THE NOVELTY Of the Modern ROMISH RELIGION SET FORTH IN AN Answer to three Queries propounded by N. G. Priest.  
WITH A rejoinder to his Reply, and a Reply to an Answer made to three Queries propounded unto him.  
TOGETHER WITH Animadversions upon some Reflections made by an unknown Author; and an Answer to his Appendix, concerning several Points of Religion controverted between PROTESTANTS and PAPISTS.  
Wherein it is proved that the Opinion of GREGORY the Great, did agreed in those Points with the Doctrine of the REFORMED CHURCH.  
Written by S. F. M. A. and Vicar of Mitton in Craven.  Stand ye in the Ways and see, and ask for the old Paths, where is the good Way, and walk therein, and ye shall found rest for your Souls, Jer. c. 6. v. 16. 
London, Printed for Tho. Simmons at the Feathers in Ludgate-Street, 1682.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
THE Apostle James hath told us, That pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, to visit the Fatherless and Widows in their Affliction, and to keep unspotted from the World; and that the Wisdom which is from above, is first pure, than peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of Mercy, without Partiality, and without Hypocrisy; what than must be said of the modern Romish Religion, which owns and maintains several treacherous, cruel and bloody Principles, according to which the Practices of the Romanists have been frequently conformed, being treacherous, cruel and bloody? is that pure and from above? Nothing lesle; but we must conclude it to be from beneath, therefore impure, sergeant, and false.  
Yet the great Brags of the Romanists are continually sounding in our ears, that they have Antiquity and Succession for their Religion, and that it has descended unto them through the Current of all Ages, even from the Primitive Times: This is the main Pillar wherewith they endeavour to support their tottering Religion; and the great Argument they use to prove the Truth, which they injuriously claim as pertinent unto it, while they do make this Plea, they think themselves sufficiently armed for Offence and Defence, and do shout for the Battle, assuring themselves Victory over all Opposers.  
But when we do demand how they prove their great Brags to be true, they tell us, that the Obligation of proving, does not lie on their side, but it belongs to us to disprove what they say; The greatest Flourish which they make for themselves, is, by propounding of Querie●● such as my Antagonist hath propounded, and such as cannot certainly be determined either in the Affirmative or the Negative.  
Christian Reader, If thou wert possessed of an Estate in Land, unto which thy Title is pleaded to be Illegal, and that thy Possession was gotten by fraud or violence, thy own natural Reason should advice thee, and to avoid a tedious Suit, Charity should oblige thee (I am sure the Court of Equity will compel thee) to produce thy Evidences, and to show thy Deeds to make good thy Title; to ask what hour, or what day, or what month, or what year the fraud or the violence was acted, and the intrusion made, will never procure the Verdict of a Jury, and the Sentence of a Judge to justify the Tenure.  
Here thou hast the great Brags of the Romanists examined, and proved to have no strength to produce any effect for their advantage; it is vanity in the Abstract for them to boast of Antiquity and Succession, while th●y want that Religion which was professed by the Primitive Christians, and do own and maintain Doctrines and Practices which were never warranted by Christ or his Apostles, and the Authority of the holy Scriptures.  
That my Discourse comes forth in an homely Dress, thou must take this to be the reason; thou canst not expect to found any better fruit than the Tree is able to produce. So many have my Discouragements, and Disadvantages, and Impediments been, that had not several weighty Considerations overruled me, I had not appeared in public after this manner; Providence thought fit to order me to live under a Sacrilegious Popish Patron, whose Ancestors began, and he continues so great an Alienation of the Church's Revenues, that the Pittance which is left, is not able to afford a Competency for a convenient Livelihood; for if the Back be clothed, the Belly grumbles for want of Meat; and if the Belly be filled, the Back complains for want of Clothing; there is not enough to supply the Necessities of both, so that there is nothing to be spared to purchase a Library, which is a very great help to assist in the course of the Ministry, and in managing of Controversies with the common Enemy; but if the number of my Books were equal to the Vatican-Library, there is little leisure to be spared for conversing with such Companions, alas, I must spend my time in casting about, and contriving how to proportion my little Barrel of Meal, and to draw out my little Cruise of Oil to the greatest Advantage, that it may reach to answer the importunate Cravings of those that are concerned to have a share of it.  
Help, O Mighty and Religious King, help ye Learned and Pious Bishops; ye wise Senators and Judges of the Nation; suffer not the Patrimony of the Church to be devoured by Popish Laics, who thirst after our destruction more than the chased Hart pants after the Water-brooks, and would rejoice to see that day wherein we should have (if they might have it so) neither Church nor Being.  
If it be said (as the Town-Clerk in the Acts said to Demetrius and his fellow-Craftsmen, The Law is open, and there are Deputies, let them implead one another; I ask whether a Pigmy (though his Cause be never so good) be an equal Match to encounter with a Giant? And is there any hope of Success for him in combating with such an Enemy? Is there no other course to be found to recover the alienated Rights of the Church? Must a poor Incumbent, that has not Necessaries for a convenient Livelihood, be forced to contend with a powerful and rich Patron, whose Purse is able to purchase that Elixir that can turn Brass into Gold, and Led into Silver, and make the most bright shining Cause to appear as a dark Lantern: Money is the Queen-Regent, what can it not do? It is said, Pecunia omnia potest; and it is too often known, that the Verdict of a Jury is biased by the swagging of the Purse; and all do know that the skilful Pleaders of the Law will not open their mouths, to speak in the best Cause, unless their Tongues be gilded with Gold, or tipped with Silver, which the 〈◊〉 of an indigent Incumbent is not able to perform.  
And what can be expected from one that is thus shattered and broken in his Fortunes? is his dejected, heartless, and therefore unactive Spirit able to produce any thing in relation to Controversies, fit to be presented to the public view? But these following Considerations overruled my dull and backward hand to put my unskilful Pen upon motion; first, That if a Servant have but half a Talon allowed him, he is not to lap it up in a Napkin, and bury it in the Earth, but to employ and improve it to his Master's use. Secondly, That God accepts of the Will far the Deed, and does not expect that the cock should run more water than is put into the cistern. Thirdly that at the building of Solomon's temple, all were not master bvilders, but there were inferior Workmen that contributed much to the erecting of that glorious structure; besides all this, the necessity of the People committed to my Charge, required some Armour to defend themselves against the Assaults of Romish Agents, there being many such surrounding us on either side, and many such residing within the compass of our Neighbourhood, among whom, my conceited Patroness is one that carries a great sway, and exceeds for her Activity, to propagate the Romish Religion; whensoever any opportunity falls out, serving for her purpose, she is ready, not only to strain her Person, but also to sand forth her active Emissaries to fill People with the poisonous Doctrines of the Church of Rome.  
Such as the Work is, thou hast it here; thou mayst read and judge of it; but while thou dost so, let me entreat thee to lay aside Partiality and Prejudice; by which means thou wilt do me lesle wrong, and thyself more good; though it be not so excellently Cooked, as to please delicate and curious Palates, yet it will afford some good Nutriment to such Stomaches as will content themselves with wholesome Diet; for such it was designed, and to such it is presented by him, who subscribes himself  
The meanest Undertaker in this kind, but according to his power, an Abettor of the Truth, S. F.   

A Brief Note concerning Points of Religion; wherein it is desired to be known by Nich. Grimshaw Priest,  

First, WHether the Religion professed by the Roman Catholics, commonly called Papists; be the same Religion in point of Faith, with the Religion brought into England by Saint Augustin the Monk, and Apostle of England many years ago?  
Secondly, Whether the aforesaid Religion brought into England by St. Augustin, was not the same in point of Faith with the Religion professed by the Britain's, that were at his coming into England, Christian Inhabitants in England?  
Thirdly, Whether the Religion professed by the aforesaid Britain's, at Augustin's coming into England, was the same Religion in point of Faith with that professed by the Britain's in the Primitive Church of England, when England was first converted to the Christian Faith?   
If Answer be made, that there hath been a Change in the aforesaid Points, it is required that the Change be showed to have been in Points of Faith, and not in Ceremonial only, which would be nothing to purpose.  

An Answer unto certain Queries written in a Paper, Entitled, A Brief Note concerning Points of Religion, wherein it is desired to be known, etc.  
SIR,  
WHile you have been writing of your Queries, you forgot what you promised in the Title, you promised points of Religion; Queries are not Points; indeed the determination on either side, may in some respect be termed such, but while they are undetermined, and do remain Queries, they are not such.  
If you mean by Points of Religion, the Determination of the Queries on either side, than I must ask you, what you mean by Points of Religion; whether such Truths as are absolutely necessary to be known, or Truths of an inferior Alloy, such as are convenient for some respects to be known?  
If you mean Truths of the first sort, there is as little affinity between your Title and your Queries, as there is between me and you, and that is none at all; for none of these Queries are necessary to be known, either in the Affirmative or the Negative, with either a general and confused knowledge, or that knowledge which is distinct and particular; for you and I and others may worship God, and so advance his Glory, and come to be saved without it; and I say farther, that if your Queries be made concerning a distinct and particular knowledge, if ever we shall be saved, we shall be saved without it; there is much required to complete this Knowledge, than you, or I, or any other can gain by the best Intelligencers we have to inform us.  
If you mean Truths of the second sort, pray, let me assume the boldness as to ask you, why you are so injurious to the common sort of people, as to load their Heads with unnecessary Positions, and to puzzle their Brains with such like Queries? will you imitate the Scribes and Pharisees, to teach for Doctrines (as they did the Commandments of men, so you) the private Conceits of men.  
To your Queries in general, I answer, first you take a Journey of three miles about, while a Journey of one would have served better, and brought you sooner home; it would have saved you some pains in Querying, and me in Answering, and been as much, yea more to purpose, if you had, instead of making three Queries, propounded but one; namely this, whether the Religion now professed by the Papists in England, be the same that was brought into England at its first Conversion, and so the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles? I do not see any reason for this long Vagary, why you should go about, to know what Religion S. Austin professed, what Religion the Britain's in his time professed, whether yours agrees to his, his agrees to theirs; if I should grant you so long Succession for your Religion, what advantage could you make of it? if you reason after this manner, to confirm the Truth you pretend for your Religion, my Father, and my Grandfather, and my great Grandfather, and so onward, until you come to Austin the Monk, and the ancient Britain's were of this Religion, therefore it is true; a Jew or a Turk may reason with the same probability: or if you reason thus, our Religion is as ancient as Austin the Monk, and the ancient Britain's, therefore it is true; a Turk may pled as great Antiquity for his Religion, and a Jew greater for his.  
Secondly, In all these Queries I suppose you are on the Affirmative side, and that you conceive us to be on the Negative; pray let me ask you, which in reason should first be proved; whether ●our Affirmative or ●our Negative? If your Affirmative should first be proved, as you must grant, if you have the Reason of a man; why will you deny to put your Shoulders under the Burden, and lay it wholly upon ours: It seems you are somewhat like unto the Egyptian Taskmasters, you would have us to make Brick, while you would be looking on; you would be putting of Queries unto us, while we must be labouring our Brains in proving unto you: Let me propound a reasonable Request, and desire you once to be as forward in practice, as you are in precept; and as ready to prove as you are to quere; and to prove the Affirmative of these Queries, and to set down a substantial proof, such as may be convincing to the non-prejudging Understanding; I think I may allow you a longer time to do this, than the Elephant is in bringing forth her young.  
To the first Query, my Answer is Negative; we may presume that Austin's Religion was the same which his Master, Pope Gregory professed, and your Religion differs from his in these Particulars, the Canon of the Scripture, the Sufficiency of the Scripture, the Reading of the Scripture, the Real Presence, Private Mass, Communion in both kinds, Merit of good Works, Veneration of Images the Pope's Supremacy, his Doctrine in these being the same that is maintained by the Church of England, as can be evidenced out of his Writings.  
To the Second, my Answer is likewise Negative; it is probable it was not: my Reasons are these; because those ancient Britain's told Austin the Monk, that they had a Bishop of their own▪ to whom they were to submit; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Pope of Rome: Besides, they rejected Austin's Traditions; would they have done so, had their Religion been the same with his? For which, the Monk stirred up the wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent, against them, who raised his Forces, and came (Austin being in his Company, and destroyed about twelve hundred of them: howsoever this Fact of his may be coloured, it was a horrid Fact; but much more wicked would it have been judged to be, had those murdered Britain's been of his Religion.  
To the Third, my Answer is this; That neither you, nor I can determine positively on either side, unless we do (as he that writ of the World in the Moon, did) take upon us to writ of things so far distant from us, that they cannot come within the compass of our Knowledge, we having no certain Records to inform us what were the Tenets maintained by the▪ Ancient Britain's: We have so much Charity towards them, as to think well of them; and have great reason to believe, that they were far more Religious and Holy than Austin the Italian Monk was.  
To your Cautional Conclusion, First, I say, that I have toiled my Brains, and turned the Words every way, to make sense of them, and to reconcile their Contradictions, and yet the work is to do: a Change you say, in the aforesaid points; I found no foresaid points, but Queries; and how to show a Change in those Queries, unless you would have me to propound them after another manner, and in another shape, I do not apprehended; nor yet to show a Change in points of Faith, where there are no points of Faith to show a Change in.  
Secondly, you imply yourself to be an Abetter of this Position, That a Difference in Religions made by Ceremonies, is to no purpose; what mean you than by those Loads of needless Ceremonies, which are laid upon your Religion, which have made the very Axletree to crack; are they used to no purpose? why is the Use of your many needless Ceremonies pressed with such absolute Necessity, that unless they be observed, there is no obtaining of eternal Salvation, while the Use of them is to no purpose? it seems that you confess, that while you fall out with us, for rejecting your Holy Water, and your Beads, and your Cross, and your Unctions, and your Ashes, and your Spitting, and such like Stuff, you fall out with us for things that are used to no purpose: I thank you for this fair acknowledgement of the Truth, though it dropped unawares from your Pen, and do promise, whensoever I meet with an opportunity, to return your Courtesy.  
But what will you say, if I can prove that a Difference made in Religion by Ceremonies, doth altar the Nature of Religion? Certainly this will be to purpose, and no hard Task to undergo; when the Composition of Religion is like unto that Image which Nabuchadnezzar saw in his Dream, part of Gold, part of Silver, part of Iron, part of Brass, part of Clay; when Religion is made up, part of necessary Truths, part of superstitious Ceremonies, when the Use of Ceremonies (by a strange Metamorphosis) is converted into Acts of Religion; when it is maintained, that ex fide they must be used, because without the Use of them, neither God is duly worshipped, nor Religion truly exercised, as it is now in the Church of Rome; this Change by Ceremonies altars Religion from that Nature it had when it was made up of one sound Metal, in its original Purity.  
And now because you have been propounding of Queries, let me assume liberty to imitate you a little, and to propound as many Queries unto you.  
First, Whether God is to have the whole Glory of the work of Man's Salvation?  
Secondly, Whether Christ deserves to have the whole Glory of mediating and interceding for Sinners?  
Thirdly, Whether it be the safest way for Man to cast himself down unto the lowest dust of Humility, before the footstool of God, and to acknowledge his own worthlesness and unworthiness.  
If you grant me the Affirmative of these three Queries, as you must do, unless you will bring the Gild of Blasphemy upon yourself, I make no question, but to improve them to be powerful Engines to batter down a great part of the Structure of your Religion.   

Mr. Nich. Grimshaw's Letter, sent with his Reply, to the Answer made unto his brief Note concerning point of Religion.  
'TIs now above a Year, since I was so happy as to receive your Answer to my Note, concerning points of Religion: Immediately after the receipt of which, I was forced, by importunity of Occasions, to remove into a remote place of the Kingdom, and consequently to departed in Silence against my will; yet this was my comfort, that I hoped to return you a Reply with all speed; but I found the old Proverb truly verified, Man Proposeth, but God Disposeth: For immediately after my arrival to my Journeys end, it pleased the Divine providence to visit me with a sharp Sickness, which confined me to my Bed and Chamber until the 23. of March; in which time I was not able to look on a Book, much lesle to set Pen to Paper: But at last, having recovered my former Strength, I make bold to return you these Lines, which (I hope) will be a not lesle satisfactory Reply to your Answer, than the continuance of my long Sickness, a sufficient Excuse for the long Silence of  
Your Servant, N. G.   

A Reply unto the Answer, made unto the brief Note concerning points of Religion.  
I Perceive, by the tenor of your Discourse, in your large Answer to my Brief Note concerning points of Religion, that you fancy rather to lie in ambush, catching at men's Words, by wilfully misinterpreting their Sense, than to give a clear, positive and satisfactory Answer to the Question proposed: For the greatest part of your whole sheet of Paper, consists of nothing else but verbal flourishes, intermixed with Erudition and exasperating Language, with which you beaten the Air more than your Adversary: Truly this way is neither Edificative to the Reader, nor Satisfactory to the Opponent. You are not ignorant, that it is the chief part of a Polemic, to wave verbal flourishes, and with solid proof (drawn from Reason or Authority) answer the Question proposed; otherwise the greatest part of time and paper, would be spent in fight only with shadows; and the result would be, parturiunt montes nascitur ridiculus mus, whilst in the mean time the whole substance of the Question would, in a manner, be passed in silence.  
Wherhfore, to avoid this inconvenience of a verbal Engagement, which would never have an end, words being subject to as many Interpretations as men have fancies; I will only Answer those few▪ Paragraphs in your large Discourse which come nighest the Mark, and touch the Question proposed.  

