General in Spiritualibus, and exercised that office by the authority derived from him; and king James dispensed with ArchBishop Abbots in the Irregularity he incurred by kill a man; lastly if by that Oath the Church of England intended only an assurance of our Allegiance to our king, and intended nothing prejudicious to our faith, why would not they be content with an Oath of Allegiance worded without offence to our Consciences: and it cannot be denied but that the Church of England intended by that Oath, we should acknowledge that supremacy to be in the king which we Catholics do believe to be in the Pope, and thereby deny any Spiritual Supremacy in the Pope; it also intended we should believe that Supremacy to be in the king, which king Henry the VIII. assumed to himself; and this was no other than that supremacy as we expounded, for to Consecrat, given power to cthers to consecrat, invest and Confirm Bishops, Administer Sacraments, etc.  
Now that such a supremacy cannot be attributed to any secular Prince, is a point so often, so solidly, and so largely proved by innumerable of our Authors, and not only the texts, and examples of Primitive Princes quoted by Dr Sal in his 17. Cap. but all that the Protestant Writers have said for themselves in this point, so clearly answered and refuted, that it would be a loss of time to me and to my Reader to answer my Antagonists little trivial objections; and repeat again what has been so often said, and is so known even to vulgar Readers; particularly that as I have said, no Protestant of judgement will now pretend that kind of supremacy in the king: Calvin says they were madmen who flattered the king of England so far as to raise him to that supremacy; Presbiterians, Anabaptiss, Quakers, Independents, and the rest of your sectaries in England and out of England utterly disclaim it, and will not take that Oath; and only Roman Catholics are persecuted, and punished with loss of employments, goods and estates for not taking it.  
My Antagonist in his 17 Ch. brings some texts of S. Paul and some sentences of S. Bernard, and S. Chrysostome to prove this supremacy; and whoever reads them in the places quoted by him, will plainly see, they only prove that we aught to obey, and submit to the higher power and authority under which we are; and this noon does or can deny; but what has that to do with our Controversy? for those passages quoted by my Adversary, do neither distinguish Powers (and my Dr I hope will not be so senseless, as to deny there are several powers under which we are, and to all which we are obliged to obey) nor do they determine or declare, wherein those distinct Powers are: there is no doubt but that we are obliged to obey all Powers under which we are, beccause all Power is constituted, derived and ordained by God; but if our Dr will be said by S. Bernard. S. Chrysostome, S. Augustin and the ancient fathers, he will see in my next ensuing Chapter that the supreme Spiritual Power, is in S. Peter and his successors; and as he believes S. Bernard when he reprehends the disorders of the Roman Court, which he does in that 42. Epist. quoted by our Dr and in several other places, I hope he will believe him also when he says, as we shall see that the Pope is the supreme Pastor Prince and chief of all the Bishops: and my Reader will see in my ensuing Chapter, how much my Dr is to be blamed for discovering his ignorance, when he says in his 15. Chapt. that we shall never found in Ecclesiastical History any mention of any claim S. Peter should have of any power over S. james in jerusalem, S. Andrew in Achaia or any other of the Apostles in their respective Provinces, and that noon of those Moore worthy first Bishops of Rome for five hundred years did pretend to any supremacy.  
But before we proceed to the proof of our D rs ignorance in this point, we must see, if this Oath of supremacy be needful, and sufficient for our sovereigns safety; not needful, whereas we see all other Sovereigns, as well Cathoiys as Protestant's, judge themselves secure without any such Oath from their subjects: and when we are ready to given to our Prince as much security of our fidelity, as any subjects of the world, given to their respective Sovereigns, why should our consciences be oppressed with an oath of supremacy repugnant to our faith; or our peace disturbed by Remonstrances and oaths against the Pope's indirect Temporal Power, obtruded upon us by turbulent spirits; whereas such Oaths are altogether needless for the securing of subjects in their Loyalty, as will appear by this discourse: wherein I would have my Reader observe that I do not pretend to prove that any such Power is in the Pope, as I let it pass in my former Treatise, so I do now; but I intent to prove, that though such a Power were granted to be in the Pope, neither the Oath of supremacy, nor that Remonstrance or Oath disclaiming that indirect Temporal Power in the Pope above Princes, is needful nor sufficient to secure the subjects in their Obedience.  
For suppose there is such a Power in the Pope; where leys the danger to the Prince who has the affection of his subjects? in the exercise of that Power, you will say, if the Pope should absolve us from our Allegiance, and command us under pain of Excommunication not to obey him, and to rise in arms against him: but I will demonstrat, its a case Morally impossible, and a Metaphisical case, as the schools speaked, that subjects may be obliged to obey any such command or fear any such Excommunications, but may lawfully and conscientiously resist, and pay their Obedience to their Sovereign; for its a Principle unanimously received by Moral Divines, that no Ecclesiastical precept obliges in conscience, if in said Obedience we hazard our life, our fortunes, or our honour; for example the Church commands us to fast in Lent; you are sick; you cannot fast without a notable prejudice to your health; you are not obliged; the Church commands you to hear Mass on sundays; yo● cannot without hazarding your life because you are sick; without hazarding your estate by reason of a Persecution; you are not obliged: Now, the Pop's command and excommunication against our Obedience to our Prince, is but an Etclesiastical Precept at most; therefore it cannot oblige subjects with the hazard of their lives▪ fortunes, or honour; but it is morally impossible but that they should hazard all three, if they should deny Obedience and resist their Sovereign; for such a disobedience or insurrection must cast them into a war, or a most evident danger of a war, where all is exposed, therefore its a Metaphisical case and Morally impossible that subjects can be obliged by any command or censure of the Pope to deny obedience to their Prince: Say then what you please of that Power; many learned Divines convincingly prove, it annoys not the safety of Princes; the very Heterodox Sovereigns do not care for it: nor are ye who take it esteemed better Subjects, than they who refuse it.  
But you reply; though Subjects be not obliged to obey such Commands and Censures of the Pope, yet they may lawfully obey them; and so the Prince must depend of the Subjects courtesy; for being lycenced once by the Pope, nothing is wanting to the execution but their Will and pleasure:  
To this our Divines do commonly answer, that for to secure Subjects that they May not, the way is not to force upon them an Oath disavowing the Power in the Pope; but an Oath of never concurring to the exercise of that Power, if any he had; that's to say, of never takeing arms, or denying Obedience to their Prince upon any command or Censure of the Pope: which Oath, as it does not affirm or deny any Power in the Pope (let the Divines dispute it out) so it rids Consciences from Scruples of swearing, what they do not know to be true or falls; and secures them from any Fact, or exercise of it prejudicious to their Prince; which, and the many signal testimonies of the Loyalty of his Catholic Subjects; and their willingness to given his Majesty any pledge of their fidelity which does not shock their consciences, would abundantly satisfy our clement Prince and prudent statesmen, if some overbusy spirits did not trouble our rest; which trouble the Irish indeed did suffer, as the Dr says in his 16. Chap. not from his Majesty, nor from his Grace his Lieutenant, (who most judiciously approved the satisfaction which was offered him by People of known loyalty, honour and learning in a conference had with them, M Peter Walsh being present) but from some who were too too officious and unreasonable in pressing Oaths upon Catholic and Irish subjects, as if for being Catholics and Irish we must be suspected above all others of disloyalty: but say you again, if such a Power be granted in the Pope: he may declare a Prince deposed, and expose his kingdom to any foreign Prince who is pleased to invade it: I answer: if that should be; how can any Oath whatsoever of subjects hinder that a foreign Prince shall not invade our Prince? is it because we swear the Pope has no such Power, that the foreign Prince will desist from invading, if the fancy takes him? what our Divines pretend, is to show, that the Oath of supremacy is needless to secure Subjects in their Loyalty.  
Now I will show that as that Oath of supremacy is needless, so it is not sufficient to secure Subjects in their Loyalty; and this I will show in the Principles and practice of the Church of England and Dr Sal: Our Dr has made a Solemn Vow or Oath of Povertie obliging himself never to have any Rents or revenues; also a Solemn Vow of never pretending or accepting any Ecclesiastical Dignity; he made other Vows of Chastity, Obedience etc. Now he says, those Vows or Oaths do not oblige him: and why? because says he pag. 181. against N. N. I made a former Vow of Religious Obedience in my Baptism to God; if I found the later Vow made to the Pope, not to consist with the compliance of the former made to God, then I must stand to the former made to God, and rescind the later made to the Pope. And just so may any Protestant, or Child of the Reformation say, after taking the Oath of supremacy: for as we proved in our 12. Chapt. their Rule of faith being Scripture as each Person of sounded judgement understands it; after swearing the Oath of Supremacy, if you read and study the Scripture, and the Spirit, or your ignorance moves you to understand by the text, that the Rites, Ceremonies and practices of the Protestant Church are degenerated into Popery,) as Presbiterians, Anabaptiss, and Quakers judge) and you pass further, and meet some texts as Zuinglius, Calvin, Parson Peter, and Beza did, and interpret them, that you aught to demand a Reformation of those abuses, and in case of a repuls, to raise arms against the king and force him to it; then you will say that in your Baptism you made a vow of Obedience and Religion to God, according his Word; that your Oath of supremacy does not consist with the compliance of this former; and that you must rescind the later and stand to the former; what then does your Oath of supremacy signify in the Protestant Religion?  
Lastly this Oath is not advantageous, but destructive to the Government; for it being made the distinctive sign of Loyalty, and noon being admitted to the king's Service in Civil or military employments, but such as will take it; his Majesty is deprived of many stout and gallant subjects who are not permitted to serve him, because they will not strain their Consciences with an Oath: And besides the offices of trust in the kingdom being open to those who are ready to take an oath, and there being men in all times and commonwealths who will never stick to take an oath, for to advance their fortune; the places of trust will come to the hands of those prostituted consciences; who, as they sold their faith for their interest, will betray their trust and king when any good bargain presents: and who does not see how destructive this is to the government? Innumerable experiences show us, particularly since the year 40. who were the more faithful to the king; the Catholics who refused the Oath, but never drew sword against him; or the Protestant's who freely took it, and fought against him.   

FOURTEEN. CHAPTER.  
THE POPE'S SUPREMACY ASSERTED.  
ALl the combustions and dismal contentions of our kingdoms for a whole age did proceed from the Pop's pretention to supremacy, says our Dr: All Dr? The combustions of England, when Dudley Duke of Northumberland beheaded Seamor the Protector; poisoned the young king; raised the Lady jean Grey to the throne; and married her to his son; was all this (and the Tragical circumstances which acompanied it) because the Pope did pretend to supremacy? or was it not rather an effect of Protestancy which Dudley endeavoured to establish, for to raise his family upon the oppression of the true Monarch? Was the Murder of king James in Scotland, and the violence of her subjects against Queen Marie? was the imprisonment and death of that Queen by Queen Elizabeth; because the Pope pretended to supremacy? or was it not an effectof Queen Elizabeth's ambition of securing herself in the Crown, and excluding the family of the Stuarts? was it because the Pope would be head of the Church, that the Parliament rebelled the year 40. against the king? It was not any alteration of Ceremonies, or language in Divin Service (says he) which ministered fuel to this fatal fire, all would have been granted by the Pope if we did own his supremacy; and not one word of proof of all these hallucinations, but that one Twisden (a chimaera for aught the world knows) should have said the Pope offered to condescend with Queen Elizabeth in all points of the Reformation, if she did but own his supremacy, to which, see my answer in the Introduction.  
He pursues his invective against the Pop's supremacy and tells us S. Gregory detested and disclaimed the Title of Universal Bishop, which he says, is a commendation of his Modesty, and a check of the unlimited ambition of the Popes of Rome. It's true S. Gregory, lib. 4. Epist. 32. 34. 36. and 38. writes against that name of Universal Bishop, but not in his 4 the. book, 60. and 67. Epist. as my Adversary cities, for that book has but 57 Epistles; and what S. Gregory condemns is not the name, but the sense and meaning, in which John that ambitious Patriarch of Constantinople usurped it: for it may have two meanings; the one is, the Chief and first Bishop, supreme in Power and Jurisdiction, Chief Governor of the Church; in this sense S. Gregory did not condemn it: the second meaning of that name is, to be the Universal Bishop of the Church, that's to say the only Bishop of the Church; so as that the rest of the Bishops are not properly Bishops, but administrators or Vicars under him: In this sense did john the Patriarch of Constantinople assume that name, and S. Gregory did check his ambition, as appears in his 7 the. book Epist. 71. Hoc in totius Ecclesiae injuriam & omnium, etc. In this he injures the whole Church, and despises you all, for if one be the Universal Bishop, as he understands it, then noon of you all is a Bishop. Again l. 4. Epist 38. Despectis fratribus, appetit solus Episcopus vocari: Despising his Brethrens he ambitions to be called the only Bishop. You know very well Dr that the Pope does not pretend to be called, and that we do not call him Universal Bishop in this sense, as if he did pretend to be, or we should be so senseless as to say, he is the only Bishop in the Church; and the rest of the Bishops are not truly and properly Bishops.  
But in the sense that the Pope assumes that name, that's to say to be the chief Bishop in power and Jurisdiction above the rest, the supreme Governor of the Church, S Gregory did never blame, nor condemn it; nay l. 7. Epist. 65. speaking of the Sea of Rome he says, In saying he is subject to the Sea of Rome, I know no Bishop but is subject to it, and S. Leo Epist. 48. calls the Chair of Peter, the Seat of the Universal Church; and S. Gregory l. 4. Epist. 32. says, and Dr Sal confesses, that the name of Universal Bishop was offered by the Council of Chalcedon Act. 3. and Act. 16. to Leo Pope; this was one of the four first General Councils, which our Dr reveres for a Holy and sacred Council; and must consequently confess, that that name of Universal Bishop, which it offered to Leo, was Orthodox and lawful; or that the Council erred foully and irreligiously in offering it: It's true as S Gregory says. The Popes before him did not assume, but refuse and detest that name, but that was because it was an odious name, by reason of the sense in which John the Patriarch, and others did assume it; therefore they would not use it: not because it was not just and lawful in the true sense meaned by the Church.  
And if we can prove that S. Peter was the chief in power and authority above the Apostles, the supreme in Jurisdiction; there's no difficulty in believing that his Successors are the chief and supreme in Power and Authority above the other Bishops. Our Dr says pag. 31. he does not read that Peter should have any Authority above Andrew in Achaia, or Thomas in the Indieses, or the other Apostles in their respective Provinces and this proves no more, but that either his Library is ill furnished with books, or that he does not study, nay nor read carefully the Bible: of all the Texts it affords, I will produce but three with the glosses of some fathers upon them.  
In two several occasions, Christ speaks particularly of the power he was to given the Apostles for to tie and untie: the first, Math 16. he speaks to Peter alone, tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in caelis, quodcunque solveris super terram, erit solutum & in caelis. To thee I will given the keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens; whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in the Heavens; whatsoever you shall unbind on earth shall be vnbound in the Heavens. Again speaking of this power he was to given to his Apostles, Math. 18. he says, whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever ye shall unbind on earth, shall be vnbound in Heaven: Origen Hom. 6. in Math. observes the great difference expressed in this text betwixt Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Non modica differentia est, quod Petro datae sunt claves non unius caeli, sed multorum cae●orum; & quae ligata sunt super terram, ess●nt ligata non in uno tantum caelo, sed in omnibus caelis; ad eos autem qui multi sunt ligatores & solutores in terra, sic dicit ut soluant & alligent, non in caelis, sicut Petrus, sed in uno caelo, quia non sunt in tanta perfectione sicut Petrus, ut alligent & soluant in omnibus caelis. Its no small difference that to Peter are given the keys, not of one heaven but of many, and that what is bound on earth (by him) should be bound not in one heaven, but in all the heavens. But to the rest, who are binders and unbinders on earth he says, that they can tie or untie, not in all the heavens as Peter, but in one heaven; because they have not that power that Peter to tie and untie in all the heavens. For the clearer understanding of this passage, S. Gregory tells us Hom. 12. in Evang. Per regnum caelorum in sacro eloquio praesentis temporis Ecclesia designatur: by the Kingdom of the Heavens, is understood in Scripture, this militant Church on earth. It's a kingdom, composed of many heavens, that's to say, many Churches: now Origen's observation clearly convinces Peter's supremacy for he had the Power of tying and untying in all the Heavens; that's to say in all the Churches, his Jurisdiction reached to all; each of the other Apostles had a power of binding and unbinding in uno caelo tantum, in one heaven, only, in one Church but not in all: S. Hierom and S. Augustin observed that when Christ speaks to S. Peter and gives him the Power Math. 16. he gives him the keys, tibi dabo claves; but when he gives the Power to all the Apostles Math. 18. not keys are mentioned, Soli Petro, says S. Aug. in Lops 108. dictum est, tibi dabo claves, etc. quia figuram gerebat Ecclesiae, propter primatum Apostolatus, totius Ecclesiae gerebat Personam: to Peter alone it was said to thee I will given the keys etc. because he represented the Church; for the primacy of his Apostleship he represented the whole Church, Its very true all the Apostles and the whole Church teceived the keys, says S. Hierom, l. count Jovin. Cuncti Apostoli Claves acceperunt; but says S. August. tract. 24 in Joan. Tota Ecclesia accepit in Petro, they all received the keys in Peter, as being the chief and Prince of all; they all have the Power of tying and untying, but they must call to Peter for the keys.  
The second Text Luc. 5. Duc in altum & laxate retia; Launch out into the Deep, and let your nets drop for a draught. S. Ambrose observes Soli Petro dicitur, Duc; omnibus imperatur ut laxent retia: to Peter only its said launch out and led the boat; all are commanded to drop the nets: all must work and labour, Peter alone must govern the boat: hence it is, that S. Hierom having said l. count Jovin. Super omnes Apostolos ex aequo fortitudo Ecclesiae solidatur; that the strength of the Church is equally founded upon all the Apostles; he adds immediately in the same place (which our Adversaries fraudulently let pass in silence) Tamen inter duodecem Vnus eligitur, ut Capite constituto s●hismatis tolleretur occasio; but among the twelve one is chosen, that a Head and chief being pointed, all occasion of schism might be avoided: and that you might not suspect that Peter was ordained the Head and Chief, only of the rest of the Church, but not of the Apostles; hear S. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 38. Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum Vniversalis Ecclesiae est; Paulus. Andreas, joannes, quid aliud, nisi singularium plebium capita sunt, & tamen sub uno capite (scilicet Petro) omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Truly Peter is the chief member of the Church Universal, Paul, Andrew, john, what are they, but heads of particular flocks, and they are all but members of the Church, under one head, which head is S. Peter, says S. Greg. again l. 4. Epist. 32. Omnium Apostolorum Principi Petro Vniversalis Ecclesiae cura commissa est; Peter, the Prince of the Apostles to whom the care of the Universal Church was committed. Also S. Cyprian. l. de Unit. Eccl. having said, Omnes Apostoli pari consortio praediti sunt & honoris & dignitatis: the Apostles were equally endowed with power and honour; he added immediately (which our Adversaries also disingenuously omit) sed exordium ab Vnitate proficiscitur, Petro Primatus datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia & una Cathedra monstretur; but the beginning springs from Unity, the Primacy is given to Peter, to denote the Unity of Christ's Church, and the Unity of the Chair, and S. Cyprian himself says, as we'll see immediately, that by denying this Unity and Primacy, we run into heresies and schisms.  
The third Text Luc. 22. I have prayed for thee Peter, that they faith may not fail, and you being converted, confirm they Brethrens. He gawe Peter the charge of strengthening his Brethrens in their temptations, and hence Theophil. commenting upon this text concludes that he made him the Chief head of the Apostles; Manifestus Verborum sensus est, quod cum te discipulorum Principem fecerim tu cum post negationem fleveris & resipueris, confirma fratres tuos; hoc te decet qui post me Ecclesiae Petra & fundamentum es. The sense of the text (says he) is clear; that whereas I made you Prince of the Disciples, when you have lamented your Denial, strengthen your Brethrens; this becomes you, who are after me, the Rock and foundation of the Church. S. Augustin is no lesle express in his gloss upon that text, Serm, 124 de Tem. Totius corporis morbum in ipso Capite curat Ecclesiae; in ipso componit omnium membrorum sanitatem. He heals the disease of the whole in the very head of the Church; in him he places the health of all the members: Behold how distinctly he calls him the Head of the whole Church; and admire the bad luck of our good Dr that he could not meet, he says, any mention in the Primitive fathers of the first five hundred years of Peter's suptemacy over Andrew in Achaia, Thomas in Indies, or the rest of the Apostles: if but now, that we have furnished him with these passages, he did open his eyes to the light of Truth; if he did read Chrysost. Hom. 55. in Math. he would found Peter called the Top of the Apostolical College; and again home 87. in Joan. Petrus os est Apostolorum, totius cae●us vertex, & Magister Orbis, qui jacobum Hierosolimis praeposuit. Peter is the Mouth of the Apostles, the Top of the Apostolical College, the Master of the world who made james Bishop of jerusalem; and again, home 3. in Act. commending Peter's modesty, that though he was the chief and superior of the Apostles, yet he would not alone, without the approbation and consent of the rest, choose Mathias to the Apostleship, quid, says he, an non licebat illi soli eligere? licebat quidem; & maxime licebat; verum id non fecit; nihil authoritate sola, nihil cum imperio. Can not he alone choose Mathias? yes he could; but he would not; nothing by his proper Authority; nothing by command; let our Dr read Optatus l. 2. count Parmenianum. Omnium Apostolorum Caput Petrus Romae Sedit, ut in illa una Cathedra, unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas Cathedras sibi quisque defenderet. Peter the head of all the Apostles, sits at Rome, that in that one Chair, Unity should be kept by all; lest that each of the rest of the Apostles, should claim each of their cbaires proper to themselves, without any subordination to their head. And because our Dr flatters himself with the persuasion of S. Bernard's judgement against S. Peter's Supremacy, let him read the Saint l. 2. de Consid. ad Eug. Tu quis es? Summus Sacerdos, Pontifex magnus, tu Princeps Episcoporum, tu haeres Apostolorum, tu primatu Abel, gubernatu No, Patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, Authoritate Moses, judicatu Samüel, Potestate Petrus, Vnctione Christus: tu es cui claves traditae, cui oves creditae sunt; sunt quid●m & alij coeli janitores & gregum Pastores, sed tu tanto gloriosius, quanto differentius, utrumque prae caeteris nomen haereditasti: habent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos, tibi Vniversi crediti, Vni Vnus; nec modo ovium, sed & pastorum tu unus omnium, Pastor. Who are you? (says S. Bernard to Eugenius Pope) You are the great Priest; the High Bishop, the Prince of Bishops, the heir of the Apostles, by Primacy Abel, by government No, by Patriarchship Abraham, by Order Melchisedech, by Dignity Aaron, by Authority Moses, by judicature Samuel, by Power Peter, by Unction Christ: to you the keys were given, to you the sheep were committed: here are also other Porters of Heaven and Pastors of the flock; but you with so much the more excellency, by how much the more differently above all others you possess those names: they have their flocks appointed for them; each one his own particular flock; to thee all are delivered, one flock to one; nor are you only the Pastor of the sheep, but you are the only and sole Pastor of all the Pastors: and a little beneath; Aliorum potestas certis arctatur limitibus, tua extenditur & in ipsos qui potestatem super alios acceperunt. The power of others is confined within certain bonds, but your power reaches over those who have power above others.  
And that nothing may be wanting for a full conviction of this truth, hear S. Hierom in Dial. ad Lucif. proving the necessity of this Papal Supremacy; Nisi supereminens quaedam, etc. if there be not a supereminent and supreme authority in the Church, there will be as many schisms in the Church, as there are Priests: and though you may attribute that confused distraction of sectaries in England and elsewhere to other causes; but S. Cyprian l. 1. Epist. 30. gives you the genuine reason of it; Non aliunde na●ae sunt haereses, aut orta schismata, quam quia non agnoscun● unum Vice-Christi ad tempus judicem, cui Vniversa fraternitas obtemperet. Heresies and schisms, have no other source, but because they do not acknowledge one judge Vicegerent of Christ to which all the flock should obey. Judge you now Reader with what truth our Dr says that no mention is made by antiquity of S. Peter's supremacy which has been so clearly delivered as I have shown, by Origen, Cyprian, S. August. Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostome, Bernard, Theofilact, and Optatus; and to whose judgement will you stick, either of such Oracles who teach Peter's supremacy, or of a Luther, a Calvin, a Beza, who to live without curb, rebelled against Authority; see which you will prefer; or the unanimous consent of ages upward to the Apostles; or this our last age distracted by Mushroom sectaries; see with whom you will believe; with the Universities and innumerable Drs and fathers of the past and this present age, or with a handful of obscure and unknowen people.   

XU CHAPTER.  
MY SYLLOGISMS FOR TRANSUBST ANtiation enforced against the Doctor and the Doctrine proved against his sense and Reason.  
I proposed a syllogism in my former Treatise pag. 188. for our Tenet of Transubstantiation, grounded upon the text of S. Luke 22. Take eat this is my body which is given for you: the text denotes, he gave to them somewhat to eat; I proved it was his real Body; for; He gave to them to eat, what he gave for them; the Text says it, take eat this is my body which is given for you; but he gave for them his real body; therefore he gave to them his Real body: for as I advertised, the Text makes no difference betwixt what he gave To them, and what he gave for them: by what principles then must we interpret the text, and say that what he gave to them was a figure only, and what he gave for them was his Real body? will it not be as lawful to Martion to interpret the text as to you, and say that as the text in the first part imports only a figurative body given to them; so in the second part it imports but a figurative body given for them.  
His answer is that my argument is not worth a rush; that with a piece of his Logic he will prove it a paralogism; and raises such a thick mist of scholastical terms so often repeated in few lines, that I defy you read his discourse and your head not to ache: after a great deal of tittle tattle against the form of my syllogism; the upshot of his answer is, that though the text does not distinguish betwixt what Christ gave To us in the supper, and what he gave for us yet our eyes do distinguish betwixt both, for we see what he gave to us, was but Bread, and what he gave for us on the Cross was an Organic Body. This answer I did foresee and replied against it in my former Treatise; but not a syllable does my Antagonist answer against my replies, as if I had made noon.  
But its well he has attempted to say somewhat; he confesses plainly the text makes no difference betwixt what he gave to his disciples in the supper and what he was to given for them upon the cross; our eyes he says distinguish betwixt both; because they did see but bread in the supper; and they did see an Organic body, upon the cross. Very well: I pray Dr, the night that Christ was at the supper, when he took the bread and uttered those words, take eat▪ this is my Body which is given for you. Did the Apostles see with their eyes that night Christ's Organic Body given for us upon the cross! Not, for he was not then crucified: What did they believe then, that Christ would given To them to eat? the figure only of his Body says our Dr, real bread; because their eyes did see but bread: and what did they believe then, that Christ would given for them on the cross? an Organic Body says he; why so? for the text as you confess, makes no distinction betwixt what he gave To them, and For them; our eyes you say make the distinction; then, in the night of the supper their eyes did not see his Organic Body on the cross; how could they therefore distinguish then, what he gave to them to eat, from that he was to given for them on the cross; OH but say you, the next day after they did see his Organic Body for them upon the cross: its true; but I speaked of the supper the night before; then, as they believed that Christ's Body was given To them, because Christ said, take eat so they believed at the same time his body would be given for them on the cross, because he said in the same text, which is given for you; and my difficulty is, since they did believe that the body given to them, was only a figurative body, by what Principle did they distinguish that the body which would be given for them was an Organic Body? for by virtue of the text, as you confess, they could not Distinguish there two different bodies; nor by their eyes, because they did not see the Organic Body on the cross.  
The like may be said of Abraham, Isaac, and the ancient Patriarches; they believed that Christ would given his Body to us in the supper, and for us on the cross; doubtless these Mysteries were revealed to them: did they believe it was a figurative only body was given to us in the supper, and an Organic real body on the cross? by what principle did they make this distinction of what was given To us, from what was given for us? not by any text or supernatural revelation; for sure you will not say he spoke to them of the Ancient law in more express and emphatic terms, than to those of the law of Grace; nor by their eyes or senses, for they did not see Christ in the supper, nor on the cross: you must conclude then, that either they believed his figurative only Body was to be in the supper and on the cross; or that his true real and substantial Body was to be in both.  
Its a gallant resolution of our Dr in his pag. 116. Sir says he, we are ready to captivat our senses and reason to faith in God wheresoever we found him to declare his will unto us, without any further examine: but hung the Good town of Swords, whose Parish makes him breaks this resolution: I pray Dr answer me to a question I proposed to you pag. 144. of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, which you dropped under the table like a naughty card; but I'll taken it up: Can you deny but that God might, if he were pleased, turn the substance of the bread into his flesh and blood, and given us his true and real Body under the accidents of bread? as he turned the Water into wine, and as our stomach turns the Victuals we eat into our flesh and blood? you will not deny, but that he might, if he were pleased: If Christ were really intended to do it; and to given us his real true body under the accidents of bread, how could he declare his intention in clearer expressions than taking bread, and saying, take eat this is my body, truly my flesh; what clearer expression can any man expect in a serious conversation betwixt honest men? He spoke then, as if really he intended to given us his real body under the accidents of bread; for if he had really intended it, he could not speak otherwise: Can you then doubt, but that God's Will is sufficiently declared unto you in this point? and yet you will not captivat your senses nor reason; you will not, notwithstanding the plain and clear sense of God's Word, believe its his true body, because your eyes and taste found its bread● and is not this to captivat God's Word to your senses rather than to captivat your senses to his Word; when you contradict the plain natural sense of his Words, because your senses and reason contradict it?  
Let us hear how star is the Dr from the faith of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, and from their submission to God's word in this ineffable mystery: S Chrysost. speaks thus Hom. 60. ad Pop. Ant. Let us obey God in all things, and not gainsay him, though what he says contradicts our senses and imaginations; let his Word obtain more credit from us, than our thoughts and sight: let us not consider only what leys before our eyes, but hold fast to his Word; for his Words are infallible and our senses are easy to be deceived: his words never fail, but our senses frequently mistake; because therefore he says, this is my Body, let us obey believe and behold him with the eyes of our Understanding. And again in the same place; What Pastor feeds his flock with his own blood? but he feeds us with his own proper blood. S. Cyril is no lesle express in excluding our senses from being Judges in this Mystery Orat. 4. Cath. do not look on this as naked bread, for it is the Body and blood of Christ himself, and although sense does suggest unto thee that this is bread, yet let faith confirm thee: do not judge of it by they taste, but know and hold for certain, that this bread which is seen of us, is no bread, though the taste judges it to be bread, but the body of Christ; and the wine which seems to our taste to be wine, is no wine but the blood of Christ. S. Epiph. in Acor. circa Medium speaks of this Mystery, We see its neither equal, nor like in proportion to his flesh, but yet because he was pleased to say through grace, this is my flesh, every one believeth, notwithstanding what we see, for his saying; and every one who believeth not, it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace. Thus the ancient fathers captivated their senses to faith, notwihstanding the evidence of their eyes: And not only the example of the Fathers, but several passages of Scripture manifestly prove, that we must believe the plain and natural sense of the word of God, against the evidence of our eyes; as S. Joseph believed his Spouse the B. Virgin to be a Virgin upon the testimony of the Angel, against the evidence of his eyes, which did see in her the marks of a Woman. Tobias also did see in his fellow Traveller but the Accidents of a human nature, yet against the evidence of his sense which did see nothing but a man; he believed him to be a Spirit: so also though our eyes see nothing but bread in the consecrated Host, yet we believe against the evidence of sense, that it is no bread but the Body of Christ, because the words of Christ, This is my Body, is of a more infallible assurance than our eyes and other senses.  