The Question proposed was this:  
I. Whether the Religion professed now in England by those you call Papists, be not the same Religion which St. Austin brought into England.  
II. Whether the Religion which St. Austin brought into England, was not the same Religion with that which the Britain's professed, when he came into England?  
III. Whether the Religion, professed by the Britain's at the same time, was not the same Religion with that which was first planted in our Country?   
To which you Answer, first, That seeing I am of the Affirmative part, you wonder much that I did not rather prove, than demand: Which to do (say you) with a substantial proof, such as may be convincing to the non-prejudging understanding, will require in me, a longer time than the Elephant is in bringing forth her Young.  
Sir, The reason why I did demand, and not prove, was not any difficulty (as you imagine) that I perceived in so easy an enterprise; it was only to see, whether you would grant or deny. For if you grant; than habeo intentum: For, if our Religion be the same with Augustine's, his with the Britain's, and theirs with that which was first planted in England; it must necessarily follow, that ours is the true Religion. If you deny; than I have the Testimony of many of your learned Protestants against you; which Sir (at lest with you) aught to be a substantial and convincing proof to a non-prejudging understanding: For, as your learned Whittaker doth testify, De Ecclesia Controver. 2. Quest. 5. Cap. 14. Firmum sit necesse est Argumentum illud, quod sumitur ex adversariorum confession, etc. efficax enim erit adversariorum ipsorum contra ipsos testimonium, etc. & quidem fateor veritatem etiam e suis inimicis testimonium extorquere, etc.  
If you will only vouchsafe to peruse the beginning of that learned Book, Entitled, The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, you shall meet with undeniable Testimonies of our learned. Adversaries, asserting the Affirmative of the aforesaid Question, and consequently must be forced to confess, that I shall not require so long a time to prove the same, as the Elephant is in bringing forth her Young; the thing being already proved.  
If perchance you be not furnished with this Book, be pleased only to peruse that learned Treatise, Entitled, The Three Conversions of England, and you will meet with substantial proofs to a non-prejudging Understanding, asserting the Affirmative of the aforesaid Question.  
Your second Answer unto the Question in particular, is Negative: And why? Because (say you) we may presume, that Austin' ss Religion was the same that his master Pope Gregory professed; and his Religion differs from yours in these particulars, The Canon of the Scripture; The Sufficiency of the Scripture; The Reading of the Scripture; The Real Presence; The Private Mass; Communion in both Kind's; Merit of Good Works; Veneration of Images; The Pope's Supremacy; His Doctrine in these, being the same that is Maintained by the Church of England, as can be evidenced out of his Writings. Thus you.  
Sir, I remember in your verbal Triumph over my Cautional Conclusion (occasioned by your wilful mistake, sciens & prudens, misinterpreting my words quite contrary to the sense they were spoken in) you told me, That you returned me many Thanks, for the courtesy which I dropped you at unawares; withal promising, That if ever you met with an opportunity, you would return my Courtesy. Now Sir, you have met with an opportunity, and I challenge your promise: For, all the Courtesy that I do require, is, That you would be pleased to show all these foresaid Points (nay, rather than I should impose too great a task upon you) or any one of them all; pick and choose where you please, evidenced out of St. Gregory's Writings. Mark (I beseech you) your own word, Evidenced, not wrested by your own sinistrous interpretation; be pleased to set down the Saints own words, or at lest cite the place where they are to be found; which to do, will require in you a longer time, than the Elephant is in bringing forth her Young.  
Your third Answer to this Question, Whether the Religion of St. Austin was the same with that of the Britain's, is also Negative: Your first Reason is this, Because the ancient Britain's told Austin, that they had a Bishop of their own, to whom they were to submit; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.  
Sir, the Fountain from whence this Objection Originally sprang, was Galfridus Monumetensis, lib. 11. c. 7. whose words, if they be but duly considered with an impartial Judgement, allow not at all of this your inference; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome; for his words are these, There was an Abbot of Bangor, named Dynoot, that had above two thousand Monks under his charge, who answered to Austin (when he required Subjection of the British Bishops, and that they would join with him to convert the English Nation) That the Britain's owed no Subjection unto him, nor would bestow the labour of Preaching upon their Enemies, seeing the Britain's had an Archbishop of their own, and that the Saxons took from them their Country, for which cause they hated them extremely, nor did esteem their Religion, nor would communicate with them more than with Dogs.  
Behold, here is all that is to be found in this Author to this purpose, which is nothing else (as any impartial Reader may see) but a passionate and choleric Answer of the Britain's, as of men afflicted and exasperated: here is not so much as one word of their having nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome (as you and they, the Magdeburgians many years before you infer) but only that they acknowledged not the Superiority of Austin over the Britain's; seeing he was sent only unto the English, and the Authority of their own Archbishop, was not taken away by his coming, for any thing they yet knew, but remained as before: Which Question of Jurisdiction between two Archbishops falleth out daily, even where the Pope's Authority is most acknowledged, and so any one that hath Eyes to Read, and Judgement to understand what he reads, may clearly see, that it is a vain and malicious inference in you and the Magdeburgians to infer so peremptorily; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome: for they speak as you see of Austin's Authority, and not of the Bishops of Rome, from whom we read not, that he shown to them any Authority to place him over their Archbishop; and consequently it is a vain inference, which both you and the Magdeburgians do make out of the Britain's Answer, that for so much as they admitted not of Augustine's Authority, they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.  
Your second Reason, why St. Augustine's Religion was not the same with that of the Britain's, is this; Because (say you) they rejected Augustine's Traditions.  
Sir, I believe the Reason, why you did not set down the Traditions in particular rejected by the Britain's, was because you cannot show any one Article of Faith (which unless you do, your Objection is nothing to purpose) in which they dissented from St. Austin; for all the difference that was between them, was only concerning some certain tolerable differences for that time; as namely, their Dissent from the use of the Roman Church in their Ministering of Baptism and keeping of Easter; which latter, as your learned Osiander doth testify in Epitome. Cent. 2. l. 3. c. 2. was tolerated, in like manner by the Apostles, in regard of the known weakness of some, as for like respect Circumcision was by them in like sort tolerated, and Abstinence from blood, and that which was strangled, especially prescribed, Act. 15. 29. all which argue no more differenee in Articles of Faith betwixt the Britain's and St. Austin, than the keeping of Easter, etc. argued difference in Articles of Faith betwixt the Apostles, and their new Converts.  
Now that the Britain's rejected only the Traditions of St. Austin in these (for that time) tolerable differences; in the first place venerable Beda, doth testify, Hist. l. 2. c. 2. where he mentioneth this saying of St. Austin to the Britain's, Simo in his tribus obtemperare mihi vultis, ut pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut ministerium Baptizandi quo deo renascimur, juxta morem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis, ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum predicetis Verbum domini, cetera quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tollerabimus: The like is testified by these following Protestant Writers, Hollinshead. vol. 1. p. 103. Mr. Goodwin in his Catalogue of Bishops. p. 6. and by the Protestant Author of the History of Great Britain, printed Anno. 1606. who l. 3. c. 13. saith hereof, The Britain- Bishops conformed themselves to the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome without any difference in any thing, specially remembered, save only in the Celebration of Easter, etc.  
By which their so earnest dissenting, about these only matters of smaller importance, is most plainly signified unto us, their full Agreement in all Articles of Faith: for the Britain's who contradicted St. Austin, and that so earnestly, about these so few and small matters, would never have been silent; but much rather have withstood in the other so many and incomparably much greater points, had they in like sort disagreed from him therein: nay, and their Union in Faith is yet farther proved; because the Britain-Bishops as than confessed, that it was the right way of Justice and Righteousness which Austin taught: Tum britons quidem confitentur intellexisse se, veram esse justitiae viam, quam proedicaret Augustinus: Beda l. 2. c. 2. The which is farther confirmed by your learned writer Mr. Fulke, affirming that Austin did at the last obtain the aid of the British-Bishops, to the Conversion of the Saxons. Fulke in his confutation of Purgatory: p. 335.  
And whereas you peremptorily affirm, that Austin, because the Britain's rejected his Traditions, inflamed the wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent against them, who raised his Forces, and murdered about twelve hundred of them, the Monk himself being in his company, is (to say not worse) a gross mistake; for it was not Ethelbert King of Kent, but Edilfred King of Northumber's that committed this horrid Massacre of the Monks, as Beda doth testify. l. 2. c. 2. in these ensuing words.  
It happened afterwards that the most mighty King of the English men Edilfred gathering a great Army, made a foul slaughter of this unfaithful and naughty people, (to wit) the Monks of Bangor; for being now ready to give the onset of the fight, when he espied the Priests, which came together to pray for their Soldiers Warring, stand a part from the rest in a sure and safe place, he demanded what they were, and to what end they came thither, etc. The cause of their coming thither, when King Edilfred had understood, he said, If these men cry and call upon their God against us; truly, although they have no Armour, yet they fight against us, etc. therefore he commanded his Soldiers first to assault them, etc. So you see, that it was not for rejecting Austin's Traditions, that these men were slain (as you would feign persuade the Ignorant) but for coming to pray for their Army, whereby the Heathen King was mightily exasperated, fearing jest their Prayers might obtain of Almighty God the victory against him; your own writers, Speed and Fox acknowledge the same.  
Moreover, it is not lesle gross mistake in you so peremptorily to affirm, that St. Austin himself was present at this slaughter. For Fox, your great Writer, doth confess that both Huntingdon and other Authors affirm, that St. Austin was dead when this slaughter happened; and venerable Beda. l. 2. c. 2. doth testify the same in these words, The Holy Bishop St. Austin was himself long before taken out of this Life unto the Kingdom of Heaven. True it is Austin did Prophecy (as Beda doth testify in the same Book and Chapter) that the Britain's, because they were refractory, refusing to submit unto his wholesome counsel, and Preach the Word of God unto English men, should suffer the temporal punishment of death from the English; which Prophecy was fulfilled in this battle, long after St. Augustine's death; In this manner (saith Venerable Beda having described the slaughter) was fulfilled the Prophecy of the Holy Bishop Austin, who was himself, long before that, taken out of this Life into the Kingdom of Heaven. And thus these ungracious and false People, suffered the punishment of temporal Death; because they had refused and despised, the wholesome Counsel of perpetual Life and Salvation offered unto them: Beda. l. 2. c. 2. So you see, that this very slaughter of the Monks, which you unadvisedly brought against us, maketh clearly against you; for they were slain, it is true, but by whom? by Ethelbert King of Kent? no, but by Edilfred King of Northumber's, as your own Writers do tell you: Was it done by the Instigation of St. Austin than present? no, for long before that, he was taken, out of this Life unto the Kingdom of Heaven; but why did Almighty God permit this great slaughter of these Monks? because (saith venerable Beda) they refused and despised the wholesome counsel of perpetual Life and Salvation, offered to them by the Holy Bishop St. Austin; which makes me to say with your learned Whittaker, Fateor veritatem etiam e suis inimicis testimonium extorquere; and withal, leave it to the serious Consideration of the Impartial Reader, whether or not, you have not dealt most Disingeniously, in so peremptorily affirming these two gross Mistakes, quite contrary, not only to your own Authors, but even to venerable Beda himself, a Witness in this point without Exception: For living near the time of St. Austin, and withal being a Man so eminent, both for Virtue and Learning, that he is known by the name of Venerable; he cannot choose but be a substantial Proof, to convince a Non-prejudging Understanding, that you were either wilfully or ignorantly mistaken; either whereof argueth no lesle than an indelible Stain to the Reputation of your calling.  
Sir, I do not question, but these specious Pretexts of your fallacious Arguments, may easily induce the illiterate Rabble, to believe what you please; for they looking upon you as their Oracle, placed in the Chair of Moses, to dictate nothing but Verities, acquiesce without further inquiry, to what you say; because (forsooth) ipse dixit: But the learneder sort, which have the lest Scantling in the knowledge of Antiquity, cannot choose but smile in their Sleeves, to see one of your Profession, so peremptorily affirm two such gross Mistakes; and without bringing any one Authority, either modern or ancient, save only your naked Affirmation in your own Cause; which I suppose, you will not presume should be looked upon, as a substantial Proof, to convince a Non-prejudging Understanding; especially meeting with such undeniable Testimony to the contrary, not only of your own Authors, but also of Venerable Beda; the Authority of whom, is of more force, to convince a Non-prejudging Understanding, than any one you can bring to the contrary.  
Your fourth Answer to this Question, whether the Religion professed by the Britain's, when Austin came into England, etc. is this: That neither You nor I, can determine certainly on either side, unless we do (as the man did, that writ of the World in the Moon) take upon us, to writ of things of so great Distance from us, as cannot come within the compass of our Cognizance.  
Sir, I can scarce persuade myself, the World is so Lunatic in the affairs of Antiquity, as you pretend: If you please to peruse the beginning of the aforesaid Book, entitled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Catholic Church; you shall see, that these things came within the Cognizance of the Author thereof; and withal found substantial Proof, for the Affirmative▪ of the said Question, which may convince a Non-prejudging Understanding; and lastly be forced to confess, that to prove the Affirmative of the aforesaid Questions, there is not a longer time required, than the Elephant is in bringing forth her young.  
After these your aforesaid Answers, which have not so much as the Shadow of a substantial Proof, to convince a Non-prejudging Understanding, you propose unto me three Queries; the Affirmative whereof (say you) if granted; you make no question, but to improve them to be powerful Engines, to batter down the greatest part, of the Fabric of our Religion.  
Your first Query is this, Whether God be to have the whole glory of the Work of man's Salvation? To which I answer Affirmatively; but deny the sinistrous Consequence, which you usually hence infer, Therefore no merit of good works; for though there be no Insufficiency in the Actions or passions of Christ the Head; yet his Wisdom, Will and Justice requireth and ordaineth, that his Body and Members, should be Fellows of his Passions, as they look to be Fellows of his Glory; that so suffering with him and by his Example, they may apply unto themselves and to others, the general Medicine of Christ's merits and satisfactions, as it is also effectually applied unto us by Sacraments; the one sort being no more injurious unto Christ's death, nor consequently hindering him of the whole Glory of the work of man's Salvation, than the other; notwithstanding your vain clamours, that would upon the Pretence of Christ passions take away the Value of good Works: if you please to peruse St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians (c. 1. v. 24.) you may see how the Apostle taught and practised this Doctrine. Neither do I see, what pretence you can have, to affirm, that the Merit of good Works, hindereth God of the whole Glory of the Work of man's Salvation, seeing the said Merit is a pure Gift of God, and no lesle his than his own; for not only those passions, which Christ suffered in himself, which were fully ended at his death, and were in themselves abundantly sufficient for the Redemption of the World, and of all sins; but also those, which his body and members suffer, are Christ's also, because of him they receive the Condition, Quality, and Force to be meritorious and satisfactory.  
Your second Query is this, Whether Christ deserve to have the whole Glory of mediating and interceding for Sinners? To which I answer also Affirmatively; but withal deny the sinistrous Consequence which you hence infer, Therefore we must not pray to Saints; for it doth no more derogate from Christ's whole Glory of mediating for sinners, to pray unto Saints in Heaven, than to pray unto the Faithful upon Earth, (if it do, I pray you show me the Disparity) and yet our Prayers unto the Faithful upon Earth, doth not at all derogate from Christ's whole Glory, etc. Witness the Practice of the Apostle Paul in this very point to the Romans Epist. ad. Rom. c. 15. I beseech you Brethrens, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in your Prayers to God for Me, etc. These be the words of your own Translation, in the year, 1662.  
Your third and last Query is this, Whether it be the safest way for man, to cast himself down to the lowest dust of Humility before the Footstool of God, and to acknowledge his own worthlesness, and unworthiness? To which I Answer Affirmatively, as above; and am now in great expectation, to see you improve these three Queries to be powerful Engines, to batter down the greatest part of the Fabric of our Religion.  
But before you do embroil yourself in this new Engagement, of demolishing the Fabric of our Religion, I must make bold to entreat these following Favours of you, which in Honour you are bound to perform.  
First, that you would show me any one of the foresaid Points, evidenced out of St. Gregory's works; mark I beseech you, your own word evidenced, not wrested by your own sinistrous Interpretation; cite faithfully the Saints Words, or at lest the Place, where they are to be found: pick and choose which of the foresaid Points you please.  
Secondly, that you would show me any one Article of Faith, included in the Traditions of Austin, rejected by the Britain's, in which the Britain's dissented from St Austin.  
Thirdly, that you would show me a substantial Proof, which may convince a non-prejudging Understanding, affirming that the foresaid Monks were not slain by Edilfred the Heathen King of Northumber's, but by Ethelbert the Christian King of Kent, and by the instigation of St Austin being present, as you peremptorily affirm.  
Fourthly, that you would stick to the thing you undertake to prove, until such time as you have sufficiently proved it, without diverting to any other point.  
Fifthly, that you would be pleased to desist from wilfully misinterpreting my Words, quite contrary to the sense they were spoken in; diverting thereby the Reader, from the true state of the question; as you did in your answer to my note, leaving no more Connection between my Words and my meaning, than there is coherence in, which is my way to London, a poak full of Plumbs. I do not question, but this uncharitable manner of proceeding, may easily induce the illiterate Rabble, which have scarce wit to distinguish right from left, to pass a rash judgement upon your Adversary; but withal will be sufficient witness to a Learned Jury, to make them bring in their verdict against you, according to your desert. I confess this pitiful shift, affords you a starting hole to your impertinent Erudition, verbal Flourishes, rhetorical Excursions, and such like impertinence; but when you have talked yourself weary, the result is vox & preterea nihil; you have only catched shadows, and aerem verlerans whipped yourself more than your Adversary, as incurring hereby the just Censure of unhandsome dealing.  
Sir, Seeing the dispute betwixt me and you, is not as it is among Butter-women at the Market-Cross, that either you or I may have the upper hand therein; but that Naked-Truth may have place: I must make bold to beg one favour more, that you would be pleased to abstain from such reviling and exasperating language, fit rather to be spoken in the confusion of Babel, than by one of your calling, as you unadvisedly vented in your answer to my note; for in troubled waters truth can never be discerned, and as St. Paul saith in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter the Eleventh, If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.   

A Letter sent to N. ● concerning the Reply made unto the Answer of his brief note.  
Sir,  
HAd not Divine Providence (as you say it dealt with you) appointed me to a great Indisposition of body, you had long since received a rejoinder to your Reply: and now it comes into the World as Ichabod did, being the Issue of an hasty Travail; though I have not yet enjoyed the date you used in replying (which in Equity should have been granted) yet some Philistines, that defy the Truths of the everliving God, begin to triumph, as if my pen was struck dumb by yours.  
To silence these, that it may not be told in Gath, nor Published in the streets of Askalon, that there is any weakness in the Cause maintained, or difficulty in the Work to be done by me, it anticipates my recovery, and comes forth before my health affords me the liberty and opportunity, of taking that serious view of your Reply, and of the Authors to whom you sand me, which I desired to bestow upon them.  
By that hasty Perusal I have made, I found your Reply speaking this Truth, spes est rei incertae nomen; it is so far from being satisfactory to me (as you hoped) that it hath mightily confirmed me in my judgement, against the Cause maintained by you, and made me to fall somewhat, in my good Opinion of your Person; giving me occasion to think, that you are a man that will do and speak any thing, for the advancing of your own Interest; because you bring many heavy Charges against me, for which you have no more reason, than the man had for his Conceit, who thought his Body to be made of glass, which was only the working of his disturbed Brain.  
1. You accuse me of Impertinency; but this is very impertinently done by you, because you have not showed, how and wherein my answer hath run beyond the limits of your Queries.  
2. You charge me with reviling and exasperating Language; but because you have not (as I am sure you could not do) directed the Reader, to one reviling and exasperating word given by me, it persuades me to believe, that in this you did but imitate the man in the Comedy, who when he met with his Adversary, cried out against him, O damned Villain, because he had nothing else to say.  
3. You inveigh against our common People, terming them an illiterate Rabble, detained by us in Ignorance, on purpose to keep them possessed with a Prejudice against your Religion; but of all the men in the world, you have lest Reason to object this against us; because while you accuse us, you condemn yourselves; you train up your People as Faulkoners do Hawks, keeping them constantly Hoodwinked, jest the light of Truth should shine into their understandings.  
4. You accuse me of Scolding and Brawling, but whether you or I do bewray most the true Genius of a Scold, let the indifferent Judge determine; when he finds who is most guilty of railing Language, of needless Repetitions, of multitudes of words used to no purpose; which are the natural productions of Scolds.  
If you be offended at my Similitudes, you discover your Ignorance of the nature of that kind of Illustration, nulla similitudo currit quatuor pedibus: do but take them in that purpose, for which they are used by me, and do not apply the remaining part to yourself any more than I do, and you will found Reason forbidding you to fume at the use of them.  
The Cause that I do maintain, scorns the help of such rotten Supports as these, and leaves them to be used by those, who do maintain a Cause, that is like unto a Cripple; who, because he wants the Strength of natural Legs, is glad to creep on any fashion, and to make use of wooden legs to go on.  
Truth will stand by its own native strength against all Opposition; though the reinss of Aspersions do fall, and the floods of false Accusations do come; yea though the Winds of Persecutions do blow and beaten against it; yet (being founded upon the Rock) it will not fall, but according to the sentence of those Judges, that were to determine what was strongest, magna est veritas & praevalebit.   