But says our Dr this Mystery is quite repugnant to human reason; because thence it would follow, that Christ's Body would be at one time in as many different places, as there are consecrated hosts; and reason shows a Body cannot be at one time, but in one place. If he had read carefully S. Paul's l. Epistle to the Corint. chap 15. this difficulty would not have startled him: there the Apostle distinguishes two kind of Bodies (or rather one and the same body in two different states and conditions) a spiritual, and an earthly natural body, which two bodies are not substantially different, or two different substances, but one and the same body under different qualities and accidents; for he says, this our natural corruptible Body shall be changed in the Resurrection of the dead; into a spiritual body that's to say purified from earthly qualities; it shall be spiritualised, and become immortal, impassable and adorned with spiritual qualities. Our Dr knows well that a spiritual substance can be in many places, and sometimes in a smal● space, sometimes in a greater, as our soul is wholly in each part of our Body: allow therefore (which is falls) that this our earthly corruptible body may not be in many places, but when it is spiritualised and has changed its earthly natural qualities into spiritual qualities, and become as it were a spiritual, immortal impassable incorruptible substance, as glorious bodies are, why may it not have that quality and capacity, as spirits have, of being in many places; and being sometime in a great, sometime in a small place: and therefore we say that Christ's body by virtue of its spiritual qualities, because its spiritualised as glorious bodies are, may be in many places; even as the Body of Christ entered into the Cenacle the doors being shut, whither that was by the chinks of the door or the key hole, or penetrating the door; this is no lesle repugnant to reason, and to the exigence of a natural earthly Massive Body, than to be in many places; and how did that hap? S. Epiph answers Haer. 64. Our Saviour rised from the dead, not taking an other body, but the self same body, which he had, changing it into a spiritual subtility, or spiritualizing it, by which he entered the door being shut. He who entered, says S. Ambrose l. 10. c. 24 in Luc. had a true real body; how then did he enter the door being shut? by the qualities of a spirit which he received in his Resurrection; the body is sown a natural, corruptible, earthly body; it riseth a spiritual, heavenly incorruptible one. By these Principles of Scripture and consent of ancient Fathers, we can also understand, that though these our natural, earthly corruptible bodies, cannot be at one time in many places; yet glorious bodies, being spiritualised, by virtue of their spiritual endowments, may be in many places, as spiritual substances are.  
An other repugnance against reason our Dr pretends in this mystery, that the accidents of bread would exist without their substance to support them: yet we have several examples in Scripture of the existence of Accidents without their Substances: first the taste of all victuals was in the Manna, and our Dr will not pretend the substances of all victuals were there: secondly Tobias did see visibly the Accidents of a human nature in his fellow Travaller; and Scripture assures us he was no man, but an Angel: thirdly Scripture tells us the Apostles did see the Accidents of a Pigeon in jordan; and the substance of a Pigeon was not there to support them; the Israelites Exod. 13. did see a Pillar of a cloud, which led them by day, and a Pillar of fire which led them by night, and there was no substance either of a cloud or of fire, but only the Accidents: and why may not the accidents of bread be in the Sacrament, though their substance be not there to support them?  
Its time we examine our D r ' s answer to my second syllogism: he says he can reckon as many vices in it as in my first; but what was expected was, not to tell us what he could do, but to point out those vices: it was upon that passage of John, 6. when Christ said, my flesh is truly meat my blood is truly drink; the Jews repleyed, this saying is hard, how can this man given us his flesh to be eaten: I proposed two syllogisms, the first was thus; The Jews thought impossible what Christ affirmed; but what the Jews thought to be impossible, was that he should given his true flesh to be eaten; for no man ever yet apprehended any impossibility in giving the figure of his body to be eaten; especially the jews, who eat yearly the Paschal lamb, which they believed to be the figure of Christ; therefore what Christ affirmed, was that he would given his true and real flesh. My Adversary very civility lets this syllogism pass in silence. And any man would think its a pinching argument.  
My second syllogism upon that passage was; A damnable unbeliever is he who denies a Truth, sufficiently proposed to him to be revealed; for though a man may be an Unbeliever for denying a Truth, but not a Damnable one, if it be not sufficiently proposed to him to be revealed: but the Jews in this occasion are called damnable unbelievers, and what they denied, was a real fleshy eating of Christ's flesh, as Catholics believe it: therefore Christ sufficiently proposed a real fleshy eating of his body, as we believe it: My Adversary quarrels with the Minor of the second proposition, which he conceits to be a paralogism because he says its composed of two different propositions: but this is but a poor shift to divert his Reader, and draw breath; for the sense of the Minor appears to any half eyed man to be this, The jews were called damnable unbelievers, because they denied the fleshy eating of Christ's body: what say you to this Proposition Dr? He denies it, and this is the whole and sole answer we have from our Dr a naked denial, without giving any textor reason, why; but tells us they were called damnable unbelievers not for denying the fleshy eating of his Body, but because they misunderstood Christ, and did not understand that he spoke only of his figurative flesh. But the non sense of this answer is threefold; first for to be a damnable unbeliever its necessary to deny a truth, as our Dr himself confesses, and as all rhe world must confess; but the Jews did not deny the figurative Presence, for our Dr himself, both in his printed sermon and in his Book, pag. 115. says that they did not apprehend that Christ at all spoke of his figurative Presence, but of his real fleshy Presence; and how could they deny or affirm, what they did not as much as dream was spoken of? secondly to be a Damnable unbeliever, The truth must be sufficiently proposed to the deniers; and our Dr himself acknowledges that nothing of a figurative Presence was sufficiently proposed to them; whereas he acknowledges, that they did not apprehended that Christ should have spoken of his figurative Presence, but of a real fleshy eating of his body; Christ's meaning therefore was not sufficiently declared unto them; how could they therefore be damnable unbelievers: thirdly he says They did misaprehend Christ's Words, and did not understand him to have spoken of his figurative Presence. And is it therefore they must be called damnable unbelievers, because they did not understand what Christ said? will you call your Auditory damned Heretics because they do not understand you when you preach? to call a man a Dolt or a dull headed fellow, because he does not understand, may pass; but we are all in a sad condition, if we must be called damnable unbelievers because we do not understand a Preacher or Teacher: I pray Reader consider this discourse, the Jews are called unbelievers; therefore they must have denied some revealed Truths, but they denied no other but the real fleshy eating of Christ's body, for the Dr himself says, they understood Christ did speak of that, and of nothing else; therefore they are damnable unbelievers for denying the fleshy eating of Christ's body.  
For to prove that Christ spoke of the figure of his flesh, our Dr brings not a syllable of Scripture but that text which he cited in his Sermon and I answered in my former Treatise The flesh profiteth nothing, its the Spirit that quickeneth; my Words are Spirit and life. He says Christ gave them to understand by these words, that he was to given them a figure of his Body, and that it was a check for understanding him to have spoken of his true and real flesh: and if you will not believe this upon his bore word, you may choose, for he will given you no other ptoof: But that you may know how much our Dr is mistaken, you must know that the Capharnits, to whom Christ spoke, did not understand the Doctrine which S. Paul delivered us; that this our natural earthly sensual body, should in the Resurrection rise spiritualised, incorruptible, purified, and refined from our material earthly qualities; and should be incorruptible as spirits, Agile as spirits, invisible as spirits, able to abridge itself to a narrow, or enlarge itself to a great space as spirits: the Capharnits understood nothing of this, but imagined the body could not be otherwise, than as we see it with its material earthly qualities; and when they heard Christ say he would given them his flesh to eat●, they conceived he meant his Body as they did see it under those earthly material qualities, and that he would cut it in morsels and given it to them: this carnal sensual manner of understanding is what Christ checked; the flesh profiteth nothing, that's to say according their carnal sensual imagination of it; that they aught to understand him spiritually; that his flesh should be given in a spiritual way: Hear S. August. upon this subject to. 9 tract. 27. in Joan. What means the flesh profite●h nothing? it profiteth nothing as they (the Capharnits) understood it; for th●y understood it, as one cuts it in morsels when the Body is dead, or as it is sold in the Butcher's stall, and not as it is spiritualised: Again S. August. in Lops 18. Our saviour has given us to eat the same flesh, which was born of the Virgin, wherein he conversed with us on earth, but in a spiritual manner. S. Chrysost. is no lesle express Home 24. in 6. Joan. How doth be flesh profit nothing, without which noon can have life? observe that this is not said of Christ's ●rue flesh, but of their (Capharnits) fleshly sensual understanding of his words.  
I expected to meet in my Adversari's book some text of Scripture directly proving his figurative Presence, that he had not alleged in his Sermon; but our Dt is a Spaniard, he sticks to his old fashion, nothing of new will you hardly found in any of the points he treats, but what he said before in his Sermon: he cites again S. Paul calling the bread after its consecration, Brea●; and takes no notice of the answer I gave him in my former Treatise, that when a thing is converted into an other, it often retains the name of what it was; as The bl●nd see, the lame walk etc. after they recovered their sight and limbs, they are so called, because they were so: and because the texts are sometimes to be understood in a Metaphorical sense sometimes in a literal, I gave a rule for to distinguish the one from the other: when a word is equivocal bearing two significations; putting it in a proposition, its determined to signify that sense of which, and of no other, the Predicat can be verified: as the word Man, is indifferent to signify a true real Man or a painted one, put it in a Proposition, A Man is a rational creature; there it is determined to signify a true real Man, because of him only, the Predicat, Rational crea●ure, can be verified: The word Bread also is indifferent to signify true material bread, or bread only in appearance: will you know which sense it bears in S. Paul's discourse? see what Predicats are said of that bread; The bread which I shall given is my flesh for the life of the world, this Predicat flesh which I shall given for the life of the world cannot be said of true material bread; therefore that bread which S. Paul speaks of, is not true Material bread: Christ says he is a Vine, a Lamb put them in propositions; Christ is the true vine, which yields fruit to life everlasting; the lamb which takes away the sins of the world; these Predicats cannot he verified of a material vine and lamb: therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical sense. Our Dr without doubt would have been so kind as to have advertised us, if he had found this Rule did falter; but though he nibbles at it, he cannot weaken it.   

XVI. CHAPTER.  
TRANSUBSTANTIATION PROVED by the consent of Fathers.  
NOt one of the first Reformers but exclaimed against the Ancient Fathers as Fautors of Popery, carried away with the deluge of errors which overflowed the whole Church this they preached and printed, toxicating the brains of their Proselytes with the contempt of Fathers and undervalue of their authority, not only in the first beginning of the Reformation, but for some years after: but Posterity, as men reclaimed from a Frenzy, began to think, how heathenish a crime it was to pull down the Pillars of Christianity; and particularly the Church of England feeling the attacks of the Presbiterians against Episcopacy, and some practices of theirs; for which they can show no other warrant but Tradition, began to revere the authority of the ancient Fathers, but so fraudulently, that where they seem to drop any word which favours them, they are brave men; but show them whole Treatises in favour of our Catholic Tenets; they were blind, and carried away with the errors of their time: Who but Augustin? the greatest Dr of the Church, when he calls the Eucharist a Sign of Christ's body, (though not as they pretend;) but produce his book, De cura pro Mortuis where he vigorously proves Purgatory; show his express words, for Prayers to Saints, and the Miracles of our Church which he relates; he was, they say, deceived by his Mother Monica, and hurried away by the errors of his time: S. Bernard was, they say, a most Holy Orthodox Saint, when he bitterly checks the Pomp and Vanity of the Court of Rome; but when he praises Monachism, teaches Purgatory, preaches Transubstantiation; he was Ignorant, says Dr Sal, he was foully deceived: S. Gregory the great, was an incomparable man, when he spoke against John the Patriarch of Constantinople, for usurping the Title of Universal Bishop; but tell them that he brought Popery into England, Mass. Purgatory etc. Fox says, he is in hell for his pains.  
Now you are to observe, Reader, that the ancient Fathers, sometimes designedly spoke obscurely of the Mysteries of our Religion, and particularly of the holy Eucharist; specially when they did speaked in presence of Pagans' and Cathecumen; because, they not being received into the Church, nor sufficiently instructed, might be surprised and deterred from following Christ by the sublimity of this Mystery: as the Capharnits were, when it was proposed to them: this we know by Theod. quoted by Dr Sal, Dial. 2, where speaking of this Mystery he says; Non oporte● haec aperte dicere; est enim verosimile ad●sse aliquos Initiatos: its not expedient to speaked more openly of these things, for probably there may be some Cathecumen present. S. Augustin, in psal. 109. says the same, and Serm 46. de Verb. Dom. and our Dr and his fellow wranglers take an advantage from hence, snatching some of their obscure tetms, and gleaning here and there some little fragments, dismembered from their clear words, and from the end and scope of their discourse as will appear by few examples; My Antagonist cities Theodoret Dial. 2. and Gelasius Pope de Duab. Natur. who say The symbols are not chan●ed in their nature, but abide in their proper substance, figure, and form and are touched and seen as before. Here our Dr stops, and very disingenuously omits the immediately following words of Theodoret; Those mystical signs are understood to be, what th●y are made to be, a●d they are believed and adored as being those things which h●y are believed to be. Can any man who professes to speaked obscurely, speaks in clearer terms? he says they are believed and adored as being what they are made to be: if they are made to be a figure only of Christ's body, they are not ●o be adored in the Protestant Doctrine, which denies the adoration of Images: they are not changed he says, but abide in their nature substance, form and figure, and yet he says hay are made to be an object of our Adoration; certainly the Physical true substance of bread is no object of Adoration; they are touched and seen as before; and the true substance of bread is not touched or seen; only the Accidents of created substances are the Objects of our senses: whence it appears, that by Nature, Substance, Figure, and Form Theodoret understands the Accidents of bread which remain in the consecrated host in their proper nature as before; and the Nature of a thing may be called its substance.  
By the way, take notice, that our Dr in his printed Sermon impugning our Tenet of Infallibility, directed his arrows at the Infallibility of the Pope alone: I advertised him, this was not our Tenet of faith, but a school question; that our Article of faith was, the Infallibility of the Pope and Council jointly, and of the Church diffusive: In his 3. and 5. Chapt. of his book he rails at me, that I impose upon him in saying he should have spoken of the Pope alone; Its an intolerable cavil, says he of I S. to say, I should speaked of the Pope alone's Infallibility; a gross misunderstanding of my meaning, for which I gave no ground in my Write: I speaked of the Infallibility of the Pope and Party following him, whither congregated or dispersed. Have you heard him protest, that when he impugns our Tenet of Infallibility, he does not mean, nor speak of that of the Pope alone? Hear him again reproach our Religion and faith as ridiculous, for believing the Infallibility of the Pope alone; (though he knows, as it appears by his former words, this is not our Article of faith, nor bottom whereupon we● rest our faith.) Chap. 19 after having cited Gelasius his sentence, that the Substance and nature of bread and wine remains in the consecrated Elements, as if, for being the judgement of a Pope, we must yield because we believe him Infallible; Will you found a way sa●es he, for to decline such a sentence? Yes Dr three ways; first you must prove against Bellar. Baron. and several others, that he was a Pope; secondly you must prove he delivered that Doctrine after his instalment, and not before he was made Pope; thirdly you must prove he delivered that Doctrine ex Cathedra; that is to say as Master and Pastor of the Church, proposing to the flock what they aught to believe; for a Pope who speaks his private sentiments, as a particular Doctor, may err: Moreover Dr though the Pope alone were infallible, and though the Pope and Council jointly be infallible; what they say only occasionally and transiently in their Decrees is not infallibly true; for though their Decrees in matters of Doctrine be true, but the reasons, arguments, and similitudes by which they expound their Doctrine, are not infallible Verities; and if you have read Gelasius, or if you be at leisure to read him; you will found that the Subject and scope of his discourse, was of the Two Natures of Christ, proving it against Euthyces and Nestorius, and that he spoke of the Mystery of the Consecrated Bread transiently, as a parity or similitude by which he pretends to prove the existence of both Natures, Divin and Human, in Christ: lastly, suppose the words of Gelasius prove evidently the substance of bread to remain in the Sacrament; what are you the nearer to prove your figurative Presence? for the Lutherans will grant the bread is there; but that Christ's body is also there, together with the bread, as both Natures, human and divine, are in Christ  
And to show you our D rs disingenuity and fraud, hear him conclude his 19 Chapt. Conclude Reader from this passage of G●lasius what hopes we may have of peace, and end of Controversies, by allowing the Pope to be infallible, when the clear and plain words of a Pope are subject to such misconstructions: giving his Reader to understand, that we● bottom our faith on the Infallibility of the Pope alone, and make him only, the infallible Judge to decide our Controversies ● and this our Dr says, after all his Protestations, that when he impugns and rebukes our Doctrine of Infallibility, he does not speak of, or mean that of the Pope alone; as if we had not plainly declared that our Catholic Tenet is not of the Infallibility of the Pope alone, but jointly with the Council.  