A rejoinder to the Reply made unto the Answer of a Note, entitled a brief Note concerning Points of Religion.  
SHould I tell you, that you are fallen out with your brief Note, you would say that I lie in Ambush to catch at your words, by wilfully mistaking your meaning; what mean you than by entituling your three Queries now, so as to make them all but one Question, the question (say you) propounded was this, etc. there is reason to suspect some design in it; but I matter not what it is, because I do not fear any disadvantage, to fall unto the Truth by it: but I would have the Reader to consider, how much Credit is to be yielded to your words, being that you are thus contradictory to yourself; if it be not a Contradiction, pray resolve me, how three distinct Queries can be but one Question, and that one Question entitled a brief Note concerning Points of Religion.  
And here in the beginning of your Reply, I found the old proverb to be verified, Claudius accusat Maechum; you are guilty of that, for which you have accused and condemned me. Here are verbal Flourishes and rhetorical Excursions, charging me highly of many misdemeanours committed in my Answer, and promising great things for yourself, how exact and pertinent you will be in your following Reply; to dispel (as a light vapour) all that is material in my Answer. Thus while by fair flourishes you raise a mist before the eyes of your Reader, you lurk away without taking notice of a great part of my Answer upon the pretended ground of Impertinency.  
But tell me seriously, is it Impertinent to examine the nature of your Queries? I told you, that the Determination of them on either side was unnecessary: First for the common People; this I put you in mind of, in the beginning of my Answer, therefore I desired to hear of some reason, why you would sand out such Queries; you who pretend so much unto Edification, charging my Answer as ineffectual in relation to this end, should have given some Reason for this, to shield yourself from the imputation of loading their heads with unnescessary Positions, and puzzling their brains with such like Queries; you should have proved the Determination of them to be edificative, which being not done, your talking of Edification may be deservedly interpreted mere Dissimulation.  
Secondly, Unnecessary for yourself, as to the effecting of that end you looked at, in propounding of your Queries; wherefore I demanded earnestly to know, why you would have these three Queries disputed, while the Disputation of one (namely whither your Religion be the same, that was taught by Christ and his Apostles) would bring us sooner to the Knowledge of the Truth: I will tell you once again, that if you have no better Arguments, to prove your Religion to be true, than such as Jews and Turks may use for the proof of their Religion, such as Antiquity and Succession; for all your great brags, yours may be (as theirs is) The mere invention of Man.  
But necessary or not, you must have your Queries determined, or else the Truth, pretended to belong unto your Religion, falls unto the Ground; what is the Reason of this impatient Longing? Sure, it is some great Distemper, which you know to be in your Religion, for which you distrust it, as not able to endure the Trial of the infallible Rule.  
And, I found you very scarce of Arguments, to prove your Religion to be true, being that you are so earnest, to have that which is necessary to be known, proved by that Knowledge which is unnecessary; whether your Religion be true or false, is necessary to be known; but whether Austin was of your Religion, or the ancient Britain's was of his; or whether the Religion of the ancient Britain's, was the same with the primitive Religion, is not necessary to be known. There are many precious Souls gone to Heaven, that never heard of you, nor Austin, nor the ancient Britain's; and yet this is the grand Method you use, and hence you would draw a convincing Argument, to prove the Truth you claim for your Religion.  
Well, because you dote upon this Argument (as much as the Ape doth upon her Issue, though never so deformed) I am content, you should use the Strength of it against me, and let us see how advantageous the Management of it will prove for you. Thus you argue, that Religion which Austin professed is true; but the Religion now professed by the Papists in England, is the same that Austin professed, ergo, etc.  
Your Assumption, being one of the things in question, shall not be spoken to now; how you do prove it, will be examined in its proper place. The Juncture of your Queries tells me, that you must prove your Major thus; that the Religion, which the ancient Britain's professed in Augustine's time, is true; but the Religion of Austin is the same which the ancient Britain's in his time professed, ergo etc. your Assumption likewise being another thing in question, shall be passed by until another Opportunity; it is your Major I shall speak to.  
It should seem that you are not the man I took you to be; are you not a Roman Catholic? This is a Title you assume unto yourself, though there be a Contradiction in the terms; and will you forsake your Colours, and fight under another Banner? Have you not forsaken the Roman Church, which sometime you say is the infallible Guide? And do you not fly unto the poor distressed Britain's for help? You must confess yourself to be guilty of this Practice, or else you must throw away your Argument. I hope you are not ignorant of this, that the Medium used for a proof, must be more evident than the Thing proved; you must confess than, that the Religion professed by the Britain's, was more evidently true, than that professed by Austin, or that of the Roman-Church; otherwise why do you draw an Argument thence, to prove Augustine's Religion to be true? and why an Argument thence, rather than from the Religion of the Roman Church? Pray Sir, let me know, whether you claim a Succession in Religion from the ancient Britain's, as well as you are beholding to them for this Argument? It seems to me, that you do acknowledge this Claim; were I assured of it, I could make excellent use of it against you.  
The Mayor Proposition you prove thus; The Religion brought into England by its first Convertors (it being that which was taught by Christ and his Apostles) is true; but the Religion professed by the ancient Britain's, is the same that was brought into England by its first Convertors, ergo etc. the Assumption I likewise pass by, until another time of Consideration.  
The Major is an undeniable Truth; the Religion first brought into England, the Religion taught by Christ and his Apostles is true, here we do rest ourselves, upon this Rock do we build, and hither by the conduct of your queries do you fly; why did you not use this medium at first, to prevent the unnecessary Travel that you have made? is it not a far more easy work to examine, whether your Religion be the same, that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; than to examine whither yours be the same with Augustine's, Augustine's the same with that of the ancient Britain's, the ancient Britain's the same with that taught by Christ and his Apostles? Let us than leave Austin and the ancient Britain's, to stand or fall to their own Master, and let us dispute this Question fairly, whether your Religion be the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles? and if you can convince me of the Truth of the Affirmative, by proving your Religion to be conformable unto the infallible Rule, (where we are to inquire for the Religion taught by Christ and his Apostles) I will be of your Religion; until that be done, I am obliged, by that little knowledge which I have, to remain as I am.  
Having put you in mind of that part of my Answer, with which you were pleased to deal, as the Levite dealt with the wounded man, only looking upon it, and passing it by, I come now to examine the matter of your Reply.  
Reply.  
You say the Reason why you did demand and not Prove, was not any Difficulty that you perceived in so easy an enterprise; it was only to see, whether I would grant or deny: If I Grant, you attain your end; if I Deny, you have the Testimony of many learned Protestants, to prove the Affirmative of the aforesaid Question; besides you have the Proofs used by the Author of the Three Conversions of England.  
rejoinder.  
You sand me for a Proof of your Affirmative, unto the Author of the Book called the Three Conversions of England, and to the Author of that called The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church: Surely, this is a compendious way of proving, and very cheap too, costing very little pains; and do you think that it is substantial enough to prove your Affirmative? because you have sent it to me, as an argument endowed with that great ability, you are bound by the Law of Retaliation, to accept of the like proof from me, as substantial enough to prove my Negative; be pleased than to peruse that learned Treatise, called the Protestants Appeal written by Dr. Morton, where you will found your Apology for the Roman Church substantially confuted, together with Arguments, taken from your own learned Writers, to confirm my Negative. Peruse likewise that Treatise, called, The Subversion of the three Conversions written by Dr. Sutcliffe; and you will find Arguments there for the same purpose. Thus you teach me to argue by your Example, being that my Argument, is as like unto yours, as one Egg is unto another, there is great reason, that you should suffer it to have as powerful working upon yourself, as you expect yours should have upon me: So there is no need, that I should stand to refute your Affirmative, or to confirm my Negative, the work being done already to my hands.  
But what mean you by foresaid Question, for the Proof of the Affirmative of which (you say) you have the Testimony of many learned Protestants? if you mean one of the three Queries singly, than which of them is it? The first or second, or third? you should have expressed which it is, than had you played your Game above-board; it may be that you can produce some Protestant Writers, asserting the Affirmative of some one of them; if you would therefore persuade your Reader, to believe that there are Protestant Writers, that do grant the Affirmative of all; this is real Juggling.  
If by foresaid Question, you mean all the three Queries; I wonder that you are not ashamed to vent such an Expression; can you persuade any one to believe, that a Protestant (while he is a Protestant) will maintain the Affirmative of all the three Queries? that your Religion is the same with Augustine's, his the same with the ancient Britain's, theirs the same with that first brought into England; is not this in effect to say, that your Religion is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles? and will any Protestant say this? is not this ipso facto to renounce the Protestants as false, and to acknowledge yours to be true? and will or can any Protestant (while he is a Protestant) do so? surely that Religion hath but a weak Foundation, that needs to be supported with such Stories as these.  
And here you deal with me, as the man did who challenged his enemy into the field, but when he came to the place appointed, (for reasons best known to himself) refused to combat, but b●ought two Seconds to maintain his Quarrel, while he stood by as a Judge, to determine concerning the Victory. The Quarrel being begun with you, it is neither valiantly nor reasonably done by you, to sand me into the lists, to encounter with your Seconds: have you a Power of imposing such Tasks upon me? and will you say that my rejoinder is not a sufficient Return unto your Reply, unless I swell it to the Bulk of confuting such large Volumes? be pleased to sand me a brief Account of the Arguments used by your Authors (in whom I perceive the strength of your confidence is fixed) and the more to provoke you, I challenge you to the doing of it; and if I do not refute them, I will than acknowledge them to be (such as you say they are) substantial.  
I leave it now to the Judicious Reader to determine, whether you have performed that enterprise (which you accounted so easy,) of proving the Affirmative of your Queries with substantial Arguments, such as may be convincing to the Non-prejudging Understanding; truly this cannot be done by sending me to Authors, who produce some Testimonies, speaking nothing to your purpose, and who use some arguments, as lame in their Propositions, as the Cause is, which they endeavour to strengthen; if I do wrong your Authors by this imputation, I hope you will vindicate them, by displaying their arguments to be viewed in their greatest strength.  
If you would prove the Affirmative of your Queries thus exactly, you should first set down all the points of Faith, that do belong unto your Religion; and than prove that Austin brought all, and no more into England; and than prove that all, and no more, were maintained by the ancient Britain's; and than that all, and no more were preached by the first Convertors of England: to do all this (without which there can be no substantial Proof made for your Affirmative) you may take a longer time than the Elephant is in bringing forth her young; I believe you may as the Areopagites did with their hard Causes, put it of ad longissimum diem.  
2. You Reply to my Answer made in particular to the first Query; and here you begin to boast, as if my expression had given you an Advantage to improve to my utter Overthrow; you challenge me (with a great measure of Confidence in the impossibility of the work) to produce the Testimony of Gregory, to witness evidently his Doctrine, in any one of the particulars mentioned, to be the same that is maintained by the Church of England; for thus you say.  
Reply.  
Be pleased to show all these foresaid points, nay rather than I should impose too great a task on you, or any one of them all, pick and choose where you please; evidenced out of Gregory's writings, mark beseech you your own word, (evidenced) not wrested by your sinistrous interpretation; be pleased to set down the Saints own words, or at the lest, cite the place where they are to be found, which to do will require in you, a longer time than the Elephant is in bringing forth her young.  
rejoinder▪  
Ante victoriam noli cantare triumphum, let not him that girdeth on his Harness, boast as he that puts it of; I can with ease perform your imposed task. In relation to the Cannon of the Scripture, Gregory expresseth himself thus, Non inordinate agimus, si ex libris licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad Edificationem ecclesiae editi● testimonium proferamus; he speaks of the Book of Maccabees, and can you have a plainer Testimony than this, Greg. mor. l. 19 c. 13. art. 6. here is no need of wresting his words, mark (I beseech you) they are evident for me. Hence your Canus expresseth himself after this manner, Machabeorum libros ab ecclesia recipi Gregorio licuit aliquando disputare, it is plain by the Doctrine of Gregory, that the Book of Maccabees did not belong unto the Canon of Scripture, Can. loc. theol. l. 2. c. 11. whether doth this Doctrine agreed to that of your Church, which denounceth an Anathema to all that will not receive the Book of Maccabees for canonicals Scripture, Con. Trid. Sess. 4. or to that of the Church of England, which excludes it from the Canon.  
By producing this one Testimony out of Gregory, it being as evident as the Sun, I suppose your enjoined Task is sufficiently performed; but because I did undertake to produce his Testimony, for every one of these mentioned particulars, I will bond my Actions according to my▪ own undertaking, not to your imposition.  
Concerning the Sufficiency of the Scripture, Gregory hath these words, in hac volumine, omnia quae erudiunt, cuncta quae edificant, Scripta continentur, in this Book (saith he, speaking of the Holy Scriptures) are contained all things that are necessary for Instruction and Edification. Greg. in Ezek. hom. l. 1. hom. 9  
For the reading of the Holy Scripture, you found him instructing Theodorus, a Physician and Lay person thus; The Holy Scripture is an Epistle sent from God unto his Creature, I pray thee therefore study them, and daily meditate on the words of thy Creator. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 40.  
Of the real Presence you have him venting this expression, Pensemus quale sit hoc sacrificium, quod pro absolutione nostra Passionem filii semper imitatur; Let us consider what kind of Sacrifice this is, that doth imitate the passion of the Son of God for our Absolution; Greg. dial. l. 4. c. 58. He terms the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, but how is it a Sacrifice? by way of Imitation, because it is an imitation of his Passion.  
Against the private Mass you found him ordaining thus, Cumque in eadem Ecclesia missarum solennia celebrarentur, atque ex more Diaconus clamaret si quis non communicet, det locum; When Mass is celebrated in the Church, and the Deacon according to the custom cries out, if any one will not Communicate, Let him departed; Greg. dial. l. 2. c. 13. You see the People by his Command, were not to be idle Spectators, to behold the gestures of the Priest, while he only received the Sacrament, but they that were prepared, were to Communicate with him, and the rest were to departed.  
For the Communion in both kinds, you have him speaking after this manner, You have learned what the blood of the Lamb is by drinking, not by hearing; Greg. the cons. didst. 2. It seems than there was Drinking used in the Administration of the Sacrament; if you will believe the Centurists (whom your Apologist hath brought forth as witnesses in your own cause) they will tell you, this is the opinion they entertained concerning him, in relation to this particular, de caena domini recte docet Gregorius, the Doctrine that Gregory delivered concerning the Lords Supper is true, Cent. 6. de Greg. I have the testimony of your Apologist on my side for this, he tells you that Austin brought into England with his other Utensils, Chalices and Pots; for what use think you, did he bring them? Your Suares will determine this; In the former days (says he) when the Sacrament was administered in both kinds, besides the Priest's Cups, there were others to be employed only for the use of the People, Tom. 3. disp. 81.  
Against the Merit of good Works you have him speaking thus, I grow unto Eternal Life, not by the Merit of my Works, but by the pardon of my Sins, presuming to obtain that only by the mercy of God, which I do not hope for by my own desert, Greg. in Job. & in Psal.  
Against the Worship of Images, you may read what he said to Serenus, Bishop of Massilia, Though you did well in forbidding the Adoration of them, yet it was inconsiderate Zeal in you, to break down those Historial Pictures, which are set up only for the instruction of the ignorrnt, not for Adoration, Greg. l. 9 Epist. 109. Agrippa speaks this concerning him, It is certain that Gregory allowed not the Worship of Images, Agrip. de van. c. 70.  
What an Enemy he was unto the Pope's Supremacy, yourself will confess, (unless you have steeled your Forehead to maintain an Opinion, contrary to his own express Testimony in many places of his Writings) he calls the Title of Universal Bishop a Title of Novelty, Error, Impiety, Blasphemy, the universal Poison of the Church, contrary to the Ancient Cannons, to St. Peter, to the Holy Gospel, and God himself, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 37. & 39 Pronouncing any one, that shall presume to challenge it, to be the Forerunner of Antichrist; whereupon Cardinal Cusanus saith of him, by the Doctrine of Gregory, no Bishop, except he will be like unto Lucifer in presumption, may bear such Rule, as to make all other Bishop's subject unto him.  
Now give judgement uprightly, speaking, as you are obliged, by convincing Reason (once according to the truth of the Thing, and not according to the groundless affection you bear unto your own Cause) and tell me whether the Doctrine of Gregory in these particulars, be the same with the Doctrine of the Church of England? the matter is so plain, that unless you wilfully shut your eyes against the light, you cannot deny it; go than and divide between Pope Gregory, and his Legate Austin, by saying that they were different in Religion, or else confess ingenuously, that your Religion is not the same, that was brought by Austin into England.  
Notwithstanding all your great brags of Antiquity, the Religion now professed by you, wants so much of the date of Augustine's, that it is no older than the Counsel of Trent, and to make good what I say, I shall lay down these following positions.  
The first is made by Veroon (one of your great Champions) mustering all his Forces for the maintenance of your Religion; he tells you in his Rule of Faith, that that Doctrine is an Article of faith, which hath Divine Revelation, and the Church's Proposition, either by her general practice, or by the definition of a general Council; These two Requisites he makes the formal cause of an Article of Faith.  
The second is this, the Additions of Doctrines for Articles of Faith, which were not Articles of Faith before, unto the Religion formerly professed, doth altar Religion really from what it was. Articles of Faith are the essential parts of Religion, and the addition of more Essentials to a compound, altars the Compound: What is it which changeth Religion from its primitive Constitution? it must be either Additions or Subtractions, either of which being made, the necessary Result is, a real Change in Religion.  
The third is this, by the Council of Trent there were many Doctrines propounded and defined to ● Articles of Faith, which were not Articles of Fait● before; which is proved, because they were not propounded for such by the Church, either by her general Practice, or by the definition of a general Council: that they were not generally practised for such before is clear enough; because they were defined to be such by the Counsel of Trent. For the Definition of a general Council is to correct the want of general Practice, otherwise that definition is unnecessary. If a Doctrine be received by the universal Church for an Article of Faith, what need is there of a general Council to define it to be an Article of Faith? And that they were not defined before, is as clear; for if they were defined before, where was the Infallibility of your Head the Pope? Was it not an Error in him to summon a Council, to perform an unnecessary work, to do that which was done before? and if they were defined before, show me to what Council or Councils, the Council of Trent agrees in all its Definitions: From all this it necessarily follows, that the body of Religion, compacted by the Council of Trent, is not the same that was professed before.  
Whether this Discourse be rational and concluding, I submit to the determination of better Judgements; and how you will avoid the force of it, I desire to know; for I profess myself to be a Learner, and would feign be undeceived in any Opinion maintained by me, that can be proved to be contrary to the Truth: You cry out upon us to show, where our Religion was before Luther, as if it was a Child of his begetting, and never saw the light before he brought it into the world: But we have greater reason to call upon you, and demand where your Religion was before the Council of Trent; until I be convinced by stronger Arguments, than I have found yet in any of your Writers; I will maintain this to be a Truth, that the Religion professed by you, looks not farther towards Antiquity, than unto the late little Council of Trent.  
In the third place, you reply unto the Answer made unto the second Query; and here (I believe) you conceit your main strength to lie; because you have taken such pains in penning a long Discourse, charging me with a vain and malicious Inference, together with two gross and shameful Mistakes: And indeed if the Charge was deserved, there would be some matter of boasting for you; but when I have spoken in my own Defence, I shall desire the Judicious Reader to determine, at whose door the gross mistakes deserve most to be laid, whether at mine or yours?  
The vain and malicious Inference, with which you charge me is, for concluding from the words of Galfridus Monumetensis, that the ancient Britain's would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome; but if you were required to prove, that I made this Inference from his words, you would found but a feeble Argument for it, unless you can prove, that you know every thing that is done by me, or that there is no other Author that speaketh to my purpose: But let this pass, and let us reason a little concerning the force of his words, in what they may freely intimate unto us, without any stress laid upon them; and I doubt not but to make it plain to your own understanding, that you had no reason to say, that the deduction made from his words is vain and malicious.  
Reply.  
You say, he reports the Britain's returning this Answer unto Austin (when he required subjection from them) That they owed no subjection unto him, because they had an Archbishop of their own, to whom they were to subject themselves.  
rejoinder.  
Let me ask you, whether Austin had a Commission to require Subjection from them or not? if you say, he had not, you make him a strange kind of Apostle; while he should have been diligent in employing his utmost endeavours for the Conversion of Pagans', you report him to be exercising of Pride and Ambition, in requiring subjection from them, from whom he was not authorised to require any such thing.  
If you say that he had a Commission, and did not show it; (as indeed there is somewhat in your words to this purpose, you say that you do not read, that he shown any Commission unto them,) but this is but a weak Argument to prove that he did not show it) than you make him guilty of Indiscretion and Uncharitableness in his carriage towards the Britons. Think you that it was any part of Discretion and Charity in Austin, to conceal that which would have sheilded him, from the Imputation of Pride and Ambition, and would have helped to compose the difference between them; if the Britain's acknowledged that to be true, which you say is a Maxim, to wit, that every Christian should be subject to the Bishop of Rome?  
Now choose whether you will brand your Apostle of England (as you style him) with Pride and Ambition, by saying he had no Commission? or with Indiscretion and Uncharitableness, by saying he did not show it? or will grant, that he did show it? I suppose this last mentioned, will be the object of your Choice, rather than you will acknowledge him to be guilty of so great failing as is mentioned, in managing the Trust committed unto him by his Master; and tell me whether it be a vain and malicious Inference, to conclude from the words of Galfridus Monumetensis, that the Britain's returned this Answer unto Austin, that they would have nothing to to do with the Bishop of Rome; if they denied to yield Subjection unto Austin, authorised by the Pope, and knowing him to be authorised to require Subjection from them; this is not only to reject Austin, but also the Bishop of Rome, and to have nothing to do with them both.  
But yet I have not done with you as to this matter: You say, that for any thing the Britain's did know, Austin was sent only to the English: sure you would have the Brittain-Bishops to be mere Idiots: Did they not know that he required subjection from them? And do you think that they would not (as the Scribes and Pharisees demanded of our Saviour) inquire of him, by what authority he did those things, and who gave him that Authority?  
Beda tells us, that Pope Gregory gave him authority to require Subjection from them; Bed. Hist. l. 1. c. 27. And no doubt, had they not known this, that he was sent to them, by one greater than himself for this end; they would not have spent time in disputing Jurisdictions with him; but soon have told him, that he was a proud and pragmattical Fellow, for attempting to domineer over all, and to subject all unto himself, upon his first footing in England: therefore if they dispute Jurisdictions with him, it was (without question) in relation to Pope Gregory, and their own Archbishop, and so their answer was not (as you say) as of men inflamed with Choler for the Injury done by the Saxons; (and pray consider, what justice would have been acted, in being angry with one man for another man's fault) but as of men preferring their own Archbishop, before Pope Gregory, asserting no dependence upon, and owing no Subjection unto him; but owning their own Archbishop as his Superior in relation unto them: wherefore, I say, if I had no other Testimony to produce, but that of Galfrides' Monumetensis, it is sufficient to discharge me from the guilt of a vain and malicious Inference, and to prove, that the ancient Britain's told Austin, that they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.  
But I have other Testimonies to produce; be pleased to search Antiqui. Britain. in Augustin. page 46. and you will found these words, cum Archiepiscopum suum haberent, cui deberent & vellent parere, externo verè Episcopo minimè subjectos fere; is not this plain enough for my purpose? They said they would not be subject to any foreign Bishop; Is not this to say that they would not be subject to the Bishop of Rome, for sure he was a foreign Bishop? your own Baronius terms the Brittain-Bishops Schismatics for this very reason, because they divided from the Church of Rome, and so did not yield subjection unto the Pope. Bar. come. ad ann. 604. num. 65.  
To the second Reason which I used to prove, that the Religion of the ancient Britain's, was not the same with Augustine's, which was this, because they rejected Augustine's Traditions, you reply thus.  
Reply.  
You Believe the Reason, why I did not set down in particular the Traditions rejected by the Britain's, was, because I could not show any one Article of Faith (which unless I do, my objection is nothing to purpose) in which they dissented from Austin.  
rejoinder.  
I perceive you are very credulous, especially where the matter to be believed, hath any tendency to your advantage; otherwise you would not believe this conclusion to be true, that thing is impossible to be done, which is not actually done; but whatsoever this work, of showing Articles of Faith wherein they differed, be possible or impossible, it was not so necessary (as you say it was) for me to do it; a general Proof being sufficient to confirm what I said; and (I am sure) as strong as any Argument used by you to prove the contrary; if you had weighed your own Performance in the balance, you would have found Reason forbidding you, to object this against me; lest you should teach me to retort and say, That I believe the reason why you did not show me any one Article of Faith wherein they agreed, was because you could not; for neither you nor your Author to whom you sent me, hath done any thing like unto this work, and yet this should have been done by you: yea, if you would have proved your Affirmative with an argument any thing like unto substantial, you should have proved in particular, that they agreed in all the Articles of their Faith.  
I am of opinion, that it is as possible for me, to show some Article of Faith wherein they differed, as it is for you to show Articles of Faith wherein they agreed; Histories being equally silent in both: Only it must be necessarily concluded that, because they were all Christians, they agreed in some Principles of Christianity: and on the contrary, because they were disagreeing Christians, why might it not be strongly presumed, that they dissented in others? and why might not my Argument, be able to prove this presumption? but you have rejected it as weak (though, as will appear, you have no reason for it) by which you have obliged yourself to produce a stronger on your side; and whether yours be such, I come now to Examine.  
Reply.  
To prove that they did not differ in any one Article of Faith, first you say, all the Difference that was between them, was only concerning certain tolerable Differences for that time, as namely their Dissent from the use of the Roman Church, in their ministering of Baptism and keeping of Easter,  
rejoinder.  
Was this all the difference that was between them? did you not tell me even now, that they differed in Point of Jurisdiction? you charge me with gross mistakes; let me desire you to reconcile your expressions, to free yourself from the charge of Contradiction; for if you do not here contradict, what you said before, I know not what I say.  
Reply.  
That this was all the difference that was between them; you bring Beda to testify saying, si in his tribus obtemper are mihi vultis, & tum britons confitentur se intellexisse, etc.  
rejoinder.  
Do not you by your Assertion contradict this Testimony? what is the meaning of those words, caetera quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tollerabimus; if Beda's relation be true, and I do understand the Latin he writes, they differed in many particulars, besides those mentioned by you: and what is employed in his other words (tum britons confitentur se intellexisse etc.) it should seem that they differed about the way of Justice; otherwise how could Beda use this expression? and to differ (as you say) about things that are tolerable, is this to differ about the way of Justice? I hope you will not say, that the observation of unnecessary Testimonies, is the way of Justice.  
The Author of the History of great Britain, whom you produce for a Testimony on your side (as you quote him) speaks not for you, but against you; he says the Brittain-Bishops conformed themselves to the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without any difference in any thing specially remembered, save only in the Feast of Easter, and Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism; what means this limitation of special remembrance? doth it not strongly import, that there were other differences between them, that were not remembered and specially remembered; that is (as remembrance is to be understood) fell not into open Debate between them at that time?  
Hollinsheads Words you have not mentioned, therefore all that I say to him is this, that if he speak no more on your side, than Beda or the Author of the History of Great Britain, you have as little reason to quote him, as you had to quote them, that is none at all.  
As to Goodwin in his Catalogue of Bishops; I have searched his sixth page, whither you direct me, and do found there, no such thing as you speak of; but in the 43. Page you will found him speaking directly against you. And because you have quoted him as a Witness for yourself, his Testimony should be of good account with you; his words are these, but their Answer to him was short and peremptory, that they might not submit themselves to him, having an Archbishop of their own. That the Doctrine and Discipline of their Church, they had received from the Apostles of Christ, neither would they change the same, for any man's pleasure whatsoever.  
And whereas you say, that Mr. Fulke affirms, that Austin did at the last obtain the Aid of the British Bishops to the Conversion of the Saxons; if you think this to be a Testimony on your side, you are very much mistaken; for the words do but prove expressly, that they agreed to work together for the Conversion of Pagans', which Consent was not any hindrance, but there might be differences, and great ones too, between them concerning other matters; but if you should strain the words to make them imply, that there was not any difference between them, when they joined together to carry on that good work, yet this was not any impediment to hinder differences between them before.  
Reply.  
Secondly, you say; That by their earnest dissenting about these only smaller matters, is most plainly signified their full agreement in all Articles of Faith; for the Britain's that contradicted him in these smaller matters, would not have been silent, but much more have opposed him in matters of greater Concernment.  
rejoinder.  
You go on still upon that ground, which you have not yet proved to be true, nay, some of the Testimonies produced by you, have proved it to be false; namely, that they dissented only about those matters of smaller Importance, and that the Britain's opposed him only in those matters. I tell you once again from your Author Beda, that they differed in many more and greater matters; search the second Chapter of the second Book of Beda, and you will found him reporting, that Austin told them, that they did many things, contrary to the Practice of the Catholic Church, and that he prayed unto God, that by a Miracle he would be pleased to show, which was the true way unto the Kingdom of Heaven: it seemed they differed about this way, otherwise why would he make this Prayer? And he tells you in the latter end, that they opposed him in all that he said, and sure he said somewhat more unto them, than what concerned those tolerable Differences you speak of; otherwise how could Beda, with any show of Truth, conclude his second Chapter thus, ut etiam temporalis interitus ultionem sentirent perfidi, quod oblata sibi perpetuae salutis concilia spreverant, were your tolerable Differences the Councils of Everlasting Salvation?  
This Argument you borrowed of your Apologist, and he borrowed it from the Author of the three Conversions; and if by earnest dissenting, you mean an open Debating and Disputing, where it is as true as it is false, that they dissented only about those smaller matters; I wonder that you and your Authors should expose such a tottering Argument as this to the view of the Reader, without supporting it with some Reason, to keep it from falling to the ground. It is as if you should reason concerning Michaiah and Zedekiah (of whom you may read in the 18 ch. of the 2 Book of Chronicles) and say they openly dissented only concerning the event of Ahabs going to Ramoth-Gilead, therefore they agreed in all weightier matters; for Michaiah that opposed Zedekiah in this smaller matter of Importance, would never have been silent, but much more have opposed him in a greater matter; but this is to conclude both against Reason and Experience; for the one was a true Prophet, and servant to the God of Heaven, the other a false Prophet & Worshipper of Baal. You and I were in open & actual Debate, concerning only the Determination of the three Queries propounded by you, which (in my judgement) is a matter of small Consequence. I assure you the Determination of them on either side, is not any Article of my Faith; and if it be an Article of yours, I must say, that your Creed is larger than that set forth by Pius the fourth; and yet this open and actual Debate, is no sufficient Argument to prove, that you and I do agreed concerning all greater matters; for you know that we do not.  
Having set forth your Argument to be viewed in its strength, the Reader may judge now, whether yours or mine hath more in it, to establish the Conclusion: notwithstanding all that you have yet said, it may be justly determined, that my Argument taken from the rejection of Augustine's Traditions (which you have so much scorned) is of so great force, that the best resistance you have made against it, is only to say, that it was used to no purpose; for this you have not yet proved; and to let you see more of the strength of it, I shall add this; if the Traditions, that were received by the Britain's, did concern only the tolerable Differences you speak of; was it piously and charitably done of Austin, to threaten them for this Rejection? And could he justly prophecy of their Ruin for it? Did the rejecting of those small matters, deserve so great Revenge at the hands of the Almighty? You must cast an everlasting blot in the face of the Italian Monk, or else you must acknowledge that they opposed him in greater matters; for which (you must say) they deserved to be thus retributed: and farther I say, if Augustine's Traditions agreed to the Doctrine of those Romish Bishops, which were in the time of Laurentius (Augustine's immediate Successor) they were so distasteful, that Bishop Dagamus denied all Communion with the maintainers of them, and refused to eat Bread in the same Inn where they did Lodg. Bed. Hist. l. 2. c. 4. sure this carriage of Dagamus proves, that there were greater differences between them, than those few tolerable ones you have spoken of.  
And now I cannot but take notice of that remarkable Limitation which you do apply unto your tolerable Differences, you say for that time tolerable; will you be pleased to tell me, whether those differences, if happening before, or at any time since, must have the contrary Epithet given unto them, and be said to be intolerable? Can matters of Indifferency by revolution of time change their Natures & become matters of Necessity? Can Circumstances be made Articles of Faith? The Church of Rome is fruitful in bringing forth such and more strange Mutations; but they who prise that benefit of Christian Liberty, which Christ hath purchased for them, will not by owning any such Change, bring themselves again into Bondage: It is true, the command of the Church, doth oblige unto the observance of Circumstances, tending to Decency and Order; but she doth not enjoin the use of them, otherwise than they are, that is, not as necessary, but indifferent; and bears with tender Consciences that scruple to use them, until better Information doth remove the Scruple, and convinceth them of the Conveniency there is, that they should be used.  
To manage your Cause against me with greater Applause, you accuse me in the next place of two gross mistakes. First, in reporting that Austin for the rejection of his Traditions, stirred up the wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent, against the Britain's: to make good your Charge you bring Beda for a Witness, whose words (as you set them down) are these.  
Reply.  
It happened, that the mighty King of the Englishmen Edilfred gathered a great Army, and made a foul slaughter of this unfaithful and naughty People, to wit, the Monks of Bangor; for being now ready to give the onset of the Fight, when he espied the Priests (which came together to pray unto God for their Soldiers Warring) stand a part from the rest in a safe and sure place, he demanded who they were, and to what end they came thither, etc. the cause of their coming thither when King Edilfred had understood, he said, if these men cry and call upon their God against us, truly though they have no Armour, yet they fight against us, therefore he commanded his Soldiers first to assault them. Beda. l. 2. c. 2.  
rejoinder.  
Your Author speaks very contemptibly of the Monks of Bangor, terming them an unfaithful and naughty People; therefore if you think that he speaks Truth, it is strange to me, that you are so earnest in claiming kindred with their Religion; and from his words you conclude, that the Cause of their slaughter, was not the rejection of Augustine's Traditions, but their meeting together to pray for the good success of their Army, and that it was not Ethelbert King of Kent, but Edilfred King of Northumbres that made this slaughter.  
While you are accusing me of a gross Mistake, you attract the same guilt unto yourself, by forcing your Witness to speak what he never intended, and by which you make him to contradict himself; he says (as you pretend) that the Monks were slain for coming together to pray for the good success of their Army; suppose he doth say so, doth he mean that this was the only Cause? no, he cannot mean so; for you confess in the next Paragraph, that he he tells of another Cause, to wit, their Refractoriness in not submitting to the wholesome Council of Austin, and refusing to Join with him in Preaching to the English; by which the Prophecy pretended to be made by Austin was fulfilled: Beda reports him, and (I believe) you accounted him a Prophet; and pray tell me how he could prophesy, that they should suffer death by the English men for this cause, if this was not a Cause of their slaughter? And how will you keep his words from clashing, if you will have him to say, that the only cause was their coming together to pray for the success of their Army?  
The Testimony of your own Witness, should be a full satisfaction unto you, his words are so plain to prove, that there was another Cause of their Slaughter, besides that mentioned by you; but lest you should not suffer his words to have this Influence over you, I shall prove by convincing Reason that there was another Cause. You will acknowledge that there was a cause of Edilfreds' gathering together of an Army, and of his marching against the Britain's; which could not be the Monks coming together to pray for the success of their Army; for he had mustered his Forces, and marched against them, before they came together to pray: It was than something else that was that Cause, and that very cause was the Cause of their Slaughter; for sure he did not march against them, with an Intention to sport with them, but to fight with them; and notwithstanding any thing you have yet said to the contrary, (yea, doth not Beda say as much) that the cause was the refusing of Augustine's Counsel, the rejecting of Augustine's Traditions.  
Let me commend one Memento unto you (it may do you a pleasure, if you will observe it whensoever you shall have occasion to writ of the like subject) which is this: Where there are many different voluntary Agents, working subordinatly for the producing of an Effect, there may be different Ends aimed at in that Production; whence I conclude, though you could number as many final Causes of the slaughter of the Monks, as there were Hands acting in that Tragedy, yet this would not be any argument to prove, that Austin having an hand in it (as I have said) did not look at this end, (to wit) the execution of Revenge for the affront he received from them by the Rejection of his Traditions.  
And what though Beda say, that it was by the command of Edilfred King of Northumber's, that the Monks were slain? Doth he say that he only was guilty of the Slaughter, and that Ethelbert was not there? He lays no such Restriction upon that Action; therefore it is a wonder to me, how you can make that antecedent to bring forth that consequence; this is a strange kind of reasoning to say, Beda makes mention of Edilfred, but says nothing of Ethelbert; therefore Edilfred was the only man that was guilty, and Ethelbert was not there; how much time must I allow you to spend, in seeking for an Argument able to prove this Consequence to be true? Suppose that you and I were travelling towards London together, and it should be reported by one that met with us, that I was travelling that way, but no mention made of your Society; would this be an Argument to prove, that you was not journeying with me? If you expect Historians always to writ the whole Truth, you expect that from them which they do not perform; it is known by experience, that as they are sometimes redundant, speaking more than Truth, so they are oftentimes defective, relating not the whole Truth; therefore notwithstanding any thing expressed by your Witness, Ethelbert King of Kent might be with Edilfred King of Northumber's, and Austin with them both, marching against the Britain's, and present at the slaughter of the Monks, and so they all might have their hands imbrued in the Innocent Blood of that Murdered People.  
Now to prove that (as I said in my Answer) Austin upon the Rejection of his Traditions, did stir up the Wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent against them; and to prove, that though Beda say, that Edilfred was the Murderer of the Monks, Ethelbert was likewise guilty of that Horrid Fact, I have witness to produce as credible as your extolled Beda.  
Amandus Xierxiensis a Friar Minorite tells us, Antiqu. Briton. pa. 48. when the Britain's were Catholics, the Saxons were Gentiles; for the Conversion of whom, blessed Gregory sent Austin and Melitus, who Converted the Saxons; but when Austin, would have brought the Bishops and Abbots of the Britain's by Apostolic Authority, to receive him as Legate, and Preach with him to the English, discord was moved, and so War was raised between the Kings of the Britain's and of the Saxons, who (now being Converted) would have subdued the Britain's unto Austin.  
Galfridus Monumetensis tells you (l. 4. c. 12.) that Dynoot (a man marvellously well learned) by divers Arguments made it appear, when Austin required the Bishops to be subject unto him, that the Britain's owed him no Subjection, therefore. Ethelbert King of Kent (as soon as he saw them refuse to yield obedience unto Austin, and despise his Preaching) stirred up Edilfred and other Princes of the Saxons, to gather a great Army, and go to Bangor, to destroy Dynoot and his Clergy; who taking the City, commanded the Swords of his men to be turned first upon the Monks.  
Thomas Le Grace in his History tells you, That Austin being refused of the Bishops, and others the learned of the Britain's, made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert King of Kent, that forthwith he levied his Power, and marched against them, and slew them in a most cruel manner, having no more regard of Mercy, than a Wolf hath towards a Sheep.  
It is Recorded also in an English Chronicle, that when Austin came and told Ethelbert, that the Britain's would not obey him, that the King was Wroth, and sent to Edilfred King of Northumber's, to come to help to distress the Britain's of Wales; and Austin the Archbishop of Canterbury met with them at Leicester; the King of Leicester was called at that time Brocvale; he being afraid of the two Kings fled out of the Land and never came again; and the two Kings seized all his Lands, and parted them between themselves; afterwards they went towards Wales: The Britain's hearing of them, sent men in their shirts unto them and barefoot to ask Mercy; but they were so cruel, that they had no pity on them.  
Besides these Authorities, I would have you to consider and weigh well the words of Beda, he says, that Austin foretold the Britain's in a threatening manner, that because they would not accept of Peace with their Brethrens, they should have War with their Enemies; and if they would not Preach the doctrine of Life unto the English, they should suffer at their hands the revenge of Death: Was this a Prophecy or not? a Prophecy it could not be, for this was a method of prophesying, never used by any true Prophet: Our Saviour, when he prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem, did not deliver his Prophecy in an ireful and threatening manner, but wept over it: And when the Lord commanded his Prophets, to go and Prophecy against the Children of Israel for their sins, we read, that many of them were loathe to go at first, and all of them, when they did go and Prophecy, did deliver their Message, not in an ireful manner; but rather mourning for, and lamenting the Condition of the People. And how could it be a Prophecy, when (as you say) all the difference that was between Austin and the Britain's, was concerning some tolerable Matters? Can he Prophecy destruction unto them for that which deserved no such Retribution? Any one that hath so much understanding, as to judge of the meaning of the words, will found them importing, that Austin had hatched a design of procuring their Destruction, (and what he purposed he might easily foretell) for the execution of which, he stirred up against them the Wrath of his new Convert Ethelbert King of Kent.  
Reply.  
The other gr●sse mistake with which you charge me is; for affirming that Austin was present at the slaughter of the Monks, which (you say) is impossible to be true, because Fox confesseth that Huntingdon and others affirm, that Austin was dead before, and venerable Beda doth likewise testify the same.  
rejoinder.  
What though Fox doth make that acknowledgement, is this an Argument to prove, that it was so? I have quoted some Authorities that affirm him to be alive than, is not this as strong an Argument to prove, that it was so? As for those words (quamvis ipso jam multo ante tempore ad caelestia regna sublato) pretended to be Beda's words; it hath been often disputed whether they were really his or not, and as often proved that they were none of his; but foisted into his Book to save the credit of the Italian Monk; for in the old Chronicle written by Beda in the Saxon Tongue, there is no such Relation as this to be found, as Archbishop Parker, a famous Antiquary, doth manifest in his book, de antiqui. Briton c. 18.  
It is the will of divine Providence that you should speak Truth, while you are acting with your whole might to conceal it; for your own Expression furnisheth me, with a demonstrative Argument to prove, that he was alive than: You produce Dr. Fulke testifying, that he did obtain at length the aid of the Britain's in Preaching to the Saxons, whose Testimony you cannot deny, because you have produced him as a Witness for yourself in this matter: let me ask you than, whether it was before or after the slaughter of the Monks, that he obtained this Aid? Before it could not be; for had it been before, how could Austin threaten the revenge of Death to fall upon them, because they would not Preach the way of Life unto the Saxons? It must than be after the slaughter of the Monks, when the Britain's had been sufficiently beaten to it; Austin than was alive after the slaughter of the Monks, for sure you will not say, that (when he was dead) he with the Britain's Preached for the Conversion of the Saxons.  
To convince you more of the Certainty of this Truth (that Austin was alive at the time of the slaughter of the Monks) be pleased to take notice of the Chronicle of some remarkable passages relating to those times. In the year 596. Austi● arrived in England Pol. virg. 4. l. In the year 604▪ he Consecrated Mell●tus Bishop of London, and Justus Bishop of Rochester, Beda l. 2. c. 3. In the year 605. the Wars were maintained against the Britain's, and the Monks slain at Bangor, as is found in the Saxon Chronicle of Peterborough. I● the year 608. Austin died as Matheus Westmonasteriensis says, but as Pol. Vir. Affirms, l. 4. he died in the year 610. By this it appears plainly to him that hath but half an eye, that Austin was alive a long time after the slaughter of the Monks.  
If yet your Will be not sufficiently wrought upon, to receive this for a Truth, do but repai● unto the defence of the Apology of the Church of England, written by the learned and reverend Bishop of Sarum pag. 439. where you will found the copy of a Charter, granted by Ethelbert King of Kent to the Abbey of St. Peter of Canterbury▪ and witnessed by Austin in the year 605. which is the year wherein the Monks were slain at Bangor, which surely will carry you out of the compass of all Doubts; and, if you be not settled in a resolution to oppose the Truth, will persuade you to believe, that Austin was alive at the forementioned time.  
Now where are the gross Mistakes, with which you charge me, are they not vanished into nothing? And the guilt of Mistaking, lies at your own doors, for bringing a Charge against me, for which you had no other Reason, but your own vain Imagination.  
And the Mistakes being vanished, that detractive Deduction you make from them, rebounds strongly against yourself, to use your own expression, they that have the lest scantling in the knowledge of Antiquity, cannot but laugh at your Confidence in building where you have not ground to lay a Foundation, and will take notice how fruitfully disposed you are, in bringing forth mere Fictions.  
Reply.  
To my Answer to the third Query you reply thus: I can scarcely believe, that the world is so Lunatic in the affairs of Antiquity, for if you will take the pains to peruse the beginning of the foresaid book, entitled, the Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, you will see that these things came within the Cognizance of the Author thereof, and withal found substantial proof for the Affirmative of the said Question, which may convince a non prejudging Understanding.  
rejoinder.  
I answered for myself, taking you with me by the right hand of Fellowship, saying that neither you nor I was able to determine this Query certainly on either side, and shown a Reason for it: You reply that you believe the world is not so lunatic in the affairs of Antiquity; but had you replied to purpose, instead of sending me to your Author to seek for Arguments; you would have produced Arguments to voided the force of my Reason; which being not done, it stands firm against you, and will stand against all Opposition; being there are no Records to inform us, what were the particular Tenets maintained by the ancient Britain's; neither you, nor I, nor any Man in the World, is able to make a certain Determination on either side.  
But what mean you by the World; if you mean the World, taken Divisim, that is every particular person in the World, I have cause to suspect you of Lunacy, for employing your Faith after this manner: Do you think, that every particular Person in the world, is able to make a certain Determination of this Query? if so, I expect to hear of some proof for it; for the proof you have here produced, is too scant to bear any proportion to that Latitude; if you could prove, that the Author, to whom you sand me, was able to do this, it would be but a pitiful Argument to prove, that every particular Person in the World, was able to do so too.  
If by the World you understand some little Parcel of the World, and do take your Author to be that parcel, you bring the World into a very little Compass; and yet you have not proved this World to be able to make that determination: If any such Ability was in him, he hath hid his Light under a Bushel, and kept it from the sight both of me and you; you have not mentioned any of his Arguments, which is an argument to prove, that you did not see any; and I have searched his Book, and do think myself to be as quicksighted as you are, yet I cannot found any; not, not any thing in all his Book like unto an Argument to prove, that the Religion of the ancient Britain's, was the same with the Religion of the primitive Church of England.  
But while you stickle thus peremptorily for a Determination of this Query in the Affirmative, you do not consider, how you are working to the great discredit of the Italian Monk; for if the ancient Britain's did conform in every particular to the primitive Pattern, how can he be freed from the guilt of heinous Presumption, in presaging Destruction unto a People, that were more pure in their Profession, than both Austin and Pope Gregory; as if he had the Arrows of God's Wrath at his own dispose, to shoot against a People when he pleased; and was it not high Injustice in him to presage Destruction unto a People, that for their Profession, according to your tenet of Merit, were so far from deserving to be retributed with Destruction, that they deserved to be crowned with happiness.  
Here you make an end of your Reply, and such as your beginning was, such is your ending; I found you here likewise guilty of Tergiversation; you have turned your back upon the Answer made unto your cautional Conclusion; which I must make bold to bring into your remembrance, until you refute it with some stronger Arguments, than to say it was Impertinent, and that your meaning was mistaken.  
I told you by your Caution, included in your Conclusion, you intimated yourself to be a● Abettor of this Position, that a difference made between Religions by Ceremonies, is to no purpose, therefore I desired to know to what purpose you used your multitudes of strange and ridiculous Ceremonies; if you replied, that Ceremonies are to no purpose, as to the making of a real Difference; I told you that when the Composition of Religion is made, part of necessary Truth●, part of superstitious Ceremonies: when the use of Ceremonies is converted into Acts of Religion: when it is maintained, that de fide they must be used, because without the use of them, neither God is duly Worshipped, nor Religion truly exercised: This change by Ceremonies altars Religion really from its primitive Constitution; and I desired to know what you can say in the behalf of your Religion, to prove that it is not such a Composition.  
It is easy to make Replies, when Liberty is taken of speaking to some particulars only, such as have lest strength in them to make Resistance, and of passing by all the rest upon feigned pretensions; but you must not think, that Truth will be trodden down, and Error supported by such pitiful shifts as these; our Religion (I hope) as yet hath lost no part of its Lustre and Beauty, by my management of the present Controversy; and what your Religion hath gained to cover its Deformity by your handling of the business, let the indifferent Reader judge. Without doubt you sent your Queries abroad with a purpose to improve them to this end; but let the Reader search your Reply, as strictly for your advantage, as Diogenes sought for an honest man, and let him say whether there be any thing to be found like unto an Argument, having the lest tendency unto this.  
The greatest part of your Discourse is framed, concerning the Cause of Augustine's Rejection made by the Britain's, and Edilfreds' murdering of the Monks, and Augustine's Decease before the acting of that Murder; and if all that ye have said concerning these things, had been as true, as it is false; what Arguments could you patch together out of it, for the maintaining of your Religion; if you have not better a Storehouse elsewhere, (as I have cause to believe you have not) I do not wonder, that you keep a Veil over the faces of your People, to hinder them from looking into the Holy Scriptures; if they had Liberty to use those eyes to see, and understandings to judge, which God hath bestowed upon them, they would soon discover the vanity of your erroneous Religion.  