He cites S. Augustin also who often calls the Eucharist a sign and type of Christ's Body; Its true he does; but its no lesle true that he did not mean the Eucharist was a pure and only sign; but a Sign, and the thing signified: the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, is a sign of itself as it was on the cross; and, that this was S. Augustine's meaning, our Dr could not doubt of't, had he read S. Augustin in Psal. 33. where glozing upon the words of the Prophet He was carried in his own hands, he says, We do not found that this was literally verified of David, but we found it literally verified of Christ, when, he said, this is my Body, he carried his Body in his hands. S. Augustin, as you see, says, that text, this is my Body, must be understood literally, and was literally verified of Christ, when he pronounced it; but if what Christ carried then in his hands was a pure, and only a sign of his body, the text would not be literally verified of him; its not his body he would carry in his hand, but a sign of his Body: nor would S. Augustin have said, as we● quoted him in the precedent Chapter, that our Saviour gave us to ea●● the same flesh which was born of he Virgin, and wherein he conversed with us on earth: But where our adversary sounds a perfect Victory against us, is in the passage of S. Augustin in Psal. 38. You must understand Spiritually, what I said; you shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink this blood which shall be spilt by those who will crucify me; I have recommended unto you a Sacrament which (spiritually understood) will given life; it is needful it be celebrated visibily; but it must he understood spiritually: take these words of the Saint separatly from the scope and end of his discourse, and they may startle you: but if you consider that, as I have related above, he checked the sensual material understanding of the Capharnits, who judged Christ intended his Body to be eaten under those material earthly qualities as it appeared to their eyes, S. Augustin meant nothing else but to rectify their error, telling them they were not to eat that flesh and blood of Christ which they did see, as they did see it under those accidents and qualities; but in a spiritual manner, as glorious bodies exist, as we● declared in the precedent Chapter; and that S. Augustin did not think of denying Christ's true and real flesh should be given, it appears, whereas he says, he would given us the same fl●esh to eat, which was born of the Virgin, and wherein he conversed with us on earth.  
Our Dr cities also Dionysius Syrus, upon the first Chap. of S. John translated into English by Dr Loftus; affirming the Word was made flesh without any change in the Divinity, as the bread is changed into the Body of Christ without any change in its nature: the Translator I honour for his learning and erudition; the works of Dionysius Syrus I have not seen, but allow he has spoken as he is translated; first this, and all you have hitherto said, Favours Luther's opinion of Consubstantiation, more than the Protestant Doctrine of Figurative Presence; for all you have said proves only, that the substance of bread remains; but how do you prove against Luther or against us, that the Body of Christ is not substantially and really there? if Dionysius Syrus be of so great weight with you, you must say, that as the Word of God being made flesh; bo●h natures and substances remain in Christ; of flesh, and of the Divinity, so when the bread is made the Body of Christ, there must remain both natures and Substances of Christ's▪ body and the bread, in the Sacrament; and this is Luther's Doctrine, nothing a kin to the figurative Presence of England: Secondly what do you talk to us of a Dionysius Syrus, or of Gelasius, an unknowen Author? put both, and more of their rank, if you can get them, in one balance; and put S. Augustin, S. Chrisostom, S. Ambros, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and the rest of the known, renowned, and most illustrious Doctors and Pillars of Christianity in an other; and tell me which of them weighs most? read S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. You will say my bread is usual bread; Not, this bread which is bread before the Sacramental Words, when the consecration is performed, of bread is made the flesh of Christ; and to prevent our Adversaries cavil of a figurative flesh, he says l. 6. de Sacram. c. 1. as our Lord jesus Christ is the true son of God, not as men are by grace, but as the son of the substance of his father; so, it is his very true flesh, as himself has said, and his very true blood we eat and drink: I do not wonder that Calvin wished, (as they say he did) that the Devil had struck the pen out of S. Ambrose his hand when he was writing of this Mystery; for there can be nothing more clear against his figurative Presence: and again l. de Initiandis c. 9 he says the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, as Moses his rod was turned into a serpent, as the waters of Egypt were turned into blood; and the water into wine in the Marriage of Cana of Galilee, the word of God which made of nothing, that to be, which was not; can not it change that which was, to be that which it was not before? Face these words of S. Ambrose with those of Dionysius Syrus and see which of both is of most credit in the Christian world, Ambrose or Dionysius:  
And if you think Ambrose does not outweigh him, add S. Cyprian, serm. de Coen. Dni; The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples was changed, not in appearance but in nature, and by the Omnipotency of his Word was made flesh. Euseb. Emiss. Serm. de Corp. Dni, The invisible Priest Ch●●st, do●s change by his invisible power the visible creatures to the substance of h●● Body and blood: when the visible creatures are put upon the altar, before the invocation of the Holy Ghost for to bless them, the substance of bread and wine is there; but after the consecration, the Body and blood of Christ; we must judge of this Host not by our senses, or exterior appearance, but by our faith. S. Hierom. in Epist. ad Hebr. quaest. 20. Let us understand that the bread which Christ gave to his Disciples, is the body of Christ; Moses did not given the true hread (yet he gave the Manna, which was a figure of Christ) but Christ gave it; Christ himself is the guest and the banquet; he himself is he who eats, and is eaten, Add to these the testimonies of S. Augustin, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, and S. Epiph. which I produced in the precedent, and I will produce in the next ensuing Chapter; and pretend not for some half sentences picked here and there out of some Ancient Father's work, and wrested to a crooked sense which they never thought of; pretend not I say, that the Ancient Fathers do favour your Error; it would be more ingenuity in you to say, as your Ancestors, the first Reformers said, that the Ancient Fathers were blind, and carried away with our Popish superstitions; and as you forsook the Church with them, to renounce to the Fathers as they did.   

XVII. CHAPTER.  
THE ADORATION OF THE HOST; and Communion in one Kind.  
There's no need of an Antagonist for to contradict our Dr. for in every chapter almost, he contradicts himself; in the perclose of his 20. chap. he blends up two contradictory propositions in one paragragh; I do not ignore nor doubt, says he, that if your Doctrine of Christ's personal presence in the consecrated Host be true, there's as much reason for to adore such an Host as to adore Christ himself, both being the same thing in such a supposition: then again he adds, Its an intolerable boldness to say, the matter standing as now it doth, doubtful and controverted, there is as much reason to adore Christ in the consecrated Host, as there is for adoring him in his own person, since that for adoring Christ we have an express command, but no command of adoring Christ in the Sacramental bread even supposing him to be corporally present there. You see how in one breath the Dr says we are obliged to adore the consecrated Host supposing Christ to be there personally present, and that yet supposing him to be there personally present we● are not obliged to adore him: But the reason he gives why we● are not obliged to adore him, though he should be there personally present, is very pretty; because says he, that for adoring Christ in his own person we● have a positive command, but we have no command for adoring him in the consecrated Host, though he should be there personally present: as if the general command of adoring Christ in flesh, did not reach for to oblige us to adore him wheresoever he is really present in flesh; doubtless he must say the three kings were intolerably bold for adoring him in the Manger, because there was no particular command of adoring him in a manger; But Dr, is there any particular command of not adoring Christ in the Host, though he should be there personally present? Not; and will not a general command of adoring him in flesh personally present oblige us to adore him, wheresoever he be personally present, if there be not a particular command excluding such and such cases where he must not be adored? If the Blessed Trinity did appear to you in the shape of three young men, as happened to Abraham, and that you were assured by a revelation it was the Blessed Trinity, would not you in virtue of the General Command of adoring the Trinity, hold yourself obliged to adore it, though there be no particular command of adoring it under the shape of a man? The general command laid upon us of having no commerce nor dealing with the Devil, does it not oblige us not to have any commerce nor dealing with him if he should appear unto us in the shape of a great black Dog; though there be no particular command, forbidding any communication with him in that shape?  
But says he, its an intolerable boldness to adore him in the Host, the case standing as it does doubtful and controverted if he be there or not; because we expose ourselves to a manifest danger of committing material Idolatry at lest; Just as if you did say when the Arians denied the Divinity of Christ, it was intolerable boldness in the Council of Nice to adore Christ as God, the matter being doubtful and controverted: you mistake in your supposition Sr, we● are not doubtful, your doubts, denial, or controversies created no doubt nor scruple in us; we are certainly assured that Christ is there really present, and we pity your Obstinacy in denying so assured a Tenet; and we● fear not the hazard of a material Idolatry, even in case that the Host were not duly consecrated for want of intention in the Priest for to consecrat, or because he is no true Priest, or what other defect you please: I had reason to say Dr, that you did not well understand our Doctrine, and I may say now you do not understand what material Idolatry is, when you say, that it might hap that the Priest should not have an intention of consecrating, and then the Host would not be consecrated, and our Adoration of such an Host would be a Material Idolatry; and to this danger we are, you say, daily exposed. I beseech you D if ever you writ again, do your Reader the justice as to reply against your Adversari's answers to your arguments; you proposed this argument in your Sermon, and I plainly refuted it, by showing you had as much reason to doubt of the Christianity of all the world, and of the truth of your Protestant Clergy, for though you do not make your Baptism or Ordination to depend of the intention of the Minister, yet you make them depend of other essential requisits, and you have no greater assurance of those requisits to have been applied, than we have of the Intention of the Priest in the Consecration of the Host.  
And suppose that the Priest in effect had not an intention, but that the Host remains unconsecrated, we are not as much as materially Idolaters for adoring it; for Idolatry whither Material or formal is when adoration is given to a Creature falsely believed to be God; the Pagans' are Idolaters, for adoring the Sun, and the Israelites for adoring the Golden Calf, which Sun and Calf they believed to be a Sun and a Calf, and yet a God; for they never pretended that the Sun and Calf ceased to be such, and were converted into invisible Deities; but they attributed Divinity to them, remaining in their proper Being of a Sun and a Calf: for to make us therefore either formally or Materially Idolaters, you must prove that our Adoration is given to bread; remaining bread, and falsely believed by us to be God; and if you say so, you widely mistake our Doctrine and practice: for as your own Dr Taylor says in his Liberate of Prophesying, c. 20. and your Dr Thorndick, in his Just weights▪ c. 19 our Adoration is so far from being directed to bread, that we believe the Object we● adore is no bread, but God; Our Will goes by adoration to the Object, as it is in our Understanding, and in our Understanding its no bread but God; we● do not adore bread believed to be God, but we● adore God, believed to be no bread: where then leys the danger of our material Idolatry in adoring the Host consecrated? because it remains unconsecrated bread? but we do not adore what it remains to be, but what we believe it is made by due consecration.  
And that you may see how rash you were in your censure of Intolerable boldness for adoring the consecrated Host, pray hear S. Augustin who says in Psal. 98. speaking of the footstool of our Lord, That footstool is the flesh of Christ, wherein he walked on earth, and which he gave us to eat, no man eateth that flesh, who first hath not adored it, and we do not only, not sin in adoring it; but we sin in not adoring it. S. Ambrose l. 3. de Spir. Sancto, we adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, which the Apostles adored in Christ our Lord: S. Chrysos. hom. 24. in 1. ad Corin. The wisemen adored Christ in the Manger; let us imitate them we see him not in the Manger, but on the Altar. Had these Saints any special command for adoring Christ in the consecrated Host? no, but the general command of adoring him in flesh, and they believed his flesh to be there: and if they were not intolerably rash and bold for adoring it, why will you condemn us?  
In the Vnerring Vnerrable Church I have proved at large the sufficiency of one kind in the Communion, by Scripture, reason, and authority of fathers; and whereas I found nothing in my Adversaries reply that either weakens my discourse, or strengthens his own Tenet its better to remit my Reader to what I have said there, than to weary his patience with a tedious Tatalogie: only I must advertise, that its strange a Church of England man, should say the Cup is so indispensably requisite by Christ's Institution, that it cannot upon any consideration be retrencht; so our Dr says pag. 136. condemning the Council of Constance for Pretending any reason for ordaining the bread alone should be taken; This is sufficient to me, says he, that the Council should pretend any reason for inverting the Institution of Christ, which ordained also the Cup should be taken: Is it not strange I say▪ that a Church of England man should speaked so? after that the Statut of 1. Edward VI goes thus; We command that the Sacrament be commonly taken in both kinds, if necessity does not require otherwise: Do not those words of the Statute Commonly, and, if necessity does not require otherwise import that sometime for just reasons and necessity, we● may be dispensed with, and receive in one kind? nor is it only the Church of England by its Head king Edward, has declared this, but also the Church of France in their Ecclesiastical Discipline printed at Saumur 12. Chap. Art 7. says thus, The Minister must given the bread in the supper to them who cannot drink the wine, provided it be not for contempt. And though the Lutheran Church use both kinds in the Communion, yet Luther plainly declares, it might be taken in one, and that its an indifferent thing: l. de Capt. Babil. c. de Euch. They sin not, says he, who receive in one kind only, seeing Christ hath not commanded to use both: and again Epist. and Bohaem. in declare. Euch. & Serm. de Euch▪ although it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Eucharist, and Christ hath commanded nothing in this point as necessary; it were better to follow peace and Unity, than to contest about the kinds. Melancton also has expressly the same Doctrine in Consil. Theol. ad Marchionem Elect. de usu utriusque partis, pag. 141.  
I appeal now to any prudent vnprejudiced man's judgement, who is in the wrong, Dr Sal, or I: the Dr says, the Cup is of Divin institution so indispensablie needful that it cannot for any reason be omitted, and blames the Council of Constance for pretending a just reason for retrenching it and the Dr has of his side the Church of England, as now it is; I say, the Cup is not indispensably requisite for the integrity of the Communion; that Christ has left it arbitrary to the Church, to given either the bread alone, or the bread and cup together; as time and necessity shall require; and I have on my side not only the whole Catholic Church, but even Luther and Melancton, and the Church of England in king Edward's time, and the Church of France this day; for though the Hugonots vulgarly are in that persuasion, I know not by what charm, that both kinds are needful; yet their Ecclesiastical Discipline, as I quoted, plainly sets down they may for just reasons receive in one kind; have I not think you the advantage above the Dr? I pray read my former Trearise, where you shall found this Tenet solidly proved by Scripture and reason.   

XVIII. CHAPTER.  
IMAGE WORSHIP NO IDOLATRY.  
IF you consider the undertaking, or the proofs of the undertakers, in no where will you found the Protestant's more unjust, than in their charge of Idolatry against us for the worship of Images: for Idolatry being the adoration of a creature as God; or the Image of a falls God; can there be any thing more unjust than to charge us with that sin, who plainly avow Images are but creatures and no God; who look upon them, as the Images of the only God of Heaven and earth, and of Jesus Christ who is no falls, but a true God; we ask nothing of them; we● place not our hopes in them, but we● ask of, and place our hope in him whom they represent. Where is there any thing of Idolatry in this? or what can there be more conformable to reason, than that we● should honour the picture of God, whom we● adore; as the picture of the king is honoured above that of any subject; and there is noon but will think the injury or honour done to his picture, for being his representation, to be an injury against his own Person: This charge is also injust, because the Protestant's allow salvation in the Catholic Church, and the actual profession of its Tenets, if ignorance does not excuse us; and how can salvation be allowed in the actual profession of Idolatry; or ignorance be pretended amid so much of Christianity and light of the Gospel? Its also injust because we are not more guilty in this Tenet, than Lutherans who revere Images as much as we; nay not more than Protestant's, who as I have observed in my former Treatise, religiously respect the Lord's supper which they say, is but a figure or Image of Christ's Body: which S. Paul recommends 1. Cor. 11. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he who eats or drinks it unworthily eats and drinks damnation to himself not discerning the body of the Lord he is guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. You see what an honour what a respect, what a purity of heart, you are to have, and you yourselves confess you must have, for to receive that which you say is but a figure, and an Image of Christ's body, and a representation of his Passion.  
My Dr is put to his shifts by this argument, and most desperately says there is no sign nor insinuation of adoration, to be given to the Communion bread, in that text of S. Paul; its a work of my fancy he says, no discovery of common sense. My God? how much a Polemical animosity blinds a man? Is there any Protestant in England so impious, take him out of the heat of a Polemical discourse, but will say the Consecrated bread is to be worshipped? or is there any, but Dr Sal, who will say there is no sign or insinnuaof that whorship in those words of S. Paul? that purity of mind, that scrutiny of our defects, that cleanlyness of heart which he enjoins, is not this an insinuation and sign of the reverence wherewith we aught to approach to that Mystery? and is not that reverence a worship, and honour we pay to that bread? and why because in receiving it unworthily, we dishonour the body of Christ: Christ therefore is dishonoured in his figure; we deserve damnation by dishonouring it; and why are we damned, but for our injury to Christ? we are guilty of the body of Christ; is it not an evident sequel out of this, that the injury, dishonour and irreverence done to Christ's figure (which you say is the Communion bread) is done to Christ's own Person? why will you then deny that God is honoured or dishonoured in his picture?  
We have heard S. Augustin, S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome in the next precedent Chapter say, that the consecrated Host is to be adored, and that it is a sin says S. Augustin not to adore it; cast an eye back on the words of these Saints in the former Chapter, whilst I ask my Dr what does he believe to be in the Communion bread? if the true an real flesh of Christ, that those Saints would have us adore, then he must acknowledge Transubstantiation, if it be but Bread representing figuratively Christ's Body, what they would have us adore; then he must confess, its no Idolatry to adore the figure and Image of Christ.  