A Reply unto the Answer made by N. G. unto the three Queries propounded unto him.  
HAving ended your Reply to the Answer made unto your Queries, you proceed to Answer the Queries propounded unto you, and to the first you answer affirmatively, Confessing that God is to have the whole Glory of the work of man's Salvation; but (you say) you deny the sinistrous consequence that is hence inferred, therefore no●● Merit of good Works.  
Reply.  
The Deduction you make is not answerable in latitude to the strength of the Antecedent; for it concludes more against you, it throws down not only the Merit of good Works, but also many other groundless Positions maintained by you: But because you have made mention only of this opinion, I will not here show the utmost bounds of its Strength, but will confine myself to this task, to examine the device you use to make these two consistent; good Works to have merit in them, and God to have the whole glory of the work of man's Salvation.  
Answer.  
You say, Though there be no Insufficiency in the actions or passions of Christ the head, yet his Wisdom Will and Justice requireth and ordaineth, that his body and members should be fellows of his passions, as they look to be fellows of his Glory; that so suffering with him and by his Example, they may apply to themselves and to others, the general medicine of Christ's Merits and Satisfactions, as it is also effectually applied unto us by Sacraments; the one sort being no more injurious to Christ's death, nor consequently hindering him of the whole Glory of the Work of Man's Salvation, than the other: Notwithstanding your vain Clamours, that under pretence of Christ's passions, take away the value of Good Works; if you please to peruse St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians C. 1. V 24. You may see how the Apostle taught and practised this Doctrine.  
Reply.  
You must mean, that the Will and Wisdom and Justice of Christ, requireth passions in his Members, to merit the application of the merits of Christ; otherwise your whole discourse is impertinent, to the thing you undertook to speak of; for you undertook to speak of Merit; and it seems you would have me to receive for a Truth, upon your own bore Word, all that you do say; for you have not showed, where this Wisdom and Will of Christ is revealed, and what Law there is for this act of Justice; not, nor discovered the lest hint of Reason to prove it.  
You quote the Apostle to the Colossions. C. 1. V 24. but I wonder that you are not ashamed of the Impertinency of the Quotation; let his words be set upon the tenter hooks, yet they cannot be extended to include this sense in them; here is not any thing of Merits in them, or of the Application of the Merits of Christ, or of meriting that Application, or that the Will and Wisdom and Justice of Christ requires passions for this end.  
The Apostle tells the Colossions, that He suffered for them, but his meaning is this; to encourage them to suffer by his Example, and to confirm the Truth of that Doctrine he delivered unto them: and he says likewise that by his sufferings he filled up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh; from which expression is to be gathered, that there is a certain measure of sufferings, which the Members of Christ are appointed to undergo, to which the malice of Hell cannot add to make it more, and the Apostle had his measure determined for him, to the filling up of which, the sufferings he here speaks of, conduced.  
He terms them the afflictions of Christ, because they were laid upon him for Christ's sake, and by them he was made conformable unto Christ, and because there is such a near relation between Christ and his Members, that what is done unto them, he accounts as done unto himself. And he says moreover, that the filling up of this Measure, was for the sake of Christ's Church, that by his Courage and Constancy in suffering, he might draw some unto the Truth, and so increase the Church according to that saying, Sanguis Martyrum est semen Ecclesiae: and to confirm others in the Truth, and so as a Instrument to help to establish the Church; This (without doubt) is the meaning of the Apostle; and if you will believe Lyranus and Anselmus, you will take the word in this sense; so that here is nothing to prove that strange Doctrine which you deliver; here is nothing but your bore Affirmation for it, therefore I might justly sand it away with a bore Negatur, until you found an opportunity to produce some better Arguments; Yet I shall bestow some Animadversions on it.  
First, You cast an intolerable Slander upon us, while you say upon pretence of Christ's Passions, we take away the value of Good Works. No Sir, we do not maintain any Opinion detractory from that price, we are warranted to set upon them; we maintain them for necessary uses; they will be the Rule of Proportion, according to which, we shall have our Reward meted unto us, for the Lord will reward every one according to his Works. We must have good Works to testify the truth of our Faith; for Faith without Works is dead. We must be full of good Works, to witness our Thankfulness unto God for benefits received: if we have not this Witness to produce, upon examination we shall be found an ungrateful People; and we must be fruitful in bringing forth of good Works, to give a good Example to our Brethrens; for in this sense we are our brethren's Keepers: But we will not maintain with you, that we must have good Works to merit by them at the hands of God.  
Secondly, You confounded Actions and Passions; you speak here of the Passions of the Members of Christ, notwithstanding you have undertaken to speak of good Works; though they be really different, and sometimes you speak of them as such; yet here you make them one and the same thing: Indeed it is a point of Policy, necessary to be observed by the Abettors of Errors, to be mutable and movable, to change, and to pass from one thing to another; that when they are hunted from one Refuge, they may have another Hole to creep into; and when one Card fails of winning the Game, they may have another ready to Play.  
Thirdly, You have, with your own hands, pulled down that ruinous Fabric, which your Intention was to support. For first you say, There Is no Insufficiency in the Actions and Passions of Christ. Hence it necessarily follows, That there is no Merit in the passions or actions of the Members of Christ: If Christ's Merits be sufficient, there is no need of any other Merit; and if there be no need of any other Merit, than there is no other Merit: If you deny the truth of this Consequence; you had best provide a substantial Argument ready to prove, that Christ requires that of his Members which is needless; for this proof will be required from you.  
2. You say, That the Justice of Christ requires Passions in his Members; therefore it necessarily follows, that there is not any Merit in the Passions of his Members: Justice, when it acts, looks at Man's desert; therefore, if it require Passions in them, those Passions must be laid upon them, upon the ground of their Desert. And sure you will confess, that Sufferings are evil in themselves; it is than for some Evil of Sin acted by them, that the Evil of Sufferings is laid upon them; and pray let me hear of a substantial Argument to prove, that Suffering for Sin doth merit the application of the Merits of Christ: This would be good News for the Wicked in this World; yea, for the Damned in Hell.  
Fourthly, Your Expressions are cloudy, therefore you are desired to come out of the dark. And First tell me what you mean by Fellows of Christ's Sufferings: The Prophet Isaiah Prophesying of the Suffering condition of Christ in the World, delivers himself after this manner, in chap. 53. ver. 23, & 24. He hath no Form nor Comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no Beauty that we should desire him; he is despised, and rejected of Men, a Man of Sorrows, and acquainted with Grief; and answerable to this Prophecy his condition was: If you mean, that all his Members are to be in the like Suffering Condition, while they are in the World; tell me how this can consist with that which (you say) is one Mark of the Church, to wit, outward Prosperity, Lustre, and Beauty.  
Secondly, Tell me what you mean, when you say, That the Members of Christ are to suffer, that they may apply to themselves, and to others, the general Medicine of Christ's Merits and Satisfactions, as it is effectually applied unto us by Sacraments; do you mean, that there is Merit in the Use of the Sacraments? This must be your meaning, or else you do not make your Comparata to agreed to do you Service: And being that the holy Spirit works in the Use of the Sacraments, for the Application of the Merits of Christ, by making a tender of them, and by begetting of Faith to receive them; Do you mean, that the holy Spirit works, after the same manner, in the Passions of the Members of Christ? If you mean all this, where are your Arguments to prove all this to be true? I cannot discover here, so much as the shadow of an Argument; and until you produce some Proofs to confirm all this to be true, the Argument drawn from your Similitude, to prove that the Merit which (you say) is in Passions, doth not hinder Christ of any part of the Glory of Man's Salvation, is so weak in its Loins, that it is not able to bring forth your Conclusion.  
Thus you argue, The Merit of Passions doth not more hinder Christ of any part of the Glory of Man's Salvation, than the Use of the Sacraments; but the Use of the Sacraments doth not hinder Christ of any part of the Glory of Man's Salvation, Ergo, etc. Your Major is a most false Assertion: In relation to the hindrance of Christ's Glory, there is not the same working, or reason for working in both the things you speak of: The Sacraments are no hindrance to Christ's Glory, because there is not any Merit in the use of them; for the use of them is a Duty, and our Saviour tells you, (Luke chap. 17. ver. 10.) that there is not any Merit in the Performance of a Duty. Besides, they are outward Means instituted by Christ, for this very end, The Application of the Merits of Christ, and so the whole Glory of the Work of Grace, that is wrought in the use of them, redounds unto him; but you maintaining Passions to Merit the application of the Merits of Christ, and these being no Means appointed by Christ, for the working of this end, do hinder Christ of the Glory due unto him: If you say they be Means, be pleased to show me the Institution of Christ for it.  
Truly Sir, howsoever you judge of the matter, to say, that Passions do Merit the application of the Merits of Christ, is to say, that the Redemption wrought by Christ is not free; and to say, that there is any Merit but in Christ, is to say, that the Merit of Christ is not sufficient; both which are so great an hindrance to his Glory, that they are perfect Blasphemy.  
And moreover, though the means that are instituted by Christ, are no hindrance to his Glory; yet the means that are made by the invention, and device of Man, are an Hindrance in an high measure; for they speak a distrust in his Wisdom, as if he was not wise enough to prescribe an effectual Method, for the application of that Remedy, which is provided to Cure Man's Disease; and they exalt Man's Wisdom above its reach. He was so foolish, as to Destroy himself; but he was not so wise, as to found out a way for his Recovery: It is God that bestows Salvation freely upon Man; and it is He that fits him with a Capacity to receive Salvation; which Work, he performs after that manner which he hath appointed, and revealed in his Word; not after that manner, which vain Man doth invent, by the working of his foolish Imagination.  
Fifthly, You maintain two gross Absurdities here, one of them is mentioned already, and part of its absurd nature shown, and more of it will be showed now: First, that Passions do Merit the application of the Merits of Christ: the Apostle Paul teacheth you other Doctrine, (Romans c. 8. v. 18.) That the sufferings of this life, are not worthy to be compared unto the glory which shall be revealed in us. If they be not worthy to be compared unto that Glory, they are not worthy of the Receipt of it; and if they be not worthy to receive it, they do not merit the Application of those Merits, which purchased that glory.  
Reason itself will convince you of this, that Passions cannot be meritorious of the application of the Merits of Christ; not, nor so much as a disposed Capacity to receive them; for if they be either way for the application of the Merits of Christ, they must be previous (at lest in order of nature) unto that Application; but this they cannot be, for there can be no suffering as a member of Christ before man be made actually a member of Christ, (if he suffer before, (he suffers but as a natural man) and man cannot be actually a member of Christ, before this application be made; for it is the Application of the merits of Christ, that makes him actually a member of Christ; therefore this Application must needs be before those Passions, and than how can they be for the application of the merits of Christ, either by way of merit to deserve them, or of Capacity to receive them: Say not now, that after the Application is made, Passions do merit a continuance of the Application; for upon the grounds that it is first made, upon the same it is continued, and that is only the love and mercy of God unto poor miserable man.  
Your second great Absurdity is, that the memmers of Christ by Passions, do not merit only for themselves, but also for others: Where did you take up this Doctrine? I am sure you did not found it in the Trent-Creed; therefore this being an Article of your Faith, I question now, whether the Religion you do profess, be as old as the Council of Trent?  
Is there so much redundancy of virtue in the passions of a member of Christ, that besides what is necessary for himself, he hath some to spare for others; are you wiser than the five wise Virgins, of whom we read in the Gospel, they told the foolish, that they had no Oil to spare to lend them? And dare you thus contradict the Holy Spirit, who tells you, that the Lord will reward every one according to his work? Math. 16. 27. And that every one must bear his own Burden. Gal. 6. 5. And that the Righteousness of the Righteo● shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself, Ezek. 18. 20.  
I would feign know, who these others are, to whom the Passions of a member of Christ will be thus profitable; they cannot be the members of Christ; for you say, that the Will and Wisdom, and Justice of Christ, requires that they should have Passions of their own, for the application of the merits of Christ unto themselves; and these others cannot be such as are not Members of Christ; sure you will not say, that the servants of Satan have the Merits of Christ applied unto them; it must remain therefore, that these others are some Ideas, that are subsisting no where, but in your own Imagination.  
The Apostle tells you, that Heresy is like unto a Gangreen; take heed that you be not infected with this Disease, your extolling of Actions and Passions above your Warrant, hath multiplied into many dangerous Opinions, and take heed that it eat not up all Faith; for if it once grow to that Malignity, it is not your own Passions or Actions, nor the Passions or Actions of other men, that will procure the application of the Merits of Christ unto your soul.  
After you have spent some breath in speaking of Passions, you convert your speech unto Actions, and than presently you return to passions again. It seems that you are somewhat like unto Noah's Dove, hardly finding any rest for the soles of your Feet; you are doubtful where you should fix your Opinion of Merit with greatest certainty, and there is great reason for this; for I am persuaded, that if this Query were propounded to you, Whether passions or actions have more of Merit in them? there is so little in either, that to determine this, you would require as long a time as the man took, that undertook to teach an Ass to speak.  
Answer.  
Thus you express yourself; neither do I see what pretence you can have to affirm, That the Merit of good Works hindereth God of the whole glory of the work of man's Salvation, seeing the said Merit is the pure gift of God, and no lesle his than his own; for not only those passions which Christ suffered in himself, which were fully ended at his Death, and were abundantly sufficient for the Redemption of the World, and of all Sins: But also those which his body and members suffer are Christ's also, because of him they receive the Condition, Quality, and Force, to be Meritorious.  
Reply.  
Here are some expressions liable to Exception, while you say, That the passions of Christ are abundantly sufficient for the Redemption of the world, and of all sins; what Interpretation can you make of the latter words, as they are used in Coherence with the former? they cannot be explicatory of the former, because the former are more plain; and if you will have them to signify somewhat that is not in the former, when you writ again, be pleased to inform me, what it is: The world is Redeemed from Sin; but how the world can be said to be Redeemed, and all sin too, I do not well understand.  
Nor do I apprehended to what purpose you have penned this Discourse, telling me, That not only those Passions, which Christ suffered in himself, which were fully ended at his Death, etc. I have looked upon the Words with as much favour as you can desire, to improve them to your Advantage, and yet they fail in my eyes of attaining that end. They relate unto these Words, and no lesle his, than his own: Do you mean that the Merit which he gives unto Good Works, is no lesle his, than the Merit of his personal Actions and Passions? If you mean this (as I suppose you do) for as much as I can perceive, there is no more Coherence between these Words and the following, than there is between the Poak full of Plumbs, and your Way to London, of which you tell me: If you can prove that I do wrong your Words, by imputing this unto them; I must say (what you do often say) that I have Mistaken your meaning.  
But howsoever it be, you maintain here two False Positions:  
1. That Christ gives Merit unto the Passions of his Members.  
2. That because of this Merit which he gives unto those Passions, they are his Passions: The one is the ground of the other; and if the Foundation be sandy, the Superstructure must fall.  
And that it is so, and that both these Positions fall together, I shall prove, in answering that Argument, which you do here use to prove, That the Merit, which you pretend to be in Good Works, doth not hinder God of any part of the glory of Man's Salvation.  
Thus you Argue, That which God gives, is no hindrance to his Glory: But God gives the Merit that is in Good Works, Ergo, etc.  
Your Mayor Proposition you have left naked, without any proof; Yet in my conceit, it is so weak, that it stands very much in need of this support: The thing that is given by God, admits of a twofold Consideration: It may be considered as given by God, or as employed by. Man. And as employed by Man, you must grant that it may be an hindrance to God's Glory; unless you will say, That man cannot Mis-imploy it, which, I hope, you will not do. God gives Meat, and Drink, and Richeses to the Sons of Men, and yet you know that these things are Abused sometimes unto his Dishonour.  
So I may say of that Merit, which you pretend to be in good Works; if I should grant, that there is Merit in them, and that this Merit is given by God; yet if you should mis-imploy this, by trusting in it for the Salvation of your Souls, (whereas your whole confidence is to be placed in the Merits of Christ, which are the fruit of his personal Actions and Passions) that Merit pretended by you to be in good Works, would be an hindrance to his Glory.  
Your Assumption is this, that God gives Merit unto good Works: Being that you say so, (though such a Novice as I am, is not fit to give advice to such a Gamaliel as you are, yet) vouchsafe to be persuaded by me this once: Undeceive that poor people, over whom you have undertaken a Charge; tell them that all Merit belongs unto Christ; for you say, that the merit which is in good works in his Gift: tell them that the best of the Sons of men have not any merit of their own, neither for themselves, nor for others; for this is a necessary Consequence of that which you say; that the Merit of good Works is Christ's Gift, and Christ's Merit: by this means you may be more instrumental for the health of their souls, than as yet (I fear) you have been: I am of this opinion, that many poor souls have been deceived, in their hope of Salvation, by your maintaining of the Merit of good Works: for being ignoant of that Curiosity, which you have conceived in your breast, and expressed here, and so not skilful enough to distinguish between their own Ability and Gift, but ascribing that to themselves for their works, which (you say) is God's Gift; while they thought to fly into Heaven, by the Wings of their own Merit, (it being unfit, and unable for that service) fell down to the Chambers of Death.  
But I must not suffer your Assumption to pass thus; you left it as naked as your Major, though it stands in need of help, as much as any proposition that you have made; for it is a most false Assertion, God gives not merit unto good Works; not, nor to the passions of the members of Christ; the glory of meriting belongs only unto Christ; he humbled himself for it, he suffered for it, he died for it; and what he gained at so dear a rate, and is due unto him upon that account, will not be given unto another; you have a plain testimony for this in the Prophet Isaiah, I am the Lord, (says God) that is my Name; my Memorial will I not give unto another, nor my Praise unto graven Images, Isa. ch. 24. ver. 8. His Glory he will not give unto another. What other? Neither to Saints, nor to Angels, nor to Actions, nor to Passions, nor any thing else: The Apostle Paul preacheth this Doctrine, he tells you that because of the Humiliation, Sufferings and Death of Christ, There is a Name given unto him above every Name; Phil. chap. 2. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. How than can the name of Merit be ascribed unto Actions and Passions as well as unto him, and as much as unto him? for pray consider, whither (while you say that Passions do merit the application of the merits of Christ) you do not ascribe as great a name of merit unto passions, as you do give unto him; I am sure, to merit the benefits of the Merits of Christ, is to merit all that Christ hath merited for us: And consider well likewise, whether any Actions or Passions of men be capable to receive this.  
Because you have so little to say for Merit, and by that device which you use for the maintaining of that opinion, you are compelled to confess, that the head of that Stream is Mercy; for you say that God gives merit unto good Works, and to Passions, (that gift must be wholly out of Mercy, without any previous Merit); methinks you should be easily persuaded to leave talking of Merit, and to cry up Grace, Grace, Mercy, Mercy, only; this is via tuta, the safe way; for it is mercy only that is the saving help of miserable sinners.  
Answer.  
To the second you answer likewise Affirmatively; but withal you say, you deny the sinistrous Consequence hence inferred, therefore we must not pray unto Saints; for (say you) it doth no more derogate from Christ's whole glory of mediating for Sinners, to pray unto Saints in Heaven, than to pray unto Saints upon Earth: if it do, pray show me the Disparity; and yet your prayers unto the faithful upon Earth, doth not at all derogate from Christ's whole glory; witness the practice of St. Paul in this point, Rom. chap. 15.  
Reply.  
Here is a wondered position maintained by you; to wit, that Saints on Earth are invocated and prayed unto: Is not prayer an act of religious Worship; and is that Worship performed unto any Mortal? It is true, there is a course of civil Entreaty sometimes used to gain from mortals the Object that is desired; so Kings and Princes, and other great persons are petitioned; and so the Apostle Paul doth request the Romans: (it is not an act of religious Worship that he performs, but an act of civil entreaty) but that the incense of prayer is offered up unto any mortal, is a thing that I never heard of before.  
That you should pray unto them, rather than to dumb Pictures and Statues, there is great reason; because they resemble the Creator and Saviour of the World, more than any Picture or Statue made by an Artificer: but if you do practise this, you are the first that I heard of, using this Practice; and I must tell you, that your praying to Saints upon Earth, and your praying to Saints in Heaven, are both dishonourable to the Saviour of the World; for you ascribe unto them that worship which is due only unto God: God is styled, the God that hears Prayer, therefore to him aught all flesh for to go, Psal. 65. ver. 2. And though you do not pray unto them directly for Grace or Glory, but only for the benefit of their mediation; yet you make them to share in that Glory, which is wholly due unto Christ; for he is the only Mediator between God and Man, 1 Tim. chap. 12. ver. 5. And besides, you maintaining this needful to be done, do detract from the sufficiency of the Mediation of Christ; if his mediation be sufficient for a Sinner, the Mediation of Saints is needless; but if theirs be needful, than is not his sufficient.  
That we are commanded to desire the Prayers of the Faithful upon Earth, I grant; but this desire is not expressed by an Act of Religious Worship, such as Prayer is; but by an act of civil Request; which civil Request cannot be made to the Saints in Heaven; because we (wanting the liberty and conveniency of a near Converse) have not an opportunity for it; they are in patriâ, we in viâ; they are in Heaven, we on the Earth; we do enjoy that Communion and Society with the Saints upon Earth, which we have not with the Saints in Heaven: Your own Schoolmen are uncertain, how they do hear Prayers, therefore they are not certain, that they do hear them; nay, they may be certain, that they do not hear them; for they are ignorant of the affairs of the World: Abraham (says the Prophet) is ignorant of us, and Israel doth not acknowledge us, Isa. chap. 63. ver. 16.  
It is a wonder to me, that you dare be so bold, as to maintain this Assertion (having not the lest shadow of Proof for it); where is there an Injunction, or Precedent for it? Search the Book of God, from the Alpha of Genesis, to the Omega of the Revelations; yet you will not found the lest jota to this purpose.  
Much there is to be found against it; God bids you to call upon Him, and Christ bids you to come unto Him; and Christ hath taught you when you pray, not to say, Sancte Petre ora pro nobis, or Sancte Paule ora pro nobis, etc. but to say, Pater noster, qui es in Caelis, etc. Psal. 50. ver. 15. Mat. c. 11. v. 28. And sure you will not say, That Saints are to be believed in; you do not found this to be an Article of Faith in the Apostles Creed; and than the Apostle asks, How can you call upon him, in whom you have not believed? Rom. c. 10. v. 14. But if th' 〈…〉 was nothing else to be said against it, this would be a sufficient Confutation: God is not like unto an earthly 〈◊〉, who doth not know the Grievance of his Subject, before he be informed; nor will afford Relief, before he be entreated; to whom, Access cannot be obtained, but by the use of Doorkeepers, and the Mediation of Servants and Favourites. God seeks us, before we seek unto him; and calls upon us, before we call unto him; and is more willing to give, than we to ask; and more ready to hear us, than we are to pray unto him: And the reason why we do pray unto him, is not to instruct him in the knowledge of our Wants; but to obey his Command, and to own him for our Helper, and to express our desire to receive Help from him.  
Because you maintain this Assertion, that The Saints in Heaven are to be prayed unto, I shall make bold to propound some Questions to you.  
First, Whether they are moved to intercede by a feigned Prayer, as well as by that which proceeds out of unfeigned Lips? If not, How can they distinguish between them? Can they (as God doth) search the Heart and the Reinss?  
Secondly, Whether all are to be prayed unto? If not, Why to some, and not to the rest? If they be, Whether in general, or in particular, by name? If but in general, Why do you pray unto some in particular? If in particular, Whether you know the number, and names of all? And, Whether to pray to some by name, and not to the rest after the same manner, be 〈◊〉 to have respect of persons?  
Thirdly, Whether all have an equal Prevalency in interceding? If not, but differently proportioned, according to their different measure of (as you say) Merits; Whether it be not the wisest practice to pray unto them, that have the greatest Prevalency? And that you may not be deceived in the use of this Practice, What mark of Distinction have you to know them by?  
Fourthly, Whether the Mediation of Christ be not more prevalent, than the Intercession of all? If it be, we being assured, that Christ sits at the Right Hand of God, making Intercession for his own People, whether it be not needless upon this ground, to pray unto them?  
I could propound many more, but these shall suffice: When you Writ again, I hope you will say somewhat tending to a Resolution of them, because this is very necessary for the better understanding, and practising of this your Article of Faith.  
To the Third Query ●our Answer is also Affirmative, but you do not make mention of any (as you speak) sinistrous Deduction from it; nor shall I show here, what Conclusions may be drawn thence, to be levelled against your Religion: my Task being to Reply, I shall speak not more, than you give me occasion to say; but shall let that work alone, until Providence fit me with another opportunity.  
But here I must take Notice of your Expressions, how fully (as I do conceive) they do reveal your mind: You say, That you are great in expectation to see me improve these Queries, to the demolishing of your Religion; and yet you think to place a Remora in my way, by imposing a Task, and prescribing of Rules, which (you say) I am bound in Honour to observe. Thus you deal with me as King Saul dealt with David, upon condition of bringing an hundred Foreskins of the Philistines, promising his Daughter to Wife: but though he pretended this outwardly, he intended no such thing; but that the condition should be a perfect hindrance to his Promise.  
How my Strength will deal with your Task, and your Rules, I cannot foretell; but however it prove, I will attempt an Encounter with them:  
To the First, I have, out of Gregory's Writings, not sinistrously interpreted, but plainly quoted, proved that his Doctrine agrees with the Doctrine of the Church of England, in all the forementioned Particulars.  
To the Second, When you do show me a particular Article of Faith, wherein they agreed, and prove that Agreement by express, and good Authority; I shall show you particular Articles of Faith, wherein they differed; until than, it will be judged by any indifferent Arbitrator, sufficient to tell you from your Author Beda, That they differed about the way of Justice, the way to Heaven; and so great were there differences, that Austin Judged them worthy of Death.  
To the Third, When I say, that the Monks were not slain by Edilfred King of Northumber's, I will produce a substantial proof for it; I have proved, that they were slain by Ethelbert King of Kent, and that by the instigation of Augustin the Monk, who was present at the Slaughter: My Affirmation, that they were slain by Ethelbert, doth no more exclude Edilfred, than Beda's Affirmation, that Edilfred was the Murderer, doth exclude Ethelbert from having an hand in the Slaughter; and that this may sink into your Understanding for a truth, Consider whether there may not be many  Agents, working together for the producing of an Effect; and whether the Production may not be truly ascribed to one of them, not mentioning the rest; His Majesty's Fleet was out, under the conduct of the Prince, and the Duke, and should I say, that the Hollanders were beaten by the Prince, not mentioning the Duke; or by the Duke, not mentioning the Prince, I should speak nothing but truth.  
To the Fourth, This sufficient proof may be considered divers ways, in relation to yours, or my own, or the Readers Judgement, in relation to yours: If I must stick until the Proof be sufficient, perhaps I may stick until the last day; if you be resolved to shut your Eyes against the Truth, I know no body bound to stick in proving until you open them; what I have undertaken to prove, to my own, and (I hope) to the indifferent Readers Judgement, is sufficiently proved; and what I shall do hereafter (I hope) will proceed from me in the like Strength.  
To the Fifth, If you will not (as the Heathen Oracles heretofore did) deliver yourself in a doubtful Manner, but will speak your mind plainly; there will be no cause to fear a Misinterpretation; but however, if I do wrist your words to a wrong sense, I hope you are able enough to tell me in particular, wherein I am Guilty; which (if you do it) will oblige me to a return of thanks, for dealing fairly with me: I would not have you to deal with me again, as you have done already in your Reply; wherein you accuse my answer of this Gild in general; but you show nothing in particular to prove the Accusation.  
Thus (I conceive) your Remora is removed, and now I am at liberty to improve the Queries, to the demolishing of your Religion; yet there is one way left to prevent this Exercise, which is your returning to my rejoinder, and rejoining to this Reply: which if you do (because I would not have too great a weight to lie upon my weak shoulders at once) I shall employ myself wholly in defence of what I have written; but if (after some time of expectation) I found you unwilling to grapple any farther, (Providence permitting and assisting me) I shall (according to the Talent bestowed upon me) endeavour to demonstrate, that many Tenants of your Religion are injurious to the Glory of God, who is the Author of Man's Salvation; and to the Glory of Christ, who is man's Mediator and Intercessor; and that they exalt man far above his height, who is so worthless, and unworthy, that the best plea that he can make for himself before the Tribunal of God, is to say (with the dejected Publican) God be merciful unto me a Sinner!  
And now I protest to the World my Innocency, as to that Charge you brought against me in your Reply, accusing me for giving reviling, and exasperating Language; that I have not either in my Answer, or in this rejoinder, or Reply, given the lest word sounding to that purpose: Wherhfore (when you Writ again) if your Will be disposed to renew your Charge (my strain of Writing being (though low, yet as I conceive, still the same) you are required to mention the particular word, wherein I have transgressed the rules of Civility and Modesty; and if I do not clear myself, before the Face of any indifferent Judge, let me and my Cause bear the Blame, and the shame of it for Ever.     

Reflections upon a piece of Controversy written by S F.  

The occasion of the Reflections.  
S. F. having formerly put himself upon answering some Queries concerning points of Religion, and thereby engaged himself in a formal disputation, after much pains taken therein, both by himself and the person, whom he had made his Antagonist; the matter at last, as it seems, was laid aside, whether because his Adversary left the Country, or else seeing the Disputation was likely to prove both fruitless and endless, he thought it not worthy his further notice; I can only give a bore conjectural Reason, because I never yet understood who this person was; nor did I ever hear any thing of this so much Celebrated Piece till now, altho' the Author of it hath boasted very much that it hath travilled all Lancashire over to meet with an Answerer, but never hath found any so daring as to encounter it, so that needs it must remain victorious and unanswerable; and upon this acount was intended very speedily for the Press. But amidst these vapours, one replying that this seemed very strange, being that they never yet had heard of any thing that came forth, even by the most Learned, of the Protestant Religion, which had not been fully answered. The Author therefore resolved that it should first be showed to a certain Person, who it might be conceived had never heard of it by reason of his late coming into those Parts; and accordingly sent it with this assurance, that if he did not answer it, it should very speedily be printed; his Answer hereunto was, that if it was only satisfaction and truth that he aimed at, he conceived himself obliged, both in civility and charity, to endeavour it; so to save him both the trouble and charges; but instead of a Paper as it was told him, receiving a formal piece of Controversy already swelled up to half a score sheet● of Paper; what with answering, replying and rejoining, he was almost determined not to concern himself any farther in it for several reasons, at the lest he resolved for the present only to return him a civil Letter, to let him know, that although he should be ready to vindicate the Cause when in reason it should be required, and to endeavour his satisfaction, if he found him desirous to receive it: Yet why he should concern himself with any thing that looked like a personal Quarrel, especially in the behalf of a person altogether unknown unto him, he saw no reason, ne●ther could it be expected from him, since the Party already concerned had laid it aside, as seeming to judge it not worth any farther notice▪ adding moreover some other reasons, drawn from the heats, animosities, and other inconveniences, which disputations of that nature, when indiscreetly, or passionately managed are most of all subject too: for which he was not willing to engage himself in this: yet secluding these if he found him so moderately and sincerely disposed, as to oblige him to take any farther pains in endeavouring his satisfaction, either in this, or ●n any thing else he could serve him in; he should found him so far from doing it to make him an Adversary, that he would not so much as think of it with any other intention, but to make him more a friend; and to convince himself likewise how much he was an hearty well wisher of him. This Letter, although, free from intending the lest prejudice to any one, and only in general expressing the inconveniences, which but too frequently ensue upon such like occasions, was afterwards answered by S. F. with another, captiously inferring many things as meant against himself, and quite through a great number of cavils and wordish exceptions. This made him absolutely resolve to sit down in a protest silence, because it was not than an hard matter to foretell what would be the event of such a Controversy, and what credit to himself, or satisfaction to others might be expected, when such a Letter, not Matters of Religion was now become the subject of so furious a Contest; and therefore he would make an end of it with another Letter to inform him only of this his resolution, and his reasons why; let him make what sinistrous use of it he pleased, if it needs must be understood contrary to the sincerity and candour of it, or the former intended. This last Letter was so heinously taken, because he will neither allow one to vindicate himself from his accusations, as far as is reasonable; nor yet which is a far harder case, to sit quiet, and let him say what he pleases, and also perhaps because he foresaw that his Book was in danger to be sent back without an answer unto it, which he seemed all along to be afraid of; that whosoever hath but heard how violent and passionate he hath been in his expressions, discoursing with several persons since the recite of that Letter, would now at lest condemn him of a guilt a personal quarrelling, though there was no such charge brought against his Papers in either of those Letters, and commend mend the other for his prudence in seeking to decline so certain an occasion.  
But still S. F. continuing his importunities of having his Papers answered, or else acknowledged as unanswerable: I was desired by a very worthy Person whom he had likewise importuned very much for an answer, and whose request to me is always an obliging command, to look over them, and to consider how far they might in any wise deserve an answer, if perhaps for the future it might be thought convenient to sand one without detaining them any longer; finding myself therefore under this obligation; and after some time also in such a condition that I could afford myself a little leisure, I purposed to peruse those Papers; though I must confess not without a certain unwillingness as to the thing itself, being also but too fully satisfied, That Opinions and Controversies once raised, are seldom or never laid by reason, because for the most part, the one Party puts on a resolution never to yield to the other, or never to acknowledge himself satisfied and his judgement convinced, though it be clearly evinced, both by Scripture, Authority of the Church, Counsels, Fathers, or whatsoever: because he will only be tied to his own rule; and neither shall that signify any thing, unless applied as he will himself; so that in effect he makes himself his own Judge, which is a certain way of victory, at lest in his own conceit, and in the apprehension of the meaner sort of capacities, whom therefore such an one will not fail to amuse and inveigle with boasting words; and if there comes not forth immediately an Answer or Reply to every petty quibble, and exceptious cavil, presently to proclaim it unanswerable, and cry out victory, because very few, or scarce any Body hath heard of it, and no Body judges it worth the taking notice of: Truly, it seems to me no small piece of fondness and extravagancy for any private person to busy himself now-adays in writing against Points of Religion, and trouble others, either with reading, or answering his Books; when as the multitude already written upon that Subject, and affording incomparably more satisfaction, hath long since made the world to nauseate; and yet they are so far from deciding any one Point controverted, that they rather give growth unto it through interest and passion, than any ways abate the fury of hot contenders by reason. This I say not to decry Controversies, or a prudent and serious examine and inquiry into the Truth; but the wilful abuses and passionate errors that are committed in the management of them, and the industry that is used to tender them unprofitable, and endless; so that in fine, instead of putting an end to one Controversy, they often beget another, which is, whose Pen hath best expressed his passion not kept close to the matter controverted, and discussed it with reason. Now whether or not the learned Controvertist hath taken such a Course as to observe the one, and avoid the other, I leave to the judgement of the discreet and impartial Reader, having first offered to his consideration these few Reflections upon his method and way of answering, and afterwards somewhat in answer not to every quibble and captious criticism, for that would be both endless, and below the gravity and seriousness of the thing treated of, but only so far as may suffice to inform the Author of his insincere dealing, and give satisfaction both to him and the prudent Considerer.   

Reflection. I.  
FIrst therefore by that short perusal that I have made of this piece of Controversy, I can only gather, that the Ground of this was no other than that the Person whom S. F. hath made his Adversary hath a desire to satisfy some of his friends, that the Religion professed by those that are called Papists is the same Religion, which was first preached in England, when it was first converted to the faith of Christ. And this by showing that it is the same Religion which St. Austin the Monk, and Apostles of England preached to the Saxons; that which he taught the Saxons to be the same with the Religion he professed amongst the Britain's; and that of the Britain's to be the same with the Religion which was planted in England by its first Converters. Now I see no reason why any one should so heavily fall out with this way of proceeding; for certainly had he taken the pains to have derived the Catholic Religion through every Century from the Apostles Time downwards to this present; and that by showing a visibility, and a continued and an interrupted succession of it ● every Age, it would in all reason have added very much to the satisfaction of any discreet enquiring person; and yet because he had traced it upwards through sixteen Ages; S. F. might have said with as much reason, or more, that he had made a Journey of sixteen miles about, as that he hath made a Journey of three miles about, when one would have seras well. Whereas certainly to see a Religion proved to be visibly handed down through all Ages, and conserved in the same purity of Doctrine wherein it was at first delivered by its first Propagators, and the Apostles themselves, should be the greatest assurance and satisfaction imaginable, that it must needs be the only true Religion, and all others wanting this ancient visibility, succession and continuance are false, and the mere inventions of men. Agreeable to this Cavil, he frames as strange an Answer to the Queries, upon which likewise shall I fix my Observations how that.   

Reflection. II.  
ALthough to any rational Person not blinded with passion, or prepossessed with error, antiquity alone and succession of that Religion, which is acknowledged by all to be the only true one, would be a sufficient manifestation of the true Religion; Truth only being able to prevail at last, and yet with S. F. it serves for nothing, and must not be of any advantage to those that pretend unto it: Because (saith he) should I grant so long succession, what advantage? A Turk may reason with the same probability, and prove as great Antiquity for his Religion; and a Jew greater for his. I can scarce in civility presume that there is any one of so mean a capacity in his Parish, but would be able of themselves both to found out the disparity, and weakness of this Argument, but that a Divine should shuffle of an Argument always reputed and granted to be of so much force and value with so poor a shi●t and weak a comparison, minds me of a saying in holy Scripture, Psal. 26. 12. Mentita est iniqu●tas sibi; falsehood evermore standing in need of such rotten supports, that at length it betrays both itself and its Abettors. The difference is obvious and plain to any of understanding; for ● the Turks▪ every Body knows that they do not pretend to derive their Religion any farther, or from any other than from Mahomet, or their Law, 〈◊〉 from the Alcoran, which being acknowledged by themselves; as you cannot expect good fruit from a bad Tree, so neither from an Impostor and false Prophet can you expect other than lies and impostures, which being supposed as it is by all Christians, both of Mahomet, and his Law; neither the antiquity nor succession of his Sect can be any argument or proof of its truth; whereas Catholics, at lest, pretend to derive their Religion, and to prove a continual succession of it from our Saviour Christ himself to his Apostles; and by them delivered unto others, and so downwards to this present, as they make it to appear, both by Scripture, Tradition, Counsels, and Holy Fathers, in an unanimous consent of all Ages: and as for a Jew pleading greater antiquity for his; this answer as well as the other would have something of force from the mouth of a Heathen or a Jew; but from any one that professeth Christianity, it hath neither any thing in it of sense or reason: for neither do they any more than the Turks believe in Jesus Christ, or in his holy Gospel: So that indeed, for us to press this argument against them, that the Catholic Religion is that which our Saviour taught his Apostles; and from them it has descended down unto us, and therefore it is the True Religion, would be of no force to convince them, because they would admit all that is in the antecedent; and yet still according to their Principles deny the Consequence, viz that it is the True Religion, as well as we grant them the one, and deny the other of their Religion: whereas all Christians being agreed thus far, that is all of them pretending to profess the Faith and Law of Christ, and to have their Religion, Sacraments, and Doctrine from him, cannot in reason urge one another with those same arguments wherewith the Infidels do impugn us; and which all Christians are equally obliged to deny, and to answer alike: nor can they without a manifest contradiction answer us in this particular as a Turk or Jew would do, unless they will deny their own principles, betray their belief, and renounce Christianity; but must of necessity grant, That that Religion which is most ancient, and which is proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and interrupted Succession from him that is acknowledged by both Parties to be the Author of the True Religion, is to be admitted of as true by all; and consequently the continuance and antiquity of it allowed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof. And if to prove these be of no more advantage than if a Turk or a Jew should prove the continuance and antiquity of theirs, I would feign know what must be advantageous for the Catholics; certainly if Mr. S. F. will not have antiquity and continuance to signify any thing in behalf of our Religion, he will found that novelty will prove a very weak argument to support his own with: but I do not much wonder why he should be so grievously fallen out with antiquity considering his principles; first because he is assured it will be no friend to him. secondly, because it is due to the Catholic Religion, even by the acknowledgement of Protestant Writers themselves; and lastly because to do it is very agreeable to the present Enthusiastic humour, that takes the liberty of setting up every day a new Religion, according to the whimsies of their own private spirit.   

Reflection. III.  
MY third Reflection is upon the reasonableness of a request, which he tells you after all this he will make unto the person whom he has formerly made his adversary, viz. That he would substantially prove the affirmative of his queries, to wit this continuance or ancient succession.  
This in the judgement of any indifferent or judicious person, must needs seem an unreasonable thing to be demanded, first because he had immediately before declared, that although it were so yet it should signify not more with him, than if a Turk or a Jew pleaded the same; so that it is so far from being a reasonable request, that every body will grant, that it is the most unreasonable thing in the world, to urge any one to prove a thing, and at the same time to declare that the proof of it shall be of no benefit or advantage unto them; besides it is otherwise an unreasonable request or demand, since that the Protestants, of whom he professes himself (as I suppose) to be one, pretending to the title of Reformers, must needs grant as the word itself doth import, that they found the Catholic Religion in possession, not only in England, but all the Christian world over, with the unanimous and general consent of all Nations, without either disturbance or contradiction; but on the contrary flourishing in the greatest calm, peace and ferenity that could be, till Martin Luther made an opposition and rebellion; but whether upon the account of Reformation, or Deformation and Passion, might easily be made to appear, were it proper for this place; His own words to the Duke of Saxony, are a convincing argument, where he told the Duke of Saxony; persuading him for God's sake, to return to the obedience of his Holy Mother, the Catholic Church; this quarrel was not begun for God's sake, neither for God's sake, should it be ended; so the Church of Rome being thus settled in an Ancient Possession, and that such an one, that at lest in the Judgement and Confession of the Protestants themselves was justly prefumable to have come from Christ, aught not in any wise, to have been disturbed therein, without sufficient motives, and very weighty and evident reasons, possession itself alone being a sufficient Title, till evident and rigorous Proofs, not bore presumptions and probabilities are brought against it, to invalidate it and show that it is wrongful; as it is undeniable out of the principles both of Nature and Reason, as also by the practice of the Laws of England, as our Lawyers will tell you▪ and give you a number of examples and instances according to the common Maxim, Melior est conditio pessidentis. A Religion therefore the most anciently settled, the most universally acknowledged, the most apostolically delivered, and the only one in possession, and being through the Christian world, as the Catholic was at the time of the first breach, aught not in common reason to have been changed or disobeyed upon pretences, suppositions, and mere probabilities, but aught to have been obeyed and admitted of, as the only true and undoubted Religion, till the contrary had been evinced and Demonstrated by most rigorous and manifest Proofs, by this the reader may judge whether party stands obliged to bring a substantial Proof the Catholics an affirmative for the antiquity and continuance of their Religion, or the Protestants a negative against it, as also whither the demand was reasonable or unreasonable, and truly though it had been a reasonable request, yet it must needs be a great deal of severity to complain that it is not fulfilled before it was requested; and because Catholics prove not what was not required of them, they must needs therefore be compared to the Egyptian taskmasters.   