Our Dr after his accustomed fashion, does but repeat what he said in his Sermon against this Tenet, and takes no notice of what I answered: he tells us God commanded in Exodus, Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image-thou shalt not bow down they self to them: and where is there any mention here of not worshipping Images? for the letter of the text is, not to make any graven Image; and if the making of an Image be Idolatry or adoration, you are not lesle guilty than we; the text says thou shalt not bow they self to them; Josue and the Israëlits did so to the Ark, as you acknowledge, and you do it to the Image of our Prince, and so we are all Idolaters. But says he, when the Israelites did look on the Serpent in the Desert, and were thereby healed; and when joshua and the Israelites fell down on their faces before the Ark, they did not adore it, otherwise when we● pray before the Bible and an Altar we● must adore them: was there ever the like Childishness? He does not understand, or at lest will not understand my discourse upon those passages; which is this: Its manifestly declared in Scripture that the brazen Serpent was erected upon a Pole by God's command, and it appears Jo. 3. 14. that this Serpent was an Image of Christ Crucified, S. Aug. de Pecc. Mort l. 1. 32. exaltatus Serpens est mors Christi; hence it follows that its not against God's commandment to make Images of Christ; secondly its apparent that when the Israelites looking on this Serpent were healed, they come before it, and looked on it with respect, reverence, and devotion, being the instrument which God used to heal● them; and though the vulgar sort of the people were perhaps ignorant of the mystery represented by that Serpent elevated upon a high Pole; doubtless Moses and the learned of the people did know it was a representation of Christ upon the cross, by whom man kind should be healed from the venom of the infernal serpent, as all the interpreters say: so that an ingenuous Reader will not doubt, but that that Serpent was worshipped and devoutly revered by the wounded Israelits, as now we Catholics do revere and worship a Crucifix: all this was done by God's command; whereby its manifest that the worship of Christ's Image; our access and prayers to him before his Image; and our belief, that Christ by his Images, before which we pray, does confer many blessings upon us, as God did upon the Jews by the brazen Serpent) is not idolatrous superstition or against God's command; moreover that God should have commanded kings. 18. that Serpent to be broken by Ezechias, when the people passed the bonds of devotion, to adore it as God, and not as the Image of God, convinces plainly that what God forbids in the first Commandment, is the Adoration of Images or Similitudes as Gods; for whilst the people looked upon it as God's Image, their devotion was permitted, and rewarded by God with miraculous cures; but when they looked upon it as a God; then God was angry, and commanded it to be destroyed.  
This and the example of the Ark (which all Interpreters declare to be God's Image) before which Josue and the people did prostrate themselves reverently on the ground; and which David honoured with processions and many other marks of devotion, demonstrats the use of Images not to be forbidden den by God, nor to be Superstitious or Idolatrous in us; and your little quillet is ridiculous; then say you, when we look on a Church; or the Bible, or the Altar we adore it: certainly Dr you will not be so impious, as to deny, that there is a special reverence due to a Church, more than to an other house, because its particularly dedicated to God's service; and a particular Veneration for the Bible, because it contains the History of Christ's Passion and divine Truths, more than for Titus Livius, or Lucius Florus; and why will not you have a greater reverence for the Image of God, and his Saints, for being their representation, than you have for the king's picture and chair of state before which you dare not be covered in the chamber of Presence. OH but say you this is no adoration: apish Dr what a Childish cavil is this; Its a religious veneration, respect, honour and worship which we exhibit to the Image for being a representation of God; call it adoration, or not; this we understand by Adoration: what do you call, your being bore headed before the king? will not you call it a worship and reverence to the king? and what will you call your being bore headed in the Chamber of Presence, before his picture and chair of state? you must call it a worship also, and reverence given to the picture and chair for the king's sake which they represent: even so your bowing on your knees to God, your offering donaries to him, your processions for his sake do not you call this worship, an adoration of God; so likewise your kneeling, praying, and other marks of devotion before an Image, is a worship and adoration of the Image, for being the Image and type of God.  
You are tedious in telling us again that Azor, Vasq. and our Schoolmen say, Images of God and the Saints must be adored with the same degree of adoration, that the Saints are adored with, and so Images of God must be adored Cultu Latriae, which is Idolatry: but whoever reads our School Divines, will found that they who say Images must be adored with the same adoration that is given to their Prototipes, Latria to Christ's Image, hyperdulia to the B. Virgin's Image, and Dulia to Saints Images, they plainly and distinctly distinguish a Relative and an Absolute Adoration; and say that the same adoration which is given to the Prototype must be given to the type, but differently; to the Prototype an Absolute adoration; to the Type, a relative; so God is adored with an absolute Latria, that's to say for his own sake; his Image is to be adored with a Relative Latria, that's to say not for its self, but for the relation it has to God, in as much as it is his representation. The adoration of Latria given to God, as an absolute source of all goodness and an infinite Deity, is given to noon but to him; to his Image we given a greater adoration, respect, and honour, than to the Image of the B. Virgin or Saints, because its a representation of God; and this we call a Relative Latria: and when our Doctrine appears to be so innocent, and our practice in our adoration of Images, is so clearly declared by our Councils and Schoolmen; its unbecoming any man of honour and sincerity to be nibbling at our words, and wresting them to malicious senses, and little spanish Proverbs and Idle stories of abuses that he has seen in Spain or read in Ludovicus Vives, in Polydorus Virgilius and Cassander, which serve but to given the Printer work, and tender the Author ridiculous: yes indeed Polydorus Virgilius, and Cassander and Ludovicus Vives must be believed, when they tell us some abuses of the vulgar people in the adoration of Images; and S. Augustin, S. Bernard, S. Gregory, S Damian, and other Saints and Doctors of the Church, must not be credited, when they tell us many Miracles wrought in defence of the worship of Images: OH but says our Dr our adoration of Images obstructs the Conversion of Pagans': for how will they be dissuaded from adoring stocks and stones, by us, who do the same? and will not his Reader laugh, to see Protestant's so much concerned for the Conversion of Pagans'? a people who never sent one Preacher to convert Infidels: but Dr we see, notwithstanding your opinion of our Image Worship, God has even in this our age converted many Pagans', and kingdoms of Infidels by our Image-Worshippers, and he never made use of your Image Breakers to convert any one Pagan.  
In his 15. Chapt. he pretends to prove that it is not only Idolatry to adore an Image as God, but to adore God in an Image, or by an Image; Given that Worship, says he, what name you please, to worship them at all, is a formal transgression against God's precept: this, he says, and no other, was the Idolatry of the Jews; not for that they did believe the Calf was God, for who can believe, they were so destitut of Common sense as to judge that Image, made before their own face, and of their own Gold, was a true God? their Idolatry then did consist in adoring the Calf as God's Image, or adoring God in that Image: the like he says of the Pagans', such wise clear sighted men, as many of them were, did never imagine the stocks and stones which they adored to be true Deities, but Images of the true God which he proves they adored by that text of S. Paul Acts 17. whom you ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you. Whence its apparent the Idolatry of the Israelites and Pagans' did not consist▪ says he, in worshipping falls Gods, but in worshipping God in an Image against God's Ordinance; and this is our guilt, and we are all Idolaters.  
But Abulensis, Chrysostome, S. Augustin, and above all the Scripture will comfort us against our D rs discourse; for Chrysost. hom. 5. de Poenit. speaking of the Israelites Idolatry says; After the people had heard those word●, I am they Lord they God, they made a Calf, they rejected God, they did not acknowledge him to be their God: and as if he had foreseen our Adversaries difficulty, how could such wise men be so senseless, as to believe a Calf made by themselves to be a God; he proposes this question in the same place; If they were Gods, why did they say Make; how could those be Gods which are made? he answers, Sic malitia excaecans sibi ipsi repugnat, & seipsam extinguit; so blind is malice, that it contradicts itself, and refutes itself: it was a contradiction, to be a God, and to be made; but their malice pinfolded their reason, that they owned both those contradictions in their Calf: Abulensis speaks to the same purpose in Exod. c. 32. q. 3. and S. August. in psal. 133. says, the wiser sort of Pagans' adored Idols as the Vulgar did; but did not believe they were God's, but Images and Symbols of what they believed to be Gods; and in the same place declares, what they believed to be Gods; They given this interpretation of their Images; by the Image Tellus, they signified the Earth; by the Image Neptunus, the Sea; by that of juno, the Air; by that of Vulcan, the fire: and if you Urge against them; tha● then they worship Bodies for God's, the Earth, the Sea etc. they answer they do not worship the Bodies themselves, sed quae illis regendis president numina; but the Deities and Spirits, which govern them bodies: and in psal. 69. he proves these Spirits were Devils: But Scripture speaks yet more plainly, Deut 32. 15. They forsook the true God, they sacrificed to the Devils not to God; to Gods they knew not, to n●w Gods, that come newly up, they forsook the true God who made them.  
By this you may see how much our Dr is mistaken in saying the Israelites and Heathens Idolatry consisted, not in adoring Images of falls Gods, but the true God in an Image; for if you read S. Paul's speech to the Athenians Act. 17 24. you will found two things, first that they had some confused knowledge of an only and ●rue Deity, which appears by their Altar consecrated Ignoto Deo to the unknowen God: but this knowledge was so confused and erroneous, that they believed this unknowen God was like Gold or sylver or stones, and the very text of S. Paul supposes they were in this opinion for he argues thus, God who made the world and all things therein etc. therefore we aught not to think that the Godhead is like to Gold or sylver or slo●e graven by Art or man's d●vice: and therefore they were Idolaters because they adored a God which they conceited to be as created things: Secondly its apparent that besides this unknowen God, they adored also other Gods; for of them as of other Heathens S. Paul said Rom. 1. 22. that the invisible God being known by the Visible creatures which are made, They changed the glory of the immortal God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts, they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the Creatures more than the Creator. Their Idolatry did consist in that they adored these Creatures, Gold, sylver, birds, four footed beasts etc. not as God's, for the wiser Heathens were not so senseless as to believe they were God's; nor as Images of one, true, invisible God, as Christians believe, for you shall not found among the Ancient Philosophers any, who says they adored One God; but as Images of falls Gods, who truly were but Devils or debauch wicked men, who caused themselves to he adored: and this is evident, not only by the testimony of S. Augustin which I have quoted, but also by the testimony of Arnobius contr. Gent. l. 6. where you may read the answer of the Heathen Philosophers to Arnobius checking them for adoring stocks and stones: You err, say they, OH Arnobius in what you affirm; for we do not think the matter of brass, sylver, and gold to be God and adorable Deities of themselves: Not we are wiser than so; but we honour and worship the Gods or Deities in those sacred Statues, whom the Virtue of sacred Dedication hath brought into them, and made to devil in those Images made by Art: You see Reader, what the Heathens adored; they adored the Images not for themselves or any Deity they should have of themselves; but for the Gods or Deities, which by Sacred Dedication were brought to lodge in them; and S. Augustin l. 8. de Civit. Dei c. 23. tells you, that Sacred Dedication was Magical incantation, by which the Devils or wicked man's souls were ●vocated, and obliged to live in those Statues. Judge you Reader what has this to do with our Worship of Images; and how far our Dr comes short of proving that the Adoration of the true God in an Image is Idolatry.  
He percloses his 25. chapped with an exclamation against our Church, for giving adoration of Latria to Jmages, which error and Jdolatrous practice he says has crept so much among our Vulgar people, and is countenanced by our learned men, rhat it would strike a horror to you, if you did know the sinful absurdity of it: and I do admire but it strikes a horror to our D rs. conscience, to beguile his Reader with such foul misrepresentations of our Doctrine, and with such wilful falsifications of our words and meaning; whereas he knows in his heart, our Adoration of Latria given to Christ's Image, is but Relative, not resting in it, nor for its sake, but passing to the Prototype which we adore in it: as the honour done to the King's Chair of state, passes to the king's person, the reverence we have for the Bible, and the name of jesus; that David had to the Ark; the Israëlits to the Brazen Serpent (before their Idolatry) passes to God represented in them: for to prove us grieveously Idolaters, you bring that Hymn of the Church to the Cross  

O Crux ave spes unica,  
Hoc Passionis tempore,  
Auge pijs justitiam,  
Reisque dona veniam.   
And if this convinces us of Idolatry, what will you say of S. Augustin, who speaks to the cross thus, Serm. in Parasc. Crux nobis totius causa Beatitudinis est: haec nos à caecitate liberat erroris: haec à tenebris reddidit luci: haec alienos Deo conjunxit: haec discordiae amputatio est: haec bonorum omnium abunda largitio, etc. The Cross is the cause of all our bliss; this cross frees us from blindness of error: it brought us from darkness to light: its it which cuts of all discord; its it which vnits those who are strayed, to God; its the source of all goodness. Know then Dr. that we are no more Idolaters in adoring the cross, than S. Augustin and innumerable other Saints whose words would be tedious to rehearsc.  
JHS.   

XIX. CHAPTER.  
ADORATION, AND INVOCATION OF Saints, no Idolatry.  
OUr Dr often charges us with Idolatry for our Adoration of the Consecrated Host, for our Adoration of Images, and for our Adoration of Saints: to the two first parts of this accusation we have answered; it remains we prove the Adoration of Saints to be no crime: and I cannot better prove it than by a Text which our Adversaries frequently bring for to prove the unlawfulness of this practice: when the Angel Revel. 19 appeared to S. John, the Apostle fell flat on the ground for to adore him; the Angel forbidden him, saying he was his fellow servant: if the Adoration of an Angel or Saint be Idolatry; therefore the Apostle was an Idolater; nay which is worse, a relapse Idolater; for again he fell on the ground to adore the Angel changed. 22. and the Angel prohibited him the second time: hence its manifest, that either the Apostle fell twice into Idolatry or that adoration of Angels, and Saints is noon: but say you why did the Angel forbidden him? I answer, out of his respect to Human nature, since his Lord and king had assumed it: this reason S. Greg. gives, Hom. 8. in Evang. Ante Redemptor is adventum, Angeli adorantur & iacent; & postmodum adorari refugiunt; quod naturam nostram quàm prius despexerant, postquam illam supra se assumptam conspiciunt, prostratam sibi videre pertimescunt. Before the coming of Christ, the Angels received adoration from men; but after he took our Nature, they would not see prostrated before them, that Nature which was exalted above them. Or if this reason does not please you; its sufficient to my purpose to prove, he did not prohibit it because it was Idolatry; for if you say the Angel did judge it to be Idolatry, I say the Apostle did judge it was not; and in our instruction for God's Worship and Religion, we are to believe the Apostle, rather than the Angel according the advice of S. Paul Gal. 1. 8. though an Angel from Heaven should preach un to you an other Gospel, than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.  
The Invocation of Saints I have proved in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church by several Passages of Scripture, convincing that Saints departed from this life know our affairs on earth, that they pray for us; that many have received favours and blessings by their intercession: I pray Reader read my discourse there, and spare me the labour of repeating it; and you will admire the courage of my Adversary who complains, as if he had justice and reason on his side, that I do not answer his arguments upon this subject; and not one argument does he bring either in his Sermon, or book, but that text of S. Peter Act. 4. that there is no salvation in any other but jesus Christ; nor any other name under Heaven given among men whereby we may be saved: where he concludes, we cannot ask the mediation of Saints, without robbing Christ of his prerogative of Mediatorship. Jt's not pardonable in him to repeat again, what has been so clearly answered, as my Reader may see in my former Trea●ise: in hopes we may never any more hear of this thread bore story, let him take this syllogism: We believe the Unity of Christ's Deyty, as much as the Unity of his Mediatorship: but its not against our belief of his Deity, to call the Saints, as well of Heaven, as of earth God's; for David calls all Just men Gods: I say ye are all Gods, and the sons of the highest all, therefore its not against our belief of his Mediatorship, that we should call the Saints, as well in heaven, as on earth, our Mediators: and who does not see the weakness of our D rs discourse; for if because Christ is our only Mediator, we must not ask the prayers of the Saints in heaven; neither must we ask any Mediator on earth, which is evidently against the practice of all congregations; for we ask one an other to pray for us: But how come this argument to prove, (says our Dr) as I S. pretends, that we must not ask the prayers of the Saints on earth. Did ever Logician make the like Quere? do not you pretend by the text, that Christ is our only Mediator because there is no other name under Heaven (that's to say on earth) where by we may be saved? if therefore the text proves any thing against the mediation of Saints, it proves against the mediation of the Saints under heaven, that's to say on earth. We acknowledge, as I have said in my former Treatise, Christ to be our only Mediator by Redemption, because he alone did, and was able by his death to reconcile us to God, and redeem us; but he is not our only Mediator by intercession, because others pray for us; though he in a far more excellent degree.  
He perceived it seems the weakness of this charge, and quits it; and runs all along upon an other point, proving our excess in our devotion and worship of Saints; and all he brings to prove it, is reduced to three heads, and all three have not one dram of brains; the first is his Prudence, that for aught we know many of those we esteem Saints, are wicked and damned wretches; therefore we must not pray to any Saint: I hope he does not mean the B. Virgin, nor the Apostles, nor S. Augustin, S. Hierom, and such others; let him therefore given us leave to pray to them; and let him point out what Saint is he, of those whom we worship, of whose Santitie we have not as much assurance; as we have of S. Augustin and S. Hierom; and then we will not worship them: but to say we must pray to noon: because some reputed Saints are not such; is as much as if you did say, we must not esteem and honour any men on earth for their great Virtue and learning, because some reputed to be Virtuous and learned, are but Hypocrites and Idiots. The second excess is that we build more Churches to Saints than to God; and he will not take our answer, that what Churches we build to the Saints, we build them to God, because its for his sake we honour the Saints: for says he, if a king did constitut his Son Solicitor general for his Subjects, it would not be well taken by the king, that the Subjects should make their application to the Servants in Court, neglecting their application to the Prince: but Dr what if the king were disposed to honour, not only his son, but also the Servants at Court for his Son's sake (if any man serves me, my father will honour him Jo. 12.) if he decreed to grant whatever his son would ask, for his Subjects, and not only what himself would ask, but what any of the Servants in Court would ask in his name: certainly the power of the son would be the greater.  
The third excess is, that we call the B. Virgin our Saviouresses, our Redeemeress; desperate expressions he says, against the text of S. Peter which says, there is no name under heaven whereby we can be saved, but that of Jesus Christ: These indeed are desperate expressions in the meaning you take them, but not in the meaning our Church gives them: if you go to the Dictionary, or the Grammar to look for the sense of those words, you may tender our Doctrine and practice ridicule; but if you go to the Church, and be informed in what sense she takes them, you will found they are religious: God calls Moses the God of Pharaoh; if you take the word in its proper and usual signification, its a blasphemy, whereof I hope you will not accuse God: David calls the Just, God's and the Sons of the Highest; a desperate expression if you take the words in their grammatical sense, but religious, if you take them in David's meaning: The great Baptist was not the Light, but a witness of the Light, says the Evangelist; Christ was the true Light for to illuminat the world; yet Christ himself calls his servants the light of the world; is this a desperate expression? Christ is the only foundation of the Church, says S. Paul, yet in Revel: c. 21. we read the twelve Apostles are the twelve foundations of the City of God: you will not stick to say Christ is the only Mediator and reconciliator of Man with God, as S. Paul says; and yet Wisd. c. 4. No is called not only Reconciliator, but the Reconciliation betwixt God and man: And you must acknowledge these expressions are not desperate in the sense and meaning of those who uttered them, though in a grammatical sense they may be: so you must confess the expression of Saviouresses, Redeemeress etc. are Catholic and Religious in the sense of the Church, which is not any other, but that the B. Virgin is the chief instrument after Christ for our Redemption: Do we call her Redeemeress? we speaked with S. Cyril, Hom. count Nest. By thee Holy Mother of God, all creatures that worshipped Idols have been converted to the knowledge of truth: praise be to thee, OH Holy Trinity; praise be to thee also oh B. Virgin. Do we call her, Queen of Heaven, glory and happiness of mankind? we speaked with Greg. Nazian. in Trag. Chris. Mor. to. 2. pag. 298. You who are justly seated above all the celeslial Hierarchies, Queen, Mistress, and happiness of human kind. Do we say, Hail B. Virgin thou alone hast destroyed all Heresies, we have heard S. Cyril say as much: seek not then, Dr by your bugbears of desperate expressions, to beaten us from our Devotion to her; we speaked with the Prophet David, we speaked with the Ancient Fathers of the Church, we speaked with God himself.  
And it is but a piece of your accustomed confidence to say, that in the first ages there was no mention of this worship of Saints: you have heard S. Cyril, and Greg. Nazian. hear yet S. Augustin count faustum, l. 20. c. 21. Faustus checks us for honouring the memory of our Martyrs, saying we change God, into Idols: but we Christians do celebrat the memory of our Martyrs with religious solemnity, for to stir us up to their imitation; for to partake of their merits, and for to be helped by their prayers; but so as that we do not offer sacrifice to the Martyrs; but to the God of Martyrs in memory of them. S. Ambrose de viduis l. 4. speaking of S. Peter and S. Andrew's prayer for their Mother in law; What then they did for her, by reason of their kindred, now they can do for us, and for all, we must pray to the Saints, we must pray to the Martyrs, from whom we may expect protection and favour, having with us the pledges of their bodies, they can pray for the remission of our sins; the Martyrs of God are our Protectors, and spectators of our lives and actions. S. Vict Utic. l. 3. de Persec. Vand. having prayed to the Angels to represent unto God the miseries of Africa, he addresses his Prayers to the Saints. Pray, Patriarches from whose seed the Church Springs, which now is persecuted; pray, o Prophets who see the Church of whom you prophesied, now so distressed; intercede, OH Apostles for that Church which you established by your labours; and in particular OH Peter, pray for that flock which your Master recommended to you. Nay our Dr in the end of his chapter quotes the testimony of Origen contr. Cells. l. 5. and says, that by Origen's words it appears, how Angels do assist us, and pray for us; the testimony of Origen ends thus (it would be tedious to repeat it wholly) when men pray unto God, many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them uncalled for; and our Dr very wittily picks up that word, uncalled for, and argues thence, that the Angels and Saints do indeed pray for us, but that we must not ask them to do so; because, they pray for us uncalled for; if you call to them to pray for you, you'll spoil all, if you believe our Dr; but believe S. Gregory rather, who advices you to pray unto, and call the Saints to assist you; speaking of the last Judgement; In illo conventu causa nostra discutitur, & tamen nos patronos modo non requirimus, quos tunc defensores habeamus; adsunt defensores nostri Sancti Martyrs; rogari volunt, & quaerunt ut quaerantur: hos ergo adjutores vestris orationibus quaerite; hos protectores vestri reatus invenite, quia ne punire peccatores debeat, rogari vult & ipse qui judicat. Hom. 32. in Evang. In that great meeting our cause will be examined and we● do not now seek Patrons, who then may defend us: the Holy Martyrs are our Protectors; they desire to be entreated; they ask, that they may be asked; ask them therefore to assist your prayers; procure they intercede for your sins, sore he who is to be the judge of sinners, desires he be prayed not to punish them.   

XX. CHAPTER.  
PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES.  
I Thought I had done my Dr a kindness in asserting a Purgatory in the other life, where he might be so happy as to sojourn a while; for he may go further, and speed worse. But he has met some what in my former discourse upon this point that has nettled him; for he powers out such a deluge of injuries against me, that you would think he dipped his pen in Gall. Not, he'll not hear speaked of a Purgatory; he is resolved not to stop or stand in the road; if God will not have Heaven's gates open for him at his departure from this life, he'll take up his lodging in hell. Let not I S says he, expect to put me of with stratagems of schooleboyes, I must keep him to the point: the point is whither the testimonies of Scripture alleged by your Church be convincing proofs of the existence of a Purgatory: This indeed is to speaked like a Master; but you'll see he'll come of like a school boy: what is the Point Dr? whither the texts alleged by our Church be convincing proofs of Purgatory: I told you, how he would come of: what? we● loudly profess that our Rule of faith is not Scripture alone; that though there were no convincing text of Scripture, yet we are obliged to believe Purgatory upon the testimony of our infallible Church interpreting Scripture; and yet you will tell us the Point is, if our text alleged be convincing? Not Dr, you have mistaken the point; The point is, why you forsook the Catholic Church and become a Protestant? you say, for our Errors, whereof Purgatory is one; you undertaken in your Sermon to prove these Errors by plain and clear Scripture: let me keep you to the point Dr; let us see your clear and plain texts denying Purgatory: you whose Rule of faith is Scripture alone, which, you say, clearly shows our Errors; you are to be demanded clear and plain texts to prove there's no Purgatory: but we are not to be challenged to produce convincing texts, because our Rule of faith is not Scripture alone; but Scripture as interpreted by the Church; so its sufficient for us to produce a text, which the Church interprets to import the existence of a Purgatory.  
You have quite swerved from the point Dr, the point was to show by convincing texts, that there is no other receptacle of souls in the other world but Heaven and Hell of the damned, as you say, grounded upon that text, where the Tree falls there it shall remain: for I proved convincingly there is an other place, by S. Peter 1. Epist. 7. 19 speaking of Christ's descent into hell, he says; Dead in flesh, and quickened in Spirit he descended to the Spirits which were detained in prison (there was a Prison therefore, where Spirits were detained) to preach unto them (certainly it was not to the damned souls he went to preach) which he released, leading Captivity Captive, says S. Paul Ephes. 4. 8. (sure it was not the damned souls he released) why did not you answer to this text Dr? you clapped it under deck, because it was the Point, and it you resolved not to touch. The point also was, to examine if after the sin is forgiven, either by Confession, or perfect Contrition; the sinner remains still liable to God's justice for some temporal punishment; and in case he died before he discharged that debt, if there was not a prison in the other world, where the soul should be detained until it paid to the last farthing; this I proved by the Gospel, and several passages of Scripture: why did not you answer? no it was a naughty card that spoiled your game, you dropped it aside, and to divert your Reader, you make Heaven a Receptacle of souls actually polluted with sins, saying, that with their infamous sins they may enter thither; and bring no proof for this paradox, quite opposite to the text, and sentiments of all the Christian world, but a passage of Origen which you foully misinterpret. The point was to examine the true sense of the Article of our Creed He descended into Hell; what Hell was that? the Grave as some of your fraternity absurdly interpret; or the Hell of the damned, as Calvin and many of your authentic Catechisms interpreted, saying he suffered the pains of the damned; or some part of Hell where souls were detained in prison expecting their ●edemption: you pretend to fob us of with a tale of a tub, that some say, that Article was not in the Creed in the first four hundred years; I will not dispute this point, because it matters not if it was or not; since that now it is, and owned by us, as well as by you; then you would tender my discourse insignificant, as if my argument were, He descended into Hell, therefore there is a Purgatory, which consequence you say is ridiculous; and so it is indeed; but its of your own making, you shall not found it in J. S. His consequence goes thus; He descended into Hell, according our Creed, to preach to those who were in prison, according S. Peter; to release them; leading Captivity Captive according S. Paul; therefore there is a Prison in Hell, where souls were in restraint; where Christ preached; whence he released captives: is this the Hell of the damned think you? and if it be a third place, distinct from Heaven and Hell of the damned, what will become of your Doctrine, which denies Purgatory, chiesly because say you the Tree must fall to either of those two places? This was the point you should have stuck unto Dr and not to rattle at J. S. and keep a bustle about the texts of Scripture which he quoted, and which the reader will clearly see you have not answered, if he faces your replies with my discourse upon them.  
And though, as I said, we had no convincing text for this, or our other Tenets; our Doctrine stands vnshaken upon the testimony of our Church, and upon the unanimous consent of precedent ages: we are in possession of this Doctrine these 1600 years; our long possession sufficiently credits our Doctrine; you are Aggressors, you must bring evident proofs against us; as Defendants; its our duty but to answer to your allegations: But my Dr replies, that they are Defendants of their liberty; that we are Actors who invade their liberty and impose upon them Doctrines which are not in the Word of God: ye Defendants, Dr and not Actors? who were born but yesterday, who pushed us out of our Churches and estates for our Doctrine: you say we invade your liberty can you have any liberty for not believing a Doctrine whereof the world was possessed for so many ages? Its you who invade our Liberty, by forcing upon us the belief of two Sacraments, a figurative presence, etc. never yet known in the Orthodox Church, and we must stand for our Liberty, until you produce God's Word to prove it: but the Ancient possession of our Doctrine is sufficient to maintain us in it; and you can have no liberty for to deny it, until you prove the possession to be injust: you say our possession may by questioned, and if we do not prove our, Title our possession will be forfeited: And if we should forfeit our Possession, I would gladly know, what are Protestant's the nearer to prove theirs to be the true Church or Doctrine? The Arrians and Pelagians will have as good a claim to it as you: But Dr we have already proved our Title: we were once put in possession of the true Doctrine by Christ: this is our Title, and this you confess because you say we were once the true Church: now its your duty to prove we fell from that Doctrine, and until you prove this evidently our Possession is just, and our Doctrine must be believed.  
You are much pleased with that Scholastical subtility, that prayers for the dead (which you allow to be commendable) may be made for other ends, than for to draw Souls out of the fire of Purgatory; because say you, that God forseeing the prayers which in future times will be made for persons deceased, as he is infinitely liberal and good, may anticipat the reward of those prayers, to the benefit of the People prayed for; by giving them a good death; And our Dr according his old mode says not a word of my answer to this discourse, which my Reader, if he reads my former Treatise, will found to be satisfactory and solid; it would be tedious to repeat it: but let me ask one question of my Adversary: does he seriously believe, that the Jews knew this school subtility? they prayed for the dead, as I have proved, and certainly they knew not that quillet; but their practice was regulated by their belief, that souls departed from this life often times with sins, which must be expiated in the other world, which the very Text signifies ut a p●ccatis solvantur. Nor is it credible, that the practice of the Church for so many ages should be grounded on so weak a bottom, as that subtility of some few Modern Divines, which probably may be falls. I do not see what this school subtlety may be good for, but for to comfort our D r ' s conscience in a scruple which he aught to have; for ifhe believes there's no Purgatory from whence souls may be released, then he is obliged in conscience to restore all the moneys he received why lst he lived in the Catholic Church, for to pray for souls in Purgatory and their release from thence; for, his being of a persuasion that there was a purgatory when he received the moneys, does not excuse him now from the obligation of restitution, since he is convinced there's noon; but I do fear our Dr will not be soon persuaded to restore that money; probably he will tell us the People he prayed for, got a good death by his Prayers.  
But to strike the nail in the head, we will prove that Prayers for the dead have been practised by the Church and Ancient Fathers directly for this end, to draw Souls our of the sire of Purgatory: S. Gregory in Psalm. 3. Poenit. Scio futurum esse etc. I know that after this life some will be cleansed by the fire of Purgatory; others will be eternally damned. And in Psal. 1. post mortem carnis alij aeternis deputantur suplicijs, alij ad vitam per ignem ●ranseunt purgationis: after the death of our body, some are deputed to eternal torments; some to life, do pass by the fire of purgatory. Again S. Greg. Dial. l. 4. c. 39 for some small faul●s we must believe there is a purging fire, before the day of judgement: And after having reckoned some small venial sins, he adds, quae cuncta etiam post mortcm gravant, si adhuc in hac vita positis, non fuerunt relaxata. All which are a load upon the soul even after death, if they be not forgiven while we are in this life. And again Dial. l. 4. c. 25. Sunt quorumdam justorum animae, quae à caelesti regno, quibusdam adhuc mansionibus differuntnr, in quo dilationis damno, quid aliud innuitur, nisi quod de perfecta justitia aliquid minus habuerunt: Some Souls there are of Just men, which are kept out of heaven for a time in certain habitations; by which punishment of delay, what is signified, but that somewhat was wanting to them, to be persectly Just. Theodoret in Scholar Graecis in 1. Corint. 3. Hunc Purgatorium ignem etc. We believe this purging fire, wherein the soul departed will be tried and purged as Gold in the furnace. S. Greg. Niss. Orat. pro mortuis: Vel in praesenti vita etc. Man must be cleansed in this life; or after his death must be purged by the furnace of purgatory fire: S. August. in Psalm. 39 & l. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 16. etc. 24. and in several other places speaks expressly of the fire of Purgatory after this life, through which the souls departed must pass to be cleansed: hear him l. 1. de Gen. count Manich. c. 20. Qui forte agrum, etc. He that has not cultivated his field in this world; in the other life must go either to the fire of Purgatory, or to the fire of Hell. Now Dr remember that pag. 182. you grant with Origen, that Souls departing carry with them some stains of sins and notes of infamy; you will have me believe with Origen, as you say, (but Origen in his words which you quote says no such thing) that the Souls carry these stains and notes of infamy with them to Heaven; expressly against the Word of God, who says, no polluted thing shall enter thither: let the Reader judge if it be not more just, more reasonable, and more suitable to the opinion all Christians have of God's aversion to the lest sin; and of the purity and cleanness of that Heavenly City, that I should believe, S. Aug. S. Gregor. Theodoret, and innumerable other Fathers, which, to eat tediousness, I pass in silence, who affirm, that those souls which carry with them stains and sins to the other life, must be cleansed and purged by a purging fire before they can enter into Heaven; than to believe Origen (though he should say it, as he does not) who says they will carry those stains and sins with them thither.  