Reflection. iv  
MY fourth and last Reflection, is upon his method and way of proceeding, as being both disorderly and unconclusive; for had he had a mind to have proceeded solidly in a disputation about points of Religion, it being a thing of the greatest importance that may be, he aught rather to have laid down some principle felf-evident; or as they say in Schools, per se notum, as a foundation to build his discourse on, and to have nominated also a Judge to determine whatsoever should be controverted betwixt them, and not to run and chase from one thing to another without fixing upon any thing certain, or able to decide the thing in Controversy: for to any rational Person it must needs appear, that it will prove both an unprofitable and endless disputation, when one Party says one thing, the other quite another, without being first agreed upon some one Principle, or Rule to be directed by. Now had this learned Disputant assigned any such Rule, or Judge to give judgement in behalf of what he had objected against the Catholic Religion, it would have been either allowed of, or disallowed by his Adversary; and if allowed of, the business would have come to a fair and speedy Trial; or else if he had required this from the Desendant, and disproved of what he had nominated to decide the difference betwixt them, than might he with credit have endeavoured to destroy such a power; and with the same blow likewise the whole Fabric of the Catholic Religion; for if we do not know whether a line, or a piece of wood be straight or crooked, but by applying a Rule unto it, by which we may be enabled to judge of its straightness or crokedness; how can he with any show of reason or justice pretend to writ against a settled and ancient Religion, and argue it of falsehood, without first proposing something whereby its errors and falsehood may be discerned: but this must not be the dead Letter of Scripture; for we know Arrians impugned the Divinity of our Saviour Christ; and with far more plausible Quotations and Texts out of Scripture than he can produce for the Protestant Religion; neither must it be Scripture interpreted by the private spirit, for by that the Quakers would easily defend themselves, and oppose all others: from which Hold Protestants are not able to drive them, but by making use of those very arguments which Catholics use against Protestants: nor lastly, must it be any thing that is only probable, conjectural, or uncertain; for the same uncertainty and danger of erring, or of being false, it hath within itself, the very same must it of necessity have and retain in judging any Controversy, and its judgements or decisions will be equally exposed and subject to error; so that to pass sentence betwixt two Religions, evincing the one of falsehood and the other of truth; there is of necessity required an infallible Rule to go by; a certain Guide for direction, and unerring Judge to give sentence, without which there can not be infallibility or certainty of truth in this Decision. I easily foresee what Mr. S. F. will object against this, that it either equally touches both Parties, or else it doth not at all concern him. For the prevention of which evasion I answer, that he being the Oponent, and undertaking to writ against a Religion maintained by its Professors to be infallibly true, cannot in reason seek to overthrew it, unless by arguments and reasons, which are manifest and certainly convincing: who therefore shall be the Judge of this? himself that were unreasonable, unless he will pretend to have the gi●t of infallibility bestowed upon him; he aught therefore to submit them to the examination and judgement of something infallibly able to judge of them, and determine the business; and if he leaves it to the Catholics nomination, he might both complain of partiality, and expect to have them retorted upon himself, at lest if he will be so daring, it aught to be by his own free election; so that the obligation lies wholly upon himself. Indeed in his Papers he speaks of an infallible Rule, conformable unto which he requires that our Proofs be, and than he will be of our Religion; but to keep himself out of this danger; and because he dares not stand to the judgement and determination of it, being already assured that he shall bring a staff to his own head, and found his Religion to be disagreeable unto it: he tells us not what this infallible Rule is; nor can I imagine what he means by it, if he will stick to the Protestant Principles, for Scripture alone it cannot be, for the reasons I have given before, Traditions they will not allow of; Counsels they reject, and to the Fathers they grant not so much Authority; so that although now and than they pick out some sentences out of them, yet they hold them not at all to be decisive, but take and leave them at their pleasure, just as Mr. S. F hath done in his rejoinder, where he quotes St. Gregory in his 9 hom. upon Ezekiel, for the sufficiency of Scripture; and produces a saying of that holy Father indiscreetly spoken, and making nothing at all for his purpose, as will appear hereafter; and all along never takes notice of the difficulty of understanding it; of which St. Gregory Treats ex professo; nor how he reconciles grace and merit, of both which he discourses at large; the consideration of which if Mr. S. F. had been so disposed, would have clearly convinced him what St. Gregory's belief was in these particulars; and although he hath picked some other say out of the same Father, which he persuades himself upon the same mistake, will work wonders, yet if he would be but content that he should decide the things in Controversy, and resolve us what his belief was in those particulars, or any thing else that is controverted betwixt us and the Protestants, he would found (as you shall presently see) that even in those places which Mr. S. F. tells you, are evidently opposite to the Catholic Religion, and agreeable to that of the Church of England, that they either make nothing at all for his purpose, or else that they absolutely conclude against him.    
De ore tuo te Judico. Luk. 19 22. 
Proofs pretended to be taken out of St. Gregory, examined and showed to be pitifully wrested if not flalsly quoted.  
I Had purposed neither to have given myself or the Reader any further trouble, but that in his rejoinder I found him saying, that to grant that our Religion is the same with Austin's, is the same with the Ancient Britain's, and theirs the same with that which was first brought into England, is in effect to say, that our Religion is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, and consequently to grant ours to be the true Religion, and to renounce the Protestants as false, so that a Protestant as a Protestant (he says) cannot grant us this, and yet a little before, in his answer to the queries, he is so liberal, that he cares not how much of antiquity he grants us, because he professes that it is of no advantage, nor shall it signify any more, that our Religion is the same with St. Austin, and the Britain's, than if a Jew, or a Turk pleaded the antiquity of theirs, which he says, they may do with as much Probability. This put me also in mind of his former answer to the first query, which was Negative, presuming that St. Austin's Religion was the same with that which his Master Pope Gregory professed, from which he boldly undertakes to prove evidently out of St. Gregory's own words, that our Religion differs in all these particulars; the Canon of the Scripture, the real Presence, the private Mass, Communion in both kinds, merit of good Works, veneration of Images and the Pope's Supremacy; his Doctrine in these (as he says) being the same that is maintained by the Church of England, as it is evident; so that now you see him in a manifest contradiction of himself, making that which before was of so little value and advantage, to be now the sum of the whole controversy, nay whereas before he had all along treated St. Austin so irreverently, as to make him guilty of the Massacre of the Britain's, and of many other misdemeanours, yet now on the contrary side the main business is to found out what his Religion was, it being become even the Rule of his belief, and that which the Protestant Religion must stand or fall by.  
I must confess I did not a little wonder at this unexpected change, but much more at his great undertake; but because it is one thing to undertake, and another to perform, this being acknowledged to be of so great concern, I could not let it pass unexamined, because here at length I thought I had something more certain to build upon, but must needs see how well he had acquitted himself of his own imposed task, and made it evidently appear that St. Gregory, and consequently St. Austin did not profess the Catholic Religion, but that of the Church of England. Let us therefore now examine whether or not, he has done it with as much solidity and truth, as he says he had done it with ease.  
Against the Canon of the Scripture, he citys St. Gregory speaking thus, Non inordinate agimus, si ex libris licet eon Canonis sed tamen ad edificationem editis testimonium proferamus; which in plain English signifies not more, than that it is not amiss sometimes to bring a Testimony or proof out of the books, though they be not Canonical, yet if they be put forth for edification.  
Although I have diligently sought for this place in St. Gregory, yet I cannot found any such thing in him, nor so much as such an Article, but supposing the truth of this quotation, how doth the opponent make it evident that St. Grogory speaks here of the first and second book of Maccabees, rather than of the third and fourth, which neither the Catholic Church holds to be Canonical? he tells you out of Canus speaking of St. Gregory thus, * Machabeorum libros ab ecclesia recipi Gregorio licuit aliquando disputare, Gregory was pleased for a time to dispute, whether the book of Maccabees were received by the Churchor not? he did well to put neither of these Texts into English, since they make so little for his purpose, for first Canus likewise speaks only in general of them, without particularly mentioning either one or other, and besides he says only, that St. Gregory was pleased to hold them as disputable, not that he did reject and condemn them all as Apocryphal, as the Church of England absolutely doth.  
But to show him all the Favour that may be, let us suppose that S. Gregory does here speak of all the Books of the Maccabees, not collectively taken; for in that acception it would still make more against him, but distributively, as well of the first and second, as of third and fourth, it can be only inserred from thence, that they were not declared to be Canonical in his time, but it doth not prove that they were than either rejected as Apocryphal, or that they are not since declared 
Can. loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11.  to be, or are not truly Canonical, as some other parts of Scripture have likewise been, which nevertheless the Church of England holdeth now to be Canonical, although formerly they were doubted of, and were not received as Divine Scripture, as the Epistle of S. James, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. John, and S. Jude's Epistle; of all which 
* Eus. l. 1. c. 25. hist.  Euseb. and 
† S. Jer. de Vir. illust.  S. Jerom testify, that some Learned Fathers doubted sometimes whether they were Canonical or not, till the 3. General Council of Carthage under the Pope, these two Books of the Maccabees, together with others, were expressly declared to be Divine Scripture: and since by the Council of Florence and Trent, it being most certain that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, so that amidst that great variety of pretended Scriptures, great care and special industry was requisite to discern the true from the false, whereby it came to pass that divers Books were for some time doubted of, or not received; which yet afterwards upon better search and consideration were generally acknowledged and received as Canonical. This is so evident for us that Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester, and one of the most learned of the Protestant Divines testifieth on our behalf that the Scriptures were not fully received in all places, not not in Eusebius his time, he saith the Epistle of James, Judas, the 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of John, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted the church of Syria did not receive the 2. Epistle of Peter, nor the 2. and 3. of John, nor the Epistle of Judas, nor the Apocalypses and the like may be said for the Churches of Arabia, will you hence conclude (saith Dr. Bilson *) that those parts of Scripture were not Apostolic, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of? So fully is M. S. F. his Objections answered by one of the Protestant Doctors; which he may be pleased to compare with the testimony of our Canus, and than he may easily see the difference betwixt some one doubtful saying, or such an one as doth not at all make for that purpose for which it is forcedly made use of, and a number of Testimonies which might easily be brought, even from the Protestants themselves, but that it would be over-tedious to the Reader, all of them ex professo intending expressly to declare their approbation and assent to the Truth of this Catholic Tenent. Now seeing that it is expressly held and defended by Dr. Bilson, 〈◊〉 also by divers of the chief Protestant Writers, that this most weighty Controversy of discerning true Scripture from false, cannot be otherwise decided, but by the Authority of God's Church, hence it is that the Church having determined this Controversy, all parties are obliged to submit unto it, or else if Mr. S. F. refuses this and will still deny the Maccabees to be Canonical, because they were formerly doubted of, or not received by S. Gregory, than for the same reason must he likewise reject the Epistle to the 
Dr. Bilson in his Survey of Christ's Sufferings, pag. 664.  Hebrews, and those orher Books named by Dr. Bilson, because they were noless doubted of by sundry ancient Writers.  
The Weakness and Absurdity of this Objection being thus clearly discovered, a wise Man, whoma word sufficeth, would presently suspect all the rest, when this which he places in the Front, and calls as clear, and as evident as the Sun, has not so much as the outward appearance of an Argument, I thank God that I am not of his Religion, yet I am confident, that if I were, I should have so much of reason in me, as either to expect stronger Proofs than this, or otherwise seek to found a better satisfaction elsewhere. Let us see however, if his Success will be better in his other Undertake.  
Concerning than the sufficiency of the Scripture, he brings a Saying out of S. Gregory, viz. In hoc volumine omnia quae erudiunt, cuncta quae aedificant scripta continentur, In the Holy Scriptures are contained all things that are necessary for instruction and edification.  
This is easily answered by granting him all the Words import, only I desire to know how we may come rightly to understand them without mistaking the true Sense; being that there are many things in Scripture so deep and mysterious, that they transcend all human Reason, so that though it be sufficient if rightly interpreted and understood, yet it is not a sufficient interpreter of itself. For answer hereunto, I remit you to the Divine Words of Vincentius Lyrin, in his Golden Book he wrote against the profane Innovations of Heresy: Here some perhaps may ask, forasmuch as the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and in all points very sufficient in its self, what need is there to join the Authority of the Ecclesiastical; Understand (so he calls the Church's Sense, and the Father's interpretation of Scripture) for this cause surely, for that all take not the holy Scripture in one and the same sense, because of the deepness thereof, some interpreting it one way, some another; so that there may almost as many Senses be picked out of it as there be men; for Novatian doth expound it one way, and Sabellus another, otherwise Donatus, otherwise Arrius, Eunomius, Macedonius; otherwise Photinas, Apollinaris, Priscillian; otherwise Jovin, Pelagius; lastly, otherwise Nestorius. And therefore very necessary it is, by reason of so great wind and turn of divers Errors, that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation be directed according to the Rule of the Eclesiastical and Catholic Sense and Understanding. Thus far this grave and learned Author; and may we not say the same of Wickliff, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and many others such like, which we also behold with our own eyes in the Quakers, fanatics, Independents, etc. every one of them pretending to the holy Scripture, and each of them explicating it after their own way; and what Remedy? for it must be according to private interpretation, one has as much Title unto it, and as much Reason for what he says, as another. How S. Gregory therefore comes to be so evidently opposite to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, either in these Words, or any where else, I confess I do not understand.  
For the reading of the Holy Scripture, he quotes S. Gregory in an Epistle to one Theodorus, a Physician and Lay-person, thus; 
* Greg. l. 4. Epist. 40.  The Holy Scripture is an Epistle sent from God unto his Creatures; I pray thee therefore study them, and daily meditate on the Words of thy Creator.  
The Occasion of S. Gregory's writing this Epistle▪ was to acknowledge the Receipt of a Sum of Money which he had received from this Theodorus, to be bestowed among the Poor, and for the Redemption of Captives; S. Gregory thereupon writes unto him in commendation of his Charity, and withal advised him to read the Holy Scriptures for a farther increase in Charity and the Love of God. Now you see this Theodorus was pious, and although a Layman, yet a Scholar, as you may suppose, being a Physician; but you do not found in all this, that Gregory persuaded him to read the Scriptures to make himself Judge of Controversies, or to interpret them according to his own fancy, but only for his Devotion and Encouragement in the Service of God. And this is the constant Practice and Advice of the Catholic Church to such as are discreet, and not likely to make ill use of it, but not without restraint to every Girl, and Enthusiastic Woman, and felf-conceited Artificer, who may have it explicated piously, and fitted much better to their capacity, without the danger of mistaking it, by Learned Expositors in their Books of almost any sort. Alas, methinks the too lamentable effects which have happened by the too much tossing and reading of the Holy Scripture, or rather abusing of it, should convince any considering and well-meaning Person of the great Inconveniences that ensue upon it, when not a silly Girl, if she has but learned to read, but must have her Bible with her to Church, and there upon Presumption of Wit, or I cannot tell what Spirit, make herself not only Reader, but a Teacher, Controller and Judge of Church, Scripture, Teachers and all, without finding the lest difficulty in the Apocalypses, or in the Canticles, though they contain as many Mysteries as Words; it seems not to them a sacred Book clasped with seven Seals, as it did to 
* Apoc. 5. 1.  S. John, nor need they an Expositor, as the holy Eunuch did, that was Treasurer to 
† Acts 6.  Candace Queen of Ethiopia, and as S. Austin did, when he cried out, O wondered Profoundness of thy Words! wondered Profoundness, my God wondered Profoundness! it maketh a man to quake to look on it, to quake for reverence, and to tremble for love thereof! So that being it is so hard to be understood, even by the Learned, Reason methinks should dictate and tell us, that they were not ordained indifferently to be read by all; and by sad experience we see the Inconveniences: for although the Letter were most pure and not corrupted in itself, which yet cannot possibly be expected amidst such a variety of disagreeing Translations, yet the Sense is still in danger of being corrupted, mistaken, and adulterated; as S. Augustin 
* Aug. Tom. 16. in Jo.  teacheth, That Heresies and perverse Doctrines entangling Souls, and throwing them headlong down into the depth, do not otherwise spring up, but when good or true Scriptures are not well or truly understood, and when that which is not well understood, is rashly and boldly avouched. What would he than have said, if than there had been so many false Translations, and Corruptions of Scriptures as are now adays, threatening no lesle than the Ruin both of Church and State. To conclude, S. Gregory's Words make nothing for this licentious and popular reading of the Scripture, as it is used now adays, to intermeddle and judge of Matters of Faith, but only for instruction of Life and Manners; and so the Catholic Church allows of it; but as the 
* Rom. c. 12. v. 4,  Apostle saith, usque ad sobrietatem, to be wise, but with sobriety, and only restrains the reading of them, to prevent Heresy and blind ignorant Presumption, and that which the Apostle calls falsi nominis scientiam, Knowledge falsely so called.  
Against the Real Presence he citys 
† Greg. Dial. l. 4. c. 58.  S. Gregory speaking thus; Pensemus quale sit pro nobis hoc Sacrificium, quod pro absolutione passionem unigeniti semper imitatur. Let us therefore consider what a Sacrifice this is for us, which for our Absolution doth always imitate the Passion of the only Son of God.  
This is so far from being opposite to the Real Presence, that it is very agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine in that point, and very much contrary to what the Church of England holdeth. For first, he speaketh of a Sacrifice, which Catholics allow of; whereas Protestant's deny all true, proper, real and external Sacrifice, and afterwards he says, that is done in imitation of the Passion of Christ, which is also Catholic Doctrine, and does no way deny the Real Presence of our Saviour Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, because the Passion was a bloody and general Sacrifice, but this Sacrifice of the last Supper, or the holy Mass is a Representation unbloody, and particular Sacrifice, applying the said general and bloody Sacrifice unto us; so that although in this sense it be in imitation, it is nevertheless real. This more fully appears by the words of the Context; for immediately before S. Gregory speaking of the greatness of this Sacrifice, and of the manner of our Saviour's being in the Blessed Sacrament, that is, after a Divine, immortal, and impassable manner, he adds, That although Christ being risen again from Death, does now die not more, nor shall Death have any farther Dominion over him, yet living in himself immortally and incorruptibly, he is again sacrificed for us in this Mystery of the holy Oblation or Mass, for there his Body is received, his Flesh is distributed for the Salvation of his People, and his Blood is not poured out by the hands of Infidels, but received by the mouths of the faithful. Let us therefore hence consider, etc. Thus most clearly does S. Gregory speak in our behalf, who is therefore very much reproved by many Protestant Writers. Mr. Beacon affirmeth, That the Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory the first, about the year 600. Melancthon confesseth, that he allowed by public Authority the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, not only for the living, but also for the dead. Dr. Humphrey acknowledgeth that S. Gregory and S. Austin brought into England the Archbishop's Pall for solemn Masses; and many others, which for brevity sake I omit.  
Against the private Mass he brings 
* Greg. Dial. l. 2. p. 13.  S. Gregory, as he calls it, ordaining thus, When Mass is celebrated in the Church, and the Deacon according to custom calls out, if any one will not communicate, let him give place; therefore, says Mr. S. F. the People were not to be idle Spectators, etc.  
How faithfully he hath quoted here S. Gregory, let himself be Judge; for though I have diligently read over the whole Chapter, I found not a word of it, nor any thing to that purpose: but however, that his Objection may not fail of an Answer, nor loose any thing of its strength, to prove the thing intended, which is as much as the former had, and that's just none at all, I'll suppose it to be in S. Gregory; yet I cannot imagine how it can so much as prebably be gathered from thence that S. Gregory ordains any thing here against the private Mass, since the words, as you see, import not any thing of Ordination or Prohibition; and as for the Deacon's words unto the People, they can signify not more, than if at Easter, when Mr. S▪ F. gives the Communion to the People, the Clerk or whosoever does assist him, should call upon the Non-Communicants, that they should give place or make room for those that are to communicate, which in Catholic Countries upon solemn Days, when the Number is very great, as well of Communicants as Non-Communicants, they are often found to do; and what doth all this prove against private Masses? Not more than as if because I have now mentioned Mr. S. F. his communicating his People at Easter, it should be inferred out of my words, as a Testimony against him, that he never read Service but at Easter, when he gives the Communion to the Parishioners, which he would look upon to be somewhat severe, if not an unjust way of proceeding, but at lest by these words in the Objection, you see that Masses are clearly mentioned to have been in use; which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England; and Chytreus a Protestant Writer, affirmeth, 
* Apol. in cap. 9 pag. 199.  That in the Times of S. Gregory, the great private Masses were used: so that I do not see how Mr. S, F. can clear himself of a Contradiction, or at lest of imposing one upon S. Gregory; for before he quoted the holy Father, as denying the Real Presence; and now again he brings him in allowing of solemn Masses, and by consequence holding the Real Presence; so that he is not ashamed to make S. Gregory even contradict himself.  
For the Communion in both kinds, he tells us, S. Gregory says thus, 
† Greg. de Cons. dist. 6.  You have learned what the Blood of the Lamb is, by drinking, not by Hearing: from which he would infer, That there was Drinking than used in the Administration of the Sacrament.  
This Place also I have diligently sought for in S. Gregory, but cannot found any such in him, nor so much as that he hath written any thing either De Consid. or by way of distinctions: indeed S. Bernard has written a Treatise De Considerate. unto Pope Eugenius, who had been his Disciple; but neither doth he divide it by Distinctions, but into Books and Chapters; so that neither could I, though I endeavoured it, found it in him; but let it be whose it will, it makes nothing for Mr. S. F. who mistakes the very state of the Question; for the Controversy between Protestants and Catholics in this point, is not whether Christ did institute the Sacrament under both kinds, or whether he himself did administer it in both kinds to hi● Apostles, or whether the Apostles and the Primitive Christians did in like manner at sundry times practise the same? All this we are agreed of: but the thing in controversy is, whether Christ did command the Administration of both kinds to the Laity; and whether the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament be entire in one, or no? Now the Catholic Church holdeth, and hath always taught, That there is no Necessity or Divine Precept for the Laity to communicate under both kinds, but it is sufficient and lawful for them to do it either under one kind or both; and our Saviour Christ himself, and also his Apostles did administer the Sacrament to the Laity under one; so that the Precept herein, being not Divine, but only Ecclesiastical, the Church has power to ordain and dispense with it, according to the various Exigencies and Occasions of Times and Places; and accordingly sometimes has allowed of Communion under both kinds, and at other times has forbidden it, as she judged it more expedient for the Receivers, or the Reverence of the Sacrament itself. To conclude, This Saying imputed to S. Gregory, implies nothing of a Command, or of a Necessity of receiving under both kinds, without which, the Sacrament would not be entire, which is the thing Mr. S. F. aught to have proved, otherwise he says nothing to the purpose, though he should bring a thousand clear and undeniable testimonies out of S. Gr. or any else witnessing, That the Laity had received under both kinds; because whensoever either S. Gregory or any other of the Fathers speak of the Laities receiving under both kinds, they speak of such Times in which the Church so appointed and commanded the Administration of it, which is not at all against us; but rather by showing a difference in Practice at several times, confirms the Authority and Power of the Church, in commanding the Administration of the Sacrament to the Laity either under one, or both kinds.  
Against the Merit of Good Works, he brings S. Gregory 
* Greg. in Job, & Psal. Pen.  speaking thus; I grow unto eternal Life, not by the Merit of my Works, but by the Pardon of my Sin, presuming to obtain that only by the Mercy of God, which I do not hope for by my own Deserts.  
Here I cannot but most of all commend Mr. S. F. for his Prudence, because by shooting at rovers, he has made himself pretty secure from all danger of being detected of falsification, unless one would take the pains to search through all the 35 Books which S. Gregory hath written upon Job, and his explanation upon the seven Penitential Psalms, which is to sand his Reader to seek a Needle in a Bottle of Hay; but to acquit myself of such a Trouble, let the Saying be whose it will, it is not at all to the purpose; for the Catholic Church in this point teacheth, that our best Works in the state of corrupted Nature, as they are ours precisely, are not meritorious of a Reward from God, because we can do no good thing ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God; yet as proceeding from the Grace of Christ working in us and with us, and elevated by his Merits and Promises, he hath promised a reward to them, and made them worthy of a reward, which is all we intent by the merit of good Works: Hence the Reader will easily see that the words objected are not at all opposite, but very▪ agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine in this point; and that this was the Belief and Doctrine of S. Gregory, we have the Testimony of divers Learned Protestants, and amongst others, the 
* Cent. 6. c. 10. col. 74.  Centurists making a Catalogue of S. Gregory's pretended Errors, amongst the rest, number his Error of Good Works and Justification.  
Against the Veneration of Images, he quotes S. Gregory writing unto Serenus Bishop of Marseilles, thus 
† Greg. l. 7. ep. 109.  Though you did well in forbidding the adoration of them, yet we judge that you should not have broken them down.  
This likewise I shall answer by showing briefly what the belief of the Catholic Church is in this point, which teacheth that it is good and lawful, and profitable to keep holy Images and Pictures of Christ and his Saints, to set them up in Churches, and to give them a relative Honour. Now let the Reader compare the Words of S. Gregory with this, and tell us wherein they are opposite: For first S. Gregory blames this Serenus for breaking down the Images; because, as he tells him, he aught to have taken away the Abuses, not the Uses of them, which is agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine and Practice, forbidding all Divine Honour to be given unto them, but only a relative or inferior sort of Honour or Respect agreeable to the Objects which they do represent. And secondly, S. Gregory allows of the Use of them as pious and profitable, though they are capable of being abused; for certainly were the Use of a good thing to be taken away, because it may be abused, we should in a short time have very few good things left us; for which S. Gregory, in the words immediately following, gives this Reason; because, saith he, Images are therefore kept in Churches, to the end that the ignorant may at lest read upon the Walls, what they cannot in Books; you aught therefore, saith he, both to have preserved them, and yet to have hindered the People from the adoration of them, etc. What S. Gregory therefore taught in this Point, is so clear, that I will appeal herein to the Protestant Writers themselves, who all of them reprove him for his special devotion and reverence towards holy Images; for Mr. Bale 
* Act. Rom. ●ont. pag. 44, 45.  reprehends him for that he suffered the Image of the blessed Virgin to be carried about, etc. Osyander 
† Cent. 6. pag. 2●●. 290.  affirmeth, that Austin, sent by Gregory, thrusts upon the English Churches, the Roman Rites and Customs, to wit. Altars, Vestments, Images. Dr. Fulk 
* Against Phem. test. Math. 4.  confesseth, that Gregory allowed of Images▪ for which very Point Calvin affirmeth, that Gregory was not taught in the School of the Holy Ghost; but for brevities sake I omit the rest.  
Now for an upshot he would so confidently persuade his Reader, that S. Gregory 
† Greg. 1. 4.  is so great an enemy to the Pope's Supremacy, that he tells his Adversary, he must needs have steeled his Forehead, if he does not likewise confess it, and this because S. Gregory 
* Epist. 32. 3●. 36. 39  in divers Epistles rejects the the Title of Universal Bishop as a Novelty, Blasphemy, etc.  
To which I answer, that S. Gregory rejects or condemns that Title, as it excludes all others from being Bishops; but not as it signifies one to be supreme above all the rest, as he himself was at that time; for so doth he express himself in the same Book, 
† Epist. 62.  saying. If there be any crim● found in Bishops, I know no Bishop but is subject to the Sea Apostolic; and in the 
* Epist. ●2.  3● Epistle of the same Book, which is the place quoted, by Mr. S. F. he clearly declares his sense and meaning of the former words, thus; The Care and Principallitty of the Holy Church hath been committed to the Holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles, S. Peter; yet is not he called Universal Bishop, as if there were no other Apostle but himself. Nay, which is more, S. Gregory doth in this very Epistle Cite the Council of Chalcedon, and the Canons for this Title due unto S. Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome; and besides, he pleads here his own right, and that that Title was than only due unto himself, as being chosen Head of the Church, and Successor of S. Peter; and consequently not to be assumed by any one else but himself; for in all those Epistles which he writ to Mauritius the Emperor, and the Empress Constantia, he complains grievously of the injuries done unto him by John Bishop of Constantinople, because he usurped the Title of Universal to himself, and rob the Popes of Rome of it, to whom only it was due. You see therefore, both ●n what sense, and in what kind of person he disallows of the word and Title of Supremacy.  

The Conclusion.  
I Have now answered all the objections pretended, to be taken out of St. Gregory without any farther examine or search into the nature of either his Queries, Answers, or the rest of his rejoinder, further than as I have briefly touched upon them in my Reflections, hoping they will prove rational and satisfactory enough; consdering besides, that the greatest part of the Controversy (excepting the arguments out of St. Grogory) was come to be rather concerning Historical Reports than matters of Faith: Indeed, as touching what I have said in answer to the objections out of St. Gregory; I was the more easily persuaded unto it, because, there at lest, I saw something to build upon, which was the authority of that holy Father, whom he seemed to be willing to submit unto as a Judge, because he had often promised not a wrested interpretation of the sense, but evident proofs out of the Father's own words; so much authority did he seem to allow the holy Doctor; but one may presume it was only in those particulars, wherein he thought ●e had him sure, or at lest that he could have persuaded some body or other to such a belief; and yet I had no reason to believe he would submit to him, even in those, since all along he had treated his Disciple St. Austin so irreverently, although by his Brethrens, Dr. Godwin, Mr. Holinshead, Mr. Mason, Mr. Fox, Dr. Bilson, and others, he is honoured with Title of Apostle of England, and acknowledged to be a Monk of great virtue: and even he himself at the same time, does suppose that S. Austin converted England to the faith of Christ, and was of the same Religion which his Master Pope Gregory professed, and which he would gladly prove to have been this of the Church of England: observe now how well these things hung together. In answering his objections, I have studied rather brevity than multiplicity of reasons; making it only my designed Task, which I wish the Reader to take notice of) to show the true sense and meaning of S. Gregory's words, and how agreeable, if rightly understood, they are to the Catholic Doctrine, and disagreeable to that of the Church of England, which is all that any one in reason can expect in such circumstances; this being absolutely opposite to what Mr. S. F. had undertaken, and yet not by a wrested interpretation of the sense, but by evident proofs out of S. Gregory; so that should I have brought many proofs from elsewhere, as I might have done very easily, it would rather have seemed a work of superfluity, than any ways necessary, or to the purpose, by which he may see the weakness of his arguments, and how easily he is confuted & foiled, even by those very weapons wherewith thought not only to have defended himself, but he also to have destroyed all round about him. The thing in controversy being at present, not whether those assertions were true or false; but whether S. Gregory held them or not; for this reason therefote, and for a final prevention of all farther cavilling shifts, and evasions which might be made, I have ●●ther argued ad hominem, as the Schoolmen term it, and showed (besides the genuine interpretation of S. Gregory▪ s words) even by the confession and testimony of many of the best Protestant Writers; what was his doctrine and belief in those particulars; because an argument drawn from the confession of Adversaries, is the most convincing proof against the adversary himself; his testimony as Dr. Whitaker saith, being effectual against himself. But I must needs confess, I do not so much wonder he should of his own accord undertake such a task, as to prove evidently that S. Gregory was a Protestant out of his own works, without any wresting of the sense, which yet is a very bold attempt, because such a bravado as that might possibly proceed from an over great zeal and affection he bore to his own cause, through inadvertency or passion, as it happened to the Preacher at Paul's Cross, as that which after deliberation and study upon it, he should not than at lest see how weakly he h●d acquitted himself of it; but on the contrary should still cry out upon his Adversary to give judgement, as obliged by convincing arguments, and speak once according to the truth, and not according to the groundless affection he bore to his own cause, whether or not it be not clear, that S. Gregory in these particulars held not the same with the Doctrine of the Church of England; to bring which about he'el make Pope Gregory even un Pope himself; a shrewd displeasure I promise' you; and far more cruel than John Bishop of Constantinople, who opposed S. Gregory was; for though he stood in contention with S. Gregory, yet he never endeavoured to make him to act this cruelty upon himself; besides after all this, he complains heavily against his Adversary, as well as he hath done since of others, that they will not set forth a charge against him, as if he had been secure of being detected, either of ●alsifications, or of being found to have failed in any of his undertake; whilst attempting to maintain so many errors as he has done, and that in full view; the method that he hath followed hath been very inconclusive; his arguments weakness of reasoning, and his reasons inconsequent: and after this insincerity, must necessarily endeavour to establish such a groundless Fabric, which once discovered there is no way left but to fall to open contradictions, wrested interpretations, and inexcusable falsifications; and last of all for securing h●mself to puzzle the Reader with wordish cavils and exceptions.  
I have done therefore, but whether this little which I have said be satisfactory or not, is not mine to decide, but is wholly submitted to the tribunal of the judicious and rightly informed Reader, whose pardon I beg for the se●ming harshness and severity of some expressions, which truly sound ungratefully to my own ears; but I desire it may be considered, that since it fell to my lot to be the examiner of such a tough piece, full of many more faults than I have given names to; 'twas nothing but rational in maintenance of the truth, and to undeceive the Reader, to call some of them by their own proper names, though I have done it as little as possibly I could, and only to breed in the Reader a true conceit and reflection upon the substantial part of the Controversy, not in the lest reflecting either upon the person, or quibbles, and exceptions, and cavils, that are frequently enough to be found in it.  
This is all that I have to Apologise for, excepting only for the long delay of this, which truly was occasioned for no other reason, but because it was conceived, that time and absence might wean him, or at lest make him lesle fond in the opinion he seemed to have of his own productions; but this not prevailing against his importunities, you have here an hasty product, and consequently subject perhaps to some critical exceptions in words, but yet such an one as may afford a sufficient satisfaction, either to Mr. S. F. if he will but seriously consider it, or at lest to the judicious and indifferent Reader.    

To the Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
THE Protestants and the Romanists have been a long time set in Battle ar●y, Army against Army, contending which should make the fairest claim and Title unto Truth; and some years are passed since a Champion of the Roman Church stalked forth with this proud Challenge; I defy the Armies of the Protestants; give me a man to resolve three Queries; thus the brief Notes concerning Points of Religion came upon the Stage.  
The Queries (I confess) were not brought immediately to my hands, but delivered to a Gentleman, whose acquaintance and friendship I am obliged to esteem; and by him were transmitted to me with earnest importunities to employ my weak Pen in returning an answer unto them, otherwise I had not entered into the Lists with this daring Enemy.  
For truly, after I had taken a view of the Queries, and considered their nature and tendency very well, I manifested an unwillingness to enter into such Contests by giving my importunate Friend a positive denial, urging several reasons for it: First, the unprofitableness that would be sure to follow the clearest resolution that could be made; therefore I told him that it was altogether unworthy the pains of an Inquisition. Secondly, the great difficulty, yea the utter impossibility that would hinder the probable resolution of them; it being like unto the Task that the Prophet Elijah imposed upon his toiling servant, which was to climb up steep and craggy Carmel upon hands and knees, and nothing to be seen in the conclusion but a little dark Cloud: Because there is no other Intelligence to be found but the Writings of fallible men to instruct us in the knowledge of th● Opinions of our Predecessors, and no History, to inform us of the particular Tenants that w●re maintained by the Ancient Britain's; how is it possible for any diligent Inquire, to attempt the Work, and to raise it to the height of a probable Determination?  
But my importunate Friend continuing his Importunities; and I owing myself to his whole dispose by the right of many undeserved obligations, suffered myself to be persuaded to make a cursory answer, and the rather because I knew how studious and active the Romish Emissaries are to spread their erroneous Opinions▪ and to gain Proselytes; what was said of the Scribes and Pharisees, that may be truly applied unto them, they will compass Sea and Land for this end; and as I had reason to suspect this to be the design of th● Champion in sending forth his Queries, so I knew there was an obligation lying upon me to endeavour to prevent the effecting of it.  
Thus I have given a short and just account of the Ground and Reason of the Encounter that I have made; I did not run without a previous consideration, and of my own head into the Battle; but may truly say, as David said unto his Brethrens in another case, was there not a cause for it: There have been many Protestant Worthies, who out of their abundance have cast into the Treasury for the maintaining of the Protestant Cause, and have acted beyond the power of the enemy's resistance; so that all farther pains may seem superfluous and needless; yet this will not excuse the wilful neglect of those, who when there is an occasion and call for it, are not ready to throw in their mite.  
There is now another Champion stepped forth, who undertakes to be a second to the first, to revenge his quarrel, giving out high language, because (as I suppose) he expects a wondered effect to be the issue of it; that as the Walls of Jericho fell down at the sound of Rams Horns; so all that hath been written by me should fall to the ground; not for the strength of his arguments, but at the noise of his great words: May I oppose this Man of valour without the imputation of factiousness and vain glory; I hope to do it without the danger of receiving a foil in the Cause I have undertaken to maintain; and to show how doughtily he hath quitted himself, and answered the expectation of his obliging Fr●end, who (as he saith) hath engaged him in the Quarrel.  
What needs many words among Friends; I presume gentle Reader, thou art a friend to him that is an Abettor of the Truth; and for the maintaining of it I shall offer to thy view some animadversions upon this Champions reflections; It is my purpose to be as brief as the matter to be handled will permit, that I may not imitate the Reflector's dealing with thee, to present thee a shadow instead of a substance, and to shuffle thee of with a multititude of empty words instead of real arguments; but because I am to trace him step by stay to discover every falsity that he makes; and h●s expressions being very observable in some sense, I must not pass by any thing that is spoken by him without a remark upon it; therefore it is my fear that I shall trespass upon thy patience more th●n I desire to do.  
Accept in good part what ●s here presented unto thee, but let me premise, that it is not the refined Gold of Ophir, nor the sweet spices of Arabia; I mean any fruits of my labour, fit to be compared to those elaborate Tracts that have dropped from the Pens of the worthy defenders of the Protestant Faith; but such as I have, that give I thee; let the good will of the Author excuse the worthlesness, and prevail for the acceptance of his work, being that it proceeds from one, who is as desirous to conduct thee in the saving way of truth, as he would be unwilling to walk himself in the destructive paths of errors; and if from this little seeding thou reapest any harvest to confirm thee in the acknowledgement and profession of Protestant Truths, and to strengthen thee to resist the impostures of Romish errors, ascribe the glory only unto God, who manifests the power of his agency in the weakness of the instrument, enabling a Barley Cake to overturn the Tents of Midian; and blessing the planting and watering that is made by the meanest of his servants, with a fruitful increase; thus I attain the ●nd of my writing, and thou makest an happy advantage of thy reading, and may my pains and thy patience, my writing and thy reading be evermore like unto the Tree planted by the Rivers of Waters, bringing forth Fruit in due season, to the glory of God, and thy direction in the way of truth. This is the earnest desire, and shall be the constant Prayer of thy Servant, and Fellow-servant in the Service of Jesus Christ.  
S. F.   

Animadversions upon the Reflections made against a piece of Controversy, written by S. F.  

Upon the occasion of the Reflections.  
I Had almost determined to pass by the Reflectors Discourse upon the occasion without taking the lest notice of it, and to leave it to be his special Storehouse, whence he might fetch with little ado the best arguments his ability promises for the Defence of the Romish Religion, but fearing that my silence in relation unto it should beget in himself or in others, a fond conceit of the strength and truth of it, while there is not the lest Title of any such thing to be found, I thought fit to throw away sometime in returning an Answer unto it.  
If it be ominous to stumble on the threshold, the Reader may expect to found strange matter of Entertainment in the Reflections: here is a long Prologue of a wondered composition, it is my persuasion that this Gentleman doth not agreed in opinion with those Judges that awarded the prevalency unto truth, because he speaks it so seldom besides, he that seeks for pertinences and coherences here, is sure to loose his labour; earnest importunities putting my pen upon motion, how did I put myself upon answering, and if by answering I made an Antagonist, what did he make himself by Querying  
Because Conjectures are not proofs, I pass by the conjectural reason given by this Gentleman; why the first Champion laid down his Arms, and quitted the Field, though there be in it a censorious reflection made against my Papers, which is the usual charge of Mr. H. L. for the proof of which I have harkened very long, but cannot yet hear any such news.  
That my Papers were very much boasted of, I am assured there is no other proof but Towntales, which (like unto Snowball) do gather by rolling: and being the intelligence that was given concerning the bulk of my Papers, is acknowledged to be false; methinks little credit should have been afforded to the Tale that was told concerning this; but I see now any kind of report will serve him for the groun● of a confident assertion, who is inclined to cry up Oral Tradition for a proof of his Religion.  
I never yet boasted of the travels of my Papers to meet with an Answerer; but suppose I had done so, is it so great a fault, that it deserves to be chastifed with bitter and scornful upbraid? is it a fault to boast in the Conquest of a perverse enemy? Were the Children of Israel faulty for glorying in the Conquest of the Philistines, saying Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands? How would the first Champion have boasted, had not some return been made unto his Queries, and a rejoinder unto his Reply? verily, because it was retarded but a little while, by reason of my indisposition of body, it wanted not much of being proclaimed upon the Housetop. How do the Factors of the Church of Rome; boast, when they have gained a Proselyte though it be by the use of most shameful arguments such as the Devil propounded to our Saviour, serving to attract, not by the force of truth, but of slavish fear, and fruitless hope; the terror of Eternal death, and the prolonging of a temporal life: I can instance several late examples to prove that when a Protestant lies upon his sick bed, it is the practice of Romish Priests, by some Engine or other, to open a way to a visit; and than they tell the sick person, that there is no hope of recovering his health unless he will abjure his Religion, and dying in the profession of it, he is sure to be damned; but if he will forsake it, and embrace theirs; there is no doubt to be made of receicing a speedy recovery; and of obtaining a future salvation; and may that boasting which is made upon this intolerable ground be excused, while I should have been condemned, had I gloried in the truth; for had I gloried in this, that the Champion was fled from his Colours, and left his Queries gasping on the ground, I had gloried in nothing but the truth.  
Amongst those great vapours, who was it that vented that expression concerning Protestant Writers, of which if the meaning be this, that there is not any Protestant Writer that hath not been fully answered; it is very like unto Jacob's Tale unto his Father Isaac, when he told him that he was his very Son Esau; there are many Protestant Writers, that have not yet been, nor ever will be fully answered, by any Champion of the Roman Church.  
The next Relation is of the same stamp, it was not my resolution to sand my papers unto any one before they were requested; nor with that assurance t●e Reflectors speaks of when they were requested; M. H. L. relating to an Esquire of ancient Extract, was presumed to be endowed with qualifications suitable to the sphere in which he was fixed: because he belonged unto an eminent Family, I supposed him to be a person of eminent Learning, therefore upon the request of one of his own Church, I sent my dapers unto him with this assurance, that if any errors had dropped from my pen, he was the man that could quickly discover, and effectually refute it, which none can be more ready to do, than I in that case would be desirous to have done, for I am not (as some are) so devoted to an opinion, that I cannot afford myself the liberty of a change upon better Information, not out of any doubt of the truth of the Protestants, but out of a full persuasion of the erroniousness of the Romish Religion, it hath been my frequent expression unto many, which is all the boasting that ever I made, if any man can produce a stronger evidence for his opinions, than I can do for mine, or can refute any Protestant Tenants with Arguments not answerable by me, I shall soon submit unto his clearer light, and better informed Judgement, it is sad for any man wilfully to shut his Eyes against the truth, and to run headlong in an Error, leading others hoodwinked in the same destructive path, it is my desire to walk, and to lead others, in the beaten Tract towards heaven.  
When M. H. L. had taken a view of my papers he was pleased to make this bravado, that if I would propound any particular, wherein my Antagonist had sailed in giving satisfaction, he would undertake to supply the defect, upon which I was importuned by my friend to writ unto him, and accordingly did, whereupon several Letters passed betwixt him and me, Now because I am charged with many faults committed in my dealing with M. H. L while he is reported to be altogether unblamable in his dealing with me, tho' the Letters which passed betwixt us are not laden with any matter of importance, being only like unto the daring of two timorous enemies, unwiilling to run the hazard of blows: it is my desire that the Reader would peruse them in the end of the Animadversions, and than he need not take it upon trust, but will see with his own eyes how much truth is to be found in the Reflector's discourse here; in the mean time he may make a probable Conjecture, by taking notice of some expressions that are vented by him; he that is frequent in roving out into contradictions, seldom keeps within the Limits of Truth: He tells us of a paper that was sent, and a promise' made of answering it, but afterwards it swollen to such a bulk, that the Gentleman who made the promise was almost determined not to concern himself in the performance of it; & again he tells us, that the reason expressed by him why he would not writ against my papers, was because he would not concern himself in any thing that looked like unto a personal quarrel; yet afterwards he tells us that there was no such charge brought against my papers in any of his Letters, because this Gentleman takes upon him to be so quicksighted, as to discover contradictictions where there are none to be found; it is a matter worthy to be considered, what truth there is to be found in these contradictory expressions.  
Still says the Reflector S. F. continuing the importunities of having his Papers answered, or acknowledged unanswerable; and still he continues his remarkable strain of writing, my thoughts have been perplexed in disputing the reason of it; is it because he hath a great dispensation from his great Lord and Master, or hath a blank pardon lying by him, wherein he may insert his faults at pleasure; or rather is it not because his Pen is accustomed to drop such stuff? if so, we know what the Prophet says? can the Aethiopian change his skin▪ or the Leopard his spots: after my last Letter sent to M. H. L. I did not speak or writ unto any person concerning my Papers; and if the obliging person which he speaks of be (as I suppose) a Female, I did not speak or writ unto her concerning them since they were written by me. If beginnings do make any prediction of the nature of the ends; and Prefaces do foretell any any thing of the quality of the Postcripts, the Reader may without any farther inquisition give a probable judgement concerning the Gentleman's Reflections, and say that he hath penned some stories as likely to be true as that of Valentine and Orson, or of Beves of Southampton; and for his own credit, I could wish that such strange fictions were not to be sound in the Reflections.  
But shall I do him the favour, as to suppose all that hath been said upon the occasion to be as true as it is false; S. F. put himself upon answering, and made an Antagonist, and boasted of his papers, and dealt peremptorily with M. H. L. put altogether; what an heinous provocation was this? what congealed blood would not boil in the veins to hear the relation of these things? certainly the Reflector being one of the Worthies of the Roman Church, and a mighty man of valour, had shamed himself for ever, had he not undertaken to chastise such intolerable misdemeanours: But is this all the matter of occasion that could be found for the Reflections? Controversies concerning Religion should have a Rise answerable to their nature, because they are of high importance, some matter of weight should be the Head-spring; therefore in reading this Prologue, it was my expectation to meet with some heinous charge brought against me, either for opposing some saving truths, or maintaining some destructive errors, which might justly have stirred up the choler of the Gentleman, and provoked him to run into the field, to employ all his strength for the subduing of a dangerous enemy, but there is no such charge brought against my Papers here, nor indeed is there any ground for such a charge to be found; it seems that upon the design of detaining his obliged friend in bondage to Superstition and Ignorance, and Idolatry; he resolved to say something, though (besides the importunity of his friend) he had nothing but mere trifles to be the occasion.  
Hitherto is expressed the occasion of the reflections, what follows speaks the reason of his pretended unwillingness to appear in the field, one is because of the abuse that is committed in the management of controversies, of which (he tells us) some are guilty in an high measure; now because this is indefinitely spoken, and the application of M. H. L. Generals is charged upon me as an heinous crime, I am disputing whether I should take it as reflecting upon my Papers; if not, the Gentleman hath made himself guilty of a very great failing, in expressing that to be a reason, which could not be any; for if I did not observe that practice, how could he be terrified with it, and ●o his expressing it to be a reason serves only for this purpose, to help to piece out a long Prologue to no purpose; if I must needs take it as reflecting against my Papers, I would know whether he thought that to be true, which he writes concerning the travels of my Papers; if not it was a shame for him to report it, as the occasion partly of his reflections; if he thought it to be true, I must inquire how it could be that few or scarce any body heard of them, while (as he says) they travelled all Lancashire to meet with an answerer; but however it is to be taken, whither reflecting upon my Papers or any other controversy, how can that universal be true, that no body judges it 〈◊〉 worthy the taking notice of, while few or scarce any body heard of it? hue he judges is not worthy the taking notice of, because his judgement serves to writ so many contradictions within the compass of a Prologue.  
Another reason is, because the multitude already written upon the same subject, and affording incomparably more satisfaction, hath long since made the world to nauseat, and yet hath not decided one controverted point; I suppose he speak in relation to Protestant writers, and what can be the reason or motive that moves him to speak thus contemptibly of those worthies, censuring and condemning all that hath been written by them in defence of the truth, and in opposition to Romish errors; is it an high conceit of himself that makes him to have a low conceit of others? thus have I known schoolboys revile those whom they durst not encounter, and mere cowards rail upon those whom they durst not attempt to conquer, and it is the practice of effeminate combatants, to display their courage more by invective words, than by their great deeds; I do not accounted myself fit to be compared in the lest degree to any of those worthies, yet for myself, I do profess (if there be no more strength in him, than that proportion which he hath manifested in his reflections & appendix) to be foiled by him, would be an argument) of greater weakness than is to be found in a stripling of nine years old, and for them I will say this, that the weakness of their arguments weelded against him, would frighten him to run as the false Prophet Zedekiah sometimes did, from Chamber to Chamber to hid himself.  
What is to be understood by the world? Protestants cannot be included in that compass, because they judge their writers (as they are) truly, satisfactory and convincing to all that are not possessed with prejudice, and desperately settled with a resolution to oppose the truth and the Romish Laity cannot be any part of it, because they are not permitted to converse with Protestant writers in the lest measure, but are kept in a persuasion that the touch of them is as fatal and deadly, as the touch of Mount Sinai would have been to the Children of Israel, when the law was delivered, and this done on purpose to frighten them from seeking to found out the truth, and from searching to discover that Superstition and Idolatry, which adheres to the Romish Religion, and consequently they cannot judge of that satisfaction and force, which is to be found in the writings of Protestants; wherefore by the world we must understand the leaders of the Romish Church, and it is no wonder that Protestant writers should be loathsome and unconvincing unto them; a foul stomach loathes that meat which is wholesome, & a blinded eye cannot see the light which is held out unto it; though the truth of the Protestant tenants be demonstrated as clear as the Sun, and the Tenants of the Romish Church proved to be as visibly erroneous; yet that veil of prejudice which hangs before their eyes, and that cloud of self-conceit, which darkens their understanding will not suffer them to discern the truths that are to be found in the one, nor to observe the erroniousness ●ha● is visible in the other.  
What is unjustly charged upon the Writings of Protestant Worthies hath been abundantly proved to be true concerning Romish Writers, all their performances in maintenance of the Doctrine of the Romish Church is nothing but loathsomeness to a judicious understanding, and altogether unsatisfactory and unconvincing to every Reader, that is not resolved to be satisfied with very course far, and to be convinced with very feeble arguments.  
Now it is to be observed how upon the ground of this reason, he deals with that worthy person, whom he acknowledgeth to have a powerful influence over him, fastening upon an obliging friend the odious imputation of fondness and extravagancy; and that by his own confession, most injuriously; I am confident this person is not one that sits at the helm, either in Church or State, and mark his own words; it is no small piece of fondness and extravagangy, for private persons to writ against points of Religion, and to trouble others with either reading or answering his books; and afterwards he says, not to every quibble or captious criticism, for that would be endless, and below the gravity and seriousness of the thing treated of, it seems that he is not ashamed to throw dirt in the face of a worthy person, to fasten upon an obliging friend the ignominious title of fondness and extravagancy, for importuning him to answer papers, which by his own confession, do afford matters of gravity and seriousness to be insisted on.  
And enlarging upon this reason, once again he falls heavily upon the faulty mannagement of controversies, but deals not fairly with the Reader, giving no direction how to found the persons guilty, but leaving him in a Wilderness, to seek them he knows not where, and possibly he may found them, but he knows not when; surely Mr. H. L. and this Gentleman are very like in their dispositions, they are so visibly like in their practices; what out-cries do they make against controversies? how fruitless and endless, and full of quibbles and captions, and passions, and what not are they reported to be? alas that any controvertists have deserved so evilly at their hands; but walking under this Cloud of generals, and not accusing any controvertist in particular, do they not cover themselves with deceit? O that these Priests of the Roman Church, had the Noses of all people in a string, as they have their seduced followers, that they might lead all whether they listed, what happy persons would they be in their generation, because it is not thus with them, but their Religion is contradicted, and their Tenets confuted, therefore do they make these great out-cries, to keep their people in a persuasion, that they are absolute Champions in the defence of their Religion, and could if they pleased, bear all opposition down before them, but they scorn to defile their pens by engaging them in muddy controversies, while this is most that they can say, and all that they dare say; knowing that if they should stir to support their Religion, by their best endeavours, they would but shake that tottering Fabric, and expose it more to ruin, by subjecting their arguments to a speedy confutation.  
But though controversies (as he says) have this sad hap to fall into the hands of unskilful, and abusive writers, yet he would not be mistaken, it is no● the use that he decries, he allows of a prudent and serious inquiry to found out the truth; but the confirmation of this allowance by his own practice, he leaves unto the next opportunity of writing; mark good Reader how serious and prudent he is now, he tells thee that thou must judge of the matter of my papers, whither I have in them expressed passion, and keep close unto the matter controverted, and discussed it with reason, by those reflections which he makes against my method and way of proceeding; and surely if thou canst do so, thou must have an extraordinary spirit of discerning; as if thou canst judge of the honesty and uprightness of the person by the outward and visible parts of his face, thou must have more than an ordinary skill in physiognomy; I have known a great deal of good matter, huddled together in a confused method, and disorderly way of proceeding, and a great deal of corrupt matter exposed to the view in a very exact method, and orderly way of proceeding; and for thy greater assistance in giving of judgement, he promises to answer, but I know not what, sure it was some matter of secrecy, therefore he keeps it private to himself, and this answer must be so full and operative, that it shall be able to give Information of the insincerity of my dealing, and satisfaction to me and the prudent considerer, but it is well if we do not found him acting like unto the Son, which we read of him in the Gospel, who said unto his Father, Sir I go, and went not; in Plato's great year when all things must undergo a change, and this Gentleman's writing among the rest, it may prove thus satisfactory; how it is at present, will presently be examined.   

Upon the Reflection in general.  
HE promised to reflect against my method and way of proceeding, but I found him employing his strength another way, reflecting against the matter of my Papers, I shall pass by this infirmity, and take him as I do found him, confounding two different things, and will see what it is that is objected against me.  
I have said that my Adversary in propounding the queries, went three miles about, while a journey of one would be more serviceable for finding out the truth, and that the Turk can pled as great Antiquity and Succession f●r his Religion, as the Romanists can do for theirs, pretending to the antiquity of Austin and the ancient Britain's, and the Jew can pled a greater Antiquity and longer Succession for his, and I have required my Adversary to prove the affirmative of the three queries that are propounded by him; and have not agreed with him about a rule for the determining of the controversy: These are the great faults that are laid to my charge, and this is the rule that is prescribed to the Reader, by which he must give judgement concerning my Papers, and determine whither I have in them expressed passion, and keep close unto the matter in controversy, and discussed it with reason.  
Now (Christian Reader) what conclusions can be drawn from these premises to overrule thy judgement, to determine against me? here is not the lest smell of passion, and the matter in controversy being the determination of three trival and unprofitable questions, what can be closer unto it, and more consonant to reason than to tell my Adversary, that it is needless for us to encumber ourselves with it, because the resolution of this one question, whether the Religitn now professed by the Romanists be the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, will bring as sooner to the knowledge of the truth; and what can be more close likewise unto it, and more consonant to reason than to tell him that the determination of two of those questions will be altogether unprofitable for the Romanists? for if they could prove that the Religion now professed by them, is the same that Augustin professed, and his the same that the Ancient Britain's in his time professed, notwithstanding this Antiquity and Succession, they must give Protestants leave to accounted it the mere invention of man, until they prove that it is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and what can be more close unto it, and consonant to reason, than to require my Adversary to prove the affirmative of the queries, because the Romanists do boast so much of the Antiquity and Succession of their Religion, and will have Antiquity and Succession to be the touchstone, whereby the Nature and Constitution of their Religion is to be tried? and how can it be dissonant to reason, not to have agreed with my adversary concerning an infallible rule, while that agreement is improbable, if not impossible to be effected.  
And what is written in answer to the questions, is likewise to be observed; unto two of them there is some resolution made in the negative; and as to the third, I have told my Adversary; that it cannot with any show of probability be determined either in the affirmative or the negative, because there are not any Histories to be found, that do speak directly and expressly to the Religion of the ancient Britain's, informing us, what were the particular tenants maintained by them; and what can be more close unto the matters in controversy, and more consonant to reason than this? would this Gentleman have the Reader so much enslaved to his dictates, as not to believe his own eyes, nor to credit his own judgement; but upon his groundless suggestions, to believe & to determine that is not done, which (he may see) is really done.  
And the quality of the Rule that is prescribed is to be taken notice of, a complete Rule is index recti as well as obliqui, it shows what is straight as well as what is crooked