From Purgatory he comes to attack our Tenet of Indulgences; and that you may see with how little justice, I will declare briefly our Doctrine in this point: first its an unquestionable Verity, that any one, of the many penal works performed by Christ, was sufficient for the Redemption of this, and many other worlds, one drop of his blood was of infinite merit; whence it appears, that by the great heap of satisfactory and penal works, which he exercised in this world, he exhibited an infinitely greater satisfaction for our redemption than was needful: also its apparent, that the many penal works of the B. Virgin, of the Apostles and innumerable other Saints, were a greater satisfaction for their sins and imperfections, than was needful to expiate them and satisfy God's justice; and this we learn by Job's words c. 6 v. 2. V●inam appenderentur peccata mea quibus iram merui; & calamitas quam patior in statera, quasi arena maris haec gravior appareret. O! that my sins for which I deserved anger and the calamity which I suffer, were weighed in a balance; as the sands of the Sea, this (my calamity) would appear greater. Of these superabundant satisfactions of Christ and Saints works, we say there is a treasure in the Church; for certainly those works, though needless for the Workers, are not without value and esteem in God's sight; and are not fruitless to the Church; for that Article of our Creed, the Communion of Saints, imports that the faithful do partake, and benefit by the good works one of an other; Particeps ego sum timentium te, & custodientium mandata tua, says the Prophet David Lops 118. I am a partaker of the works of those who fear you, and keep your Commandments; and so we must say, that those superabundant satisfactory penal works of Christ and his Saints, are a treasure of the Church, whereof the faithful do partake: And thus we expound how they partake of it: Thomas the sin, whither Mortal or Venial, be remitted by Confession, or Contrition; yet a temporal punishment remains due of the sinner to God's Justice, which I proved by Scripture and reason in my former Treatise, for the Penitent must not only satisfy the penance enjoined by the Confessor, but we are exhorted to other penal works and pennances for to satisfy for our sins: and therefore by the Ancient Canons of the Church, great and severe penances were imposed, according the quality of the sin; some of seven years' penance; others of more; others of lesle: these penal works the Penitents must perform; or some other must perform them for him, if he be not in a capacity to do it; because God's justice must be satisfied, who as he mercifully remits the eternal pains due for our sins, by virtue of the Sacraments, so he requires a temporal punishment for to satisfy his justice: This satisfaction may be made either by the Penitent himself, by exercising as much penal works in this life, or suffering in Purgatory, as much as is due of him for to satisfy God's justice; Or by offering to God, and applying to that Penitent, as much of the treasure of Christ, and Saints satisfaction and penal works as he owes.  
This then we call Indulgence, A remisson of the temporal pains due of man to God's justice, through the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints applied to him. Which Indulgence and application of those merits and satisfaction, we say is in the power of the Pope; for those superabundant satisfactions and penal works of Christ and his Saints, being a treasure of the Church, and appliable to the use and benefit of the faithful, as we have discoursed; to whom should the distribution, of that treasure belong, but to the Prince, Chief Steward, and Governor of the Church; to him to whom the keys were given to open and lock, to bind and unbind? Nor are these Indulgences appliable only to the living, but also to the Souls departed; for, as when one is in prison for a debt, for to get out, and the creditor to be indemnified, the Prisoner must pay the debt out of his own purse, or some one must pay it for him: so when a soul departs this life, either with Venial sins only, or without having done penance sufficient for the mortal sins forgiven him by the Sacrament; he must pay to God's justice the temporal Punishment which he owes, and this is done either by Satispassion suffering the pains of Purgatory for a certain time; or by the suffrages and penal works of the Living which they apply to him; or by Indulgence, applying from the treasure of the Church, thats of the superabundant Satisfaction of Christ and his Saints, as much as will answer to the pains which they are to suffer there.  
Its certain, the Pope must have a cause, and as some say proportionable to the quantity of the Indulgence he grants; for want of which, the grant would be null; which gives occasion to our Adversaries to snarl, as our Dr Sal does, against the profuseness of the Pope, for granting Plenary Indulgences for every trifle, as they say: but in this they speaked immodestly, and temerariously; first because its an intolerable arrogance in Subjects to expostulat against their Prince, and accuse him of prodigality, when he expends the treasure of the kingdom to the advantage of his Subjects, because forsooth they do not conceive nor know, whither the Princes design be advantageous or not: its the Duty of a subject to believe the king has just reasons to do what he does, if the contrary does not evidently appear: so its our duty to believe the Pope has a just cause for granting Indulgences, when he grants them; for though the motive he has, may seem to you or to me to be but small and insufficient; yet it may be in itself weighty and great: and at lest we are in charity obliged to believe, that he thinks the cause he has, is just and proportionable to his grant; and that his intention is not, said Indulgence should be valuable further than as the causes deserves it.  
Our D rs reflection, that these grants are a powerful means to facilitat sins, is vulgar, and answered in my former Treatise, where I shown how the Protestant Principles do much more facilitat them, whereas they require no more for to be cleansed of them, but a Lord have mercy upon me betwixt the sinner and God; when to the contrary for a good Confession, so many things are required by us; and for obtaining Indulgences, besides Confession and Communion; alms, prayers, and other pious exercises: all the Dr has besides in his discourse of Indulgences, is but raillery, and sport upon our Divisions of Indulgences, and a Bull of Indulgences, granted by Clement the X. which he has translated into English, likely to oblige the Coffie house Master, with a subject of merriment for his Customers: and it may be feared, that in time our Dr may given his profane Reader more sport; for if, as Ochinus, of a Capuchin Friar become a Reform, and from the Reformation passed to be a Jew, and several other revolted Priests and Friars, of Calvinists, become Turks and Jews; if I say our Dr should chance, as he renounced the Catholic faith, to renounce also Protestancy for Paganism or Judaisme, he will as easily ieer the practices and Doctrine of Christianity, as now he does them of Popery.   

XXI. CHAPTER.  
A BRIEF SURVEY OF HIS FOUR LAST Chapters.  
IN his 31. Chap. of prayers in an unknowen language, he points his arrows so unfixedly, that we● know not what he would be at; sometimes he would have it to be absolutely needful, the liturgy should be in a language understood by the people; lest they may answer Amen to a knave, who would utter blasphemies: and not a syllable does he answer to my reply, that if the liturgy must be in a language understood by the Auditory; then the Dutch, and French, who do not understand English, must not go to the Protestant liturgy; and the Deaf, and such as are at so great a distance from the Minister, as not to hear him, must quit the Congregation; nay if the Minister does not understand the psalms, through the intricatness of their Phrases (and but few Ministers do) he must return home and some of the neighbours, more learned than he, must officiat for him.  
Sometimes he pretends only a greater advantage and Spiritual comfort of the flock, for the increase of devotion in praying in a known language; but the way for to prove this, would be to convince the world, that Protestant's are more devout than Roman Catholics; and I thank God the world is convinced of the contrary: there's nothing more sure, than that the frequent use of prayers, is a mark and sign of devotion in praying; there's noon more assiduous in praying, than he who feels spiritual comfort, and consolation in them; he who finds but tepidity and coolness, prays but seldom: now, its visible, our Catholic Church prays a hundred fold more than yours: you meet in your Churches but upon Sundays, and some other odd days in the year; the other days of the week, your Churches are shut up; or if open, they serve but for a walking place, or for boys to play at Ball: and if in some few Cities, a few Churches are open, (and they are but very few) for Wednesday and friday prayers, your congregations are so thin, that there's hardly any to answer Amen to the Minister; Our Congregations are numerous every day in the week, our Churches very many constantly open, frequently assisted, not only by a multitude of the Clergy, especially in the Cathedral Churches, and Convents of Friars and Nuns, morning and Evening, and at midnight singing God's praises; but by a numerous multitude of our Laity: is not the Pomp and Majesty of Divin service in our Church, our frequent Processions, our many holy days, a mark that we pray more frequently than you? and a frequent custom of praying, being a visible mark of devotion, as I have said; its Visible our Church and flock has more devotion in Latin, than yours in English.  
I proved prayers in any language to be lawful in itself; because the intent of nature when we speaked, is that the hearer may understand us; when we pray, God is our Hearer, and not the congregation; its to him we speaked; and whereas he understands all languages, we may pray in any: Our Dr fancies, that this argument proves directly against me; because, says he, the Lyturgy is an exchange of speech betwixt God and his people; he speaks to them in the Epistle, Gospel and psalms; and the people are the Hearers; they speaked to God in prayers, and thanks giving: God's speech therefore must be in a language understood by the people who are the Hearers: But Sr though the Gospel, Epistles, and psalms be God's speech to the people, I hope you will not say, its a prayer of God to the people; to what purpose then do you bring this instance? for the question now debated is, If Prayers must be in a known language: But says he, though it be not a Prayer of God to the people, its an exhortation of his, and I confess, with S. Paul, that the exhortations to the people must be in a language known to them because they are the hearers: Neither in this do you hit right Dr; God is not the immediate instructor of the people; he instructs and exhorts us by the Ministers and Pastors of the Church; the Gospel therefore, Epistle, lessons, and psalms in the liturgy, are not properly God's exhortation to the Congregation, but a subject and matter for the Pastor or Minister for an exhortation to the people; and for to prove this its enough, that besides the Lyturgy, you have in your Churches, Sermons and exhortations when you meet on the Sabaoth day; its needless therefore the Epistle, Gospel, lessons, and Psalms be in a known language, because they are not intended in the Lyturgy for an immediate exhortation to the people; but for a Subject or argument for the Minister to exhort upon: its evident they are a part of the Lyturgy, which is a prayer of the people to God; the people's prayer as we proved may be in any language; because God, who is the Hearer, understands any: therefore the Epistle, Gospel, lessons and psalms may be in any language the Church pleases. And it is presumption in any private Person, as Luther and Sal, or in any particular Province or Congregation, to altar the language prescribed by the Church under pretence of a spiritual advantage or increase of devotion; the Church, and not any private Person or Gongregation, being the guide and Mistress which God has appointed, as we have proved, for to teach us, what rites, ceremonies and manner of Worship we are to serve him with: but our Dr says, its an absurd thing, that J. S. should pretend we should submit our judgements in this to the Church, our present business, quoth he, being to check the abuses of the Church: and just so will the Presbiterians and Quakers answer, its a ridiculous thing in the Protestant's to ask them to conform themselves with the Church of England, because their business is, to check the abuses of that Church.  
In his 32. Chap. he pretends to prove its cruelty to forbidden our common people from reading Scripture, and magnifies the happiness his flock reaps from the contrary practice; and says not a word to this purpose, but what I refuted in my former Treatise: but alas! the lamentable effects of this arbitrary reading and interpretation of Scripture, are but too visible; and he might have better called it the spark of Hell fire, which kindled and conserves the combustions of our Church and state, than our Obedience to the Pope: his vulgar reproach of our Divisions and distinctions of Rites and Ceremonies, among Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits, is not worth the taking notice of; it was want of matter for to fill his Chapter made him stoop to so trivial an instance.  
His attempt in his 33. chapped against the Immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin, is no more, than what he said in his Sermon and I refuted in my former Treatise: The words of S. Augustin quoted by me to prove the obligation of confessing, not only every sin we are guilty of, but the circumstances of time, place, and quality of the People, with whom we commit them, starrles him: he will not believe I have the lest tincture of a Divin, or that I am acquainted, or was ever bred among learned men of the Roman Church; and very resolutly says, that our Divines teach, its not the duty of a penitent to confess the circumstances of time, place and quality of the persons, wherein and where with the sin was committed: and no man of judgement will ever ask a better proof for to believe, that our Doctor never was a Professor of Moral Divinity, nor that he ever read any of their works, or if he did, that he had not the memory of a Chick to retain what he read: for he might have met in Alexan. 3. p. q. 32. art 2. Anton. 2. p. tit. 9 c. 7. Rosel. Verbo Confessio. n. 7. and in several other ancient Authors, that a sin committed in the Sabaoth day, takes a particular malice against the Virtue of Religion, from the circumstance of the time: because its a profanation of a day consecrated to the Worship of God; and aught to be specified in Confession: this Doctrine is now absolet: but as to the circumstances of the place and quality of the People, it has been always, and is still the Doctrine of all Divines, that there is an obligation of Confessing them; Its theft to steal out of a Merchants shop; but its a sacrilege to steal out of a Church; nor will you satisfy the duty of a Penitent by saying you stole; if you do not mention that you stole out of a Church. It's Murder to kill, but if you kill a Priest, its a sacrilege, and you must express it in your Confession: but I do not wonder our Dr should not minch, nor chaw these distinctions of sins and circumstances; since he is become of the Church of England, acustomed for so many years, to plunge its hands in the blood of the Clergy, and rifle Altars and Churches, without any distinction of People, or places.  
His 34. Chapt. is a Spring tide of injuries which in small showers he poured out against me in every chapter of his book; to which my answer will be silence, and that patience to which Christians are obliged by the example of him who being brought as a sheep to the slaughter, was dumb before his shearers and opened not his mouth. He flatters himself with the opinion of some Divines of his Church, who say, the Vows he made of Povertie, Obedience, and Chastity in the Roman Church, nor the Precepts of that Church do not oblige him now, since he is a Protestant; and the same he says pag. 181. against J. E. in his first part against N. N. and for this he gives two reasons; first he says, he has demonstrated evidently he cannot keep those Vows and Precepts of the Church of Rome, without infringing them of God, because they are opposite: But in the first Chapter of this Treatise I have shown this to be falls; for there is no divine Precept commanding us to have a good Parish to have Rents, honours and dignities: since therefore you have made a solemn vow of having no Rents, no Honours, no Parish, but to live in poverty; how can you say this vow does not oblige you? with what Diuin precept is the compliance of this vow inconsistent? allow the Precept of the Church of hearing Mass does not oblige you, because in it we adore the Host; allow also your vow of Chastity, is not consistent with S. Paul's counsel of marrying, rather than to burn; because you may found by experience you cannot contain; but against what divine precept or counsel is it, to say your divine Office, Matins and Laudes every day? why do not you obey this Precept of the Church? with what divine Precept is the fast of lent, the fast of fridays and Saturday's inconsistent? why do not you observe these Precepts of the Church? particularly that your own Protestant Common Prayer book exhorts you to these fasts.  
His second reason, because those vows he made, and his Obedience to those Precepts, were grounded upon a blind Obedience to the Pope of Rome, including a disobedience to God's laws; and consequently the vows are Null: But I have shown his vows, and those Precepts include no disobedience to God's law: and I will show, though he made those vows under the Pope, yet now, forsaking the Pope, he must stick to the vows: for I ask you Dr, are not you still bound to the Duties of a Priest (whatever that duty be) though it be under the Pope's Obedience you received your Priest hood? be not you, I say, still a Priest? can you disown your character, because you received it under the Pope? and why can you disown your other obligations contracted under the Pope; if you cannot show they are inconsistent with God's Laws? you were under the Obedience of the Pope, its true, when you made a vow of Povertie, Chastity and Obedience; but its not the Pope commanded you to make them; it was a free voluntary act of your own, and therefore whither you live under the Pope's Obedience or not, you remain still obliged, as you remain still a Priest and with the obligations of a Priest.  
Remember that Passage of Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. they sold their lands, they sacrificed the price of it at the Apostles feet to God; it was by no Command of S. Peter; it was a voluntary free action of their own; this oblation (whither it vas a vow of poverty or not) obliged them in conscience, and they transgressed against the holy Ghost, by detaining a part of that which they had sacrificed to God: whither Peter, under whom they lived when they made this oblation, was Pope or not; supreme h●ad or not of the Church; the sacrifice and oblation they made, obliged them in conscience; for it was a voluntary free action of their own; therefore they sinned in transgressing against it: this case is as like yours, as you can paint one: whither the Pope, under whom you lived, when you made a solemn vow of poverty, of chastity and obedience, a solemn vow of never admitting any dignity or honour in the Church; whither I say, the Pope was supreme head of the Church or not; that excuses you not; you made that sacrifice of yourself to God, you made those vows, not by constraint or command of the Pope; it was your own voluntary free action; it obliges you still, let the Pope be what he wilI: listen now Dr to S. Gregory l. 1. Epistol. 33. writing to Venantius an Apostate, who forsook his Convent and religious life to become Chancellor of Italy: Ananias pecunias Deo voverat, quas post, diabolica fraude victus, substraxit; sed qua morte mulctatus est, s●is; si ergo ille mortis periculo dignus fuit, qui ●os quos dederat nummos Deo abstulit; considera quanio periculo in divino judicio dignus eris, qui non nummos, sed teipsum Deo omnipotenti, cui sub Monachali habitu te devoveras substraxisti? consider a judicium Dei, quid mereatur, qui semetipsum Deo vovit, continuoque mundi desiderijs irretitus, mentitus est quod vovit. Ananias sacrificed his money to God, which he afterwards, overcome by Satan's instigation, stole from God; but you know with what death he was punished; and if he, who took from God the moneys he sacrificed unto him, deserved such a death, in what a dangerous condition will you be before the tribunal of God; who hast withdrawn from God, not your moneys, but yourself, after you had consecrated yourself unto him in a Monastical life? consider God's judgement: what he deserves, who has consecrated himself to God, and ensnared by worldly desires, h●s disa vowed what he h●s vowed. Change but Sal for Venantius and Chancellor of Italy, for Parson of Swords; and S. Gregory's words come pat to our D r.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
DOctor had you begun the carrier you are now in, fifty years agone, it would be still criminal in you, but lesle admired by the world; but now in your crawling years, to abandon yourself to your liberty, when you cannot enjoy it but for so short a time; to indulge your passions in the Autumn of your days, which you curbed in the Spring of your life; to prostitute yourself to transitory pleasures, when you stand with one foot in the grave, at the brim of eternity; to faun at the world in such an age, when men are despised by the world; never could Satan have beguiled you in a worse time, nor you have changed your religion to lesle of worldly advantage. Had you intended in this change of Religion to better your life and secure your salvation, as you pretend to persuade us, you might answer, that they who come to the Vineyard at the eleaventh hour, were as well rewarded, as they who entered at the third hour; but Alas? you have too much of reason for to believe you could better yourself; and too much of judgement for to think any man can believe this was your aim: I appeal to the know ledge of any impartial man; if there be any among you of lesle edification, of lesle conscience and honour, than those, who of Priests and Friars, become Protestant's; and if they become not more debauch and riotous libertins, than formerly they were. What man of them can you produce, who by his exchange of religion become more devout, more reform in his life, and more given to Meditations, prayers, and other religious exercises, and austerities of life than before? and you will tell us, its to reform your life, and secure your salvation you have quitted your religious Order, and become a Protestant?  
You exhort me to consider the miserable condition we are in, dazzled with the splendour of the Roman Grandeur, and baited with the strong allurements of it, deceiving the world with colours of Sanctity, when ambition and avarice is the Primum Mobile of all our actions, and the Soul which animates all our motions. I pray Sr, what share of this Grandeur and worldly allurements had you, when you were of your former Profession? or have the Cartusians, Capuchins, and other religious orders of both sexes now? was it to increase the worldly Pomp of the Italian court; was it ambition or avarice that moved so many Noble men and women of rich estates, to quit their plentiful life, their honours and dignities, their numerous retinue of Servants, sacrificed all at the feet of Christ's Cross, and consecrated themselves to a religious Cell, to a life of continual mortification, of Disciplins, hair-cloths, fasting, assiduous duties of a Quyre, and begging their food from door to door? had they left their own estates and gone to Rome to be Popes or Cardinals, you might suspect the purity of their intentions; but to say it was Ambition, Avarice, and allurements of worldly pleasures carried them to be Carthusians, Capuchins, Nuns, etc. is to make them worse than mad men: I pray was it ambition that moved you when you made a vow never to pretend or accept any Dignity? or may not we judge it was ambition moved you to infringe that vow, and pretend and have the Dignity of Dean of S. Patrick's Church (if you be Dean, as they say) was it avarice that moved you, when you made a solemn vow of poverty, and never to have any Rents or revenues? or was it not avarice that moved you to break this vow, and accept a good Parish and rents as they say you have?  
I pray tell ingenuously, what worldly allurements had you to continued in the Profession you were of for so many years in Ireland? you may say perhaps, you had great allurements in spain to be of that profession; the great credit, and impolyments of honour, you say you had, might have been an allurement unto you; but what allurements had you for to continued in that profession in Ireland for so many years? your allurements was poverty, having no other subsistence but the charity and alms of the people; no other exercise of your great (as you imagined) Talents, but to preach sometimes and teach the Catechism, commonly to poor people; wand'ring up and down to friends houses, to pick up a livelihood; sometimes welcome, and sometimes not; to far at other men's tables, sometimes ill, and sometimes well; sometimes decently clad and sometimes your poverty not affording you to be so: your allurements besides this, was to say your Breviary daily for about an hours time; an hours meditation or mental prayer every morning; besides other devotions which you were obliged by your Rules to perform; to fast in Lent, Fridays and Saturdays, and glad to hit sometimes on bread and milk or butter; other corporal austerities, if you satisfied your duty; continual fear of imprisonment or banishment; an abnegation of your own Will to the conduct of your Superiors command against your inclinations; these were the allurements you had to be of that Religion; see whither ambition or avarice could have a share in the choice of such a life and Religion: you tell me you will never again return to that Religion; that you will continued in Protestancy; and truly if nothing but Ambition, Avarice and worldly allurements govern you actions, your are far better where you are, and will do very ill to return where you were; the allurements are strong for your continuance in Protestancy; you have a good Parish with good rents, and Judas betrayed his Master for a smaler interest; instead of milk and eggs on fasting days, you have a good piece of beef and better cheer, and are not beholding to your neighbours, (if you please) for you may have a table of your own; you have neither Breviary, nor beads nor meditation nor Mass to trouble your rest, but may sleep eat and drink at will and pleasure, and instead of an auditory of poor people, you can preach in Christ Church, and have access to great ones: these indeed are strong (but earthly) allurements to keep you in Protestancy, and bid a fig for Popery.  
But I beseech you once more, good Dr, reflect if this be the life you are obliged by your Vows to led? consider if by your three solemn Vows, of poverty, you have not sacrificed your richeses to God, protesting you would never have any; if by your vow of Obedience you have not sacrificed your Will to God, giving it wholly to the conduct of your Superior; if by the Vow of Chastity you have not consecrated your body to God denying it worldly pleasures; and consider, how your present life is a violation of all these three Vows; of poverty by the Parish and rents you enjoy and are disposed to receive more if you can get it; of Obedience, by substracting yourself from your Superiors conduct, and living at your will; of Chastity, if not by marrying, by holding marriage is lawful for you: and after these Considerations, listen to S. Basil. in Regul. Interrog. 14. Si postquam intra reliquorum Fratrum Societatem admissus est, factam à se jam professionem resciderit, is perinde aspici debet, ut qui in Deum peccaverit, cui solemni se voto obligavit: etenim qui semel seipsum Deo devovit; is, si ad aliud vitae genus transierit, sacrilegij se crimine obstrinxit, utpote qui seipsum Deo, cui se consecraverat subterfuratus est. He who after being received into the community of the rest of the Brethrens, shall rescind the profession he has made, is to be looked upon as a transgressor against God, to whom he has obliged himself by Vow: for he who has consecrated himself to God, if after, he should pass into an other Kind of life; he is guilty of sacrilege, as having stolen from God, what he had consecrated unto him. O! Dr should not your heart tremble at these words? you have rescinded the profession you made; you have consecrated yourself to God, and have forsaken that, and past to an other kind of life; that Parish, those Rents, that liberty, that pleasure you enjoy are stolen, and robbed from God to whom you consecrated them by solemn Vows; restore them again o Doctor returning to that poverty, Obedience and Chastity which you Vowed; if, as a frail man, you fell; arrise as a Christian, Humanum est cadere, Christianum resipiscere, Diabolicum perseverare; Hell was not created for sin if repent, but for obstinacy in our transgression; nor was Heaven created for the innocent only; but for the penitent sinner.  
Lift up your eyes to the top of a Pillar thirty foot high; there you shall see that Miracle of Christian austerity Simon Stellites, fasting without any manner of food 28 Lents in imitation of Christ; having no shelter against the storms of Winter, or heat of Summer, but his constancy; his body covered with a rude haircloth, his bed but the bore top of the Pillar, and his flesh battered daily with disciplins to bloodshed: look upon Antony the Abbot, shut up in a cave for the space of twenty years; feeding on bread and water; sleeping on the bore ground; clad with beast's Skins, and searching all occasions of mortifieing his flesh: Consider S. Benedict and S. Francis, the one wallowing himself in thorny bushes, the other in heaps of snow for to overcome impure thoughts, which assaulted them: look on S. Francis Xaverius in the hospital, washing the Ulcers and Soars of the Sick, and drinking the water wherewith he had washed them; to check the loathsomeness which his body conceived at that filthred. Consider S. Lovis Gonzaga Surrounded in Court with many allurements of impurity; and for to preserve his soul unspotted, how he girded his sides with wheels of spurs to kerb his flesh; To be brief look into the Convents of both Sexes, their Cells ring with the Echo of their disciplins; their beds afford more pain than ease to their tired bodies; their food serves for to live, to suffer more; their life is a continued distribution of the day into several hours of spiritual exercises: is it Avarice, is it Ambition, is it allurements of worldly pleasures, is it for to increase the Roman splendour and Grandeur think you that men live so in the Catholic Religion; as if it had been the Italian Policy that prescribed that sort of life, and not Jesus Christ: is not this retirement from the world; this abdication of wordlie Pomp and vanity; this humiliation and renunciation of honours, estates and richeses; this austerity of life, and mortification of our passions recommended to us in the Gospel, preached by S. Paul, practised by David, the great Baptist, the Apostles and the eminent Saints of Christianity?  
Read what the Gospel relater of the course far, of the gross attire, of the great retirement of S. John Baptist; Omni naturae necessitate superata (says Chrysost. in cap. 11. Math. Hom. 38.) mirabile quoddam iter peregit: semper in Hymnis, semper in or ationibus fuit; nulli hominum, antequam ad Baptizandum accederet, sed soli Deo sua semper offerebat colloquia: non lacte nutritus: non lecto susceptus, non tecto, non alia re humana usus est. Having overcome all the want and exigencies of Nature, he walked in a most admirable course of life: he lived always in Hymns and prayers (is not this like the Quyres of our Churches and religious orders)? he had no conversation with men, but all with God alone, (is not this the religious retirement of our Monks and Nuns?) He did not feed on Milk (nor wine or strong liquor, but wild Honey and Locusts) nor did he sleep on a bed, nor dwelled under any roof, nor did use, what men commonly use. (Is not this the austerity of life, the mortifications and pennances of our Church, which you call desperate and indiscreet austerities destructive to Body and Soul?) Read the Haire-cloths of David, his eating of ashes with his bread, his fasting, his rising at midnight to sing psalms, and the like Austerities commended by Scripture in several others; and let the Impartial Reader judge, if the Tenor of life professed by our Religious Orders, if the corporal mortifications and austerities, of Disciplins, of hairecloths, of our Quyres, of sleeping on the bore ground, of course attires, of poor and scant fare, practised frequently in our Church by all ages and sexes, be not more conformable to what Scripture praises, to what Christ and his Apostles recommended, to what the Saints of the new and old Testament practised; than the Tenor of life, Doctrine, and practice of the Protestant Church.  
Summon now your reason Dr, and ask your own conscience, if you be not guilty of as many sins and imperfections, as those Saints; and conclude if they did so much to expiate their sins, what you aught to do? ask if you be not as prove to temptations, and as weak to resist them as they were; and if they, to prevent temptations, did so much; how come you to forsake that profession wherein you might and were obliged to imitat them? ask, if you have a greater claim to heaven, than they had? and resolve for to purchase heaven, to do more, and return to your devoir; since that they, for to purchase it have done so much? or conclude, that Christ, when he said the kingdom of heaven suffers force, and the violent shall carry it, he spoke to them, and not to you: their lot is eternal consolation in the other life, because here they mourned and wept in penance: their lot is everlasting fullsomness, because here they suffered hunger and thirst: their Souls are now in a height of glory, because their Bodies were here in the depth of affliction; We may parallel the Body and Soul to two scales; the one scale will never rise, if the other does not fall; if this mounts, the other will sink: that the soul may rise, the Body must fall; if the Body be kept high, the soul will fall low; witness the soul of the Rich Glutton burning in the depth of hell; epulabatur quotidie splendide; his body was kept high; the sequel was, sepul●us est in inferno: his soul was buried in hell: see Dr in what degree your body was kept, by the state of religious life you professed; you for sooke that state; you have raised your Body to a great height; fear, lest it may be said of you some day, sepultus est in inferno.  
For Man's life is often termed in holy Writ, a Dream; and it is remarkable, that after a merry pleasant dream, we awake with sorrow and sadness; but after a heavy sad dream we awake with joy and content: satius est amara somniare quam dulcia, says Petrarchus, amari enim somnij exitus dulcis est, & dulcis amarus? It's better have a sad bitter dream, than a sweet pleasant one; because the sequel of a sweet dream is bitter; of a bitter one, is sweetness: You dream that your Spouse is treacherously snatched out of your bed, and murdered before your face; you cry out, Murder; you awake, but with joy, that all was but a dream; you dream you have hit on a great purse of Gold for to relieve your wants; you rejoice; you awake, but with sorrow, that your content was but a dream: Joseph dreamt the Sun, Moon, and Stars, prostrated at his feet, did adore him; he awakes from this dreamt felicity, and meets a check from his Father, persecution from his brethrens, slavery from the Madianits, and imprisonment from Putiphar; what a heap of sorrow followed his pleasant dream. Our life is but a dream, Dr, from which we will awake in the other world by death; we will awak to sorrow or content, according the quality of our dream: see what life you have forsaken, which by your profession you aught to have led; a life of religious poverty, living by charity and alms, and often wanting; of religious Obedience and Chastity; a life of penance and austerity, of fasting, prayers, persecutions, afflictions, this was a sad dream from which, if you had continued it, you might have expected to awake in the other life with joy: see what life you led in the Protestant Church? it's a merry pleasant dream, plenty of money; liberty without any check, good attire, well lodged, no obligation of fasting, of other mortifications, of a Breviary; a jovial dream; but fear that you may awake in the other life to eternal grief and sorrow, and you may say with the Debauched mentioned Sap. 5 What has the pride of our life availed us, or the abundance of our richeses profited us; do not hazard eternity for a time, and a real felicity for a dreamt happiness.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA CORRIGENDA.  
PAg. 4. lin. 6. appeur. Read appear. lin. 7. wonds. R. words. p. 6. l. 19 Sacraments. R. Sacraments. p. 8. l. 17. Ordinatioe. R. Ordination. l. 19 Nags-ead. R. Nagshead. p. 9 l. 10. pereiving. R. perceiving l. 11. Portie. R. Party. p. 13. l. 14. outragions. R. outrageous. l. 21. iu. R. in. p. 15. l. 4. Sacraments. R. Sacraments. p. 21. l. 23. ut. R. us. p. 22. l. 4. snch. R. such. l. 9 obvions. R. obvious. p. 23. l. 6. ad. R. and. l. 23 ●ho. R. the p. 26. l. 10. leymen. R. laymen. p. 27. l. 6. thoses. R. those. p. 30. l. 1. judged. R. judged. l. 2. perfectedly. R. perfectly. p. 38. l. 25. firgurative. R. figurative. p. 50. l. 9 spalms. R. psalms. p. 55. l. 26. absoluty. R. absolutely. p. 69 l. 8. Winsmester. R. Westminster. p 70. l. 8. Anstin R. Austin. p. 102. l. 5. out. R. our. l. 17. maiice. R. malice. p. 103. l. 13 obtinat. R. obstinate. l. 14. Congrations. R. Congregations. l. 20. obietevely. R. obiectively. p. 104. l. 5. patt. R. part. p. 105. l. 1. praecipui. R. praecipuis. p. 131 l. 1. bnginning. R beginning. p. 133. l. 2. church. R. church. l. 4. his. R. this p. 134. l. 7. loan R. love. p. 160 l. 5. ground. R. grounded. p. 245. l. 18. obcurely. R. obscurely. p. 246. l. 27. speaks. R. speaked. p. 266. l. 20. Trearise. R. Treatise. pag. 304. l. 26. our. R. out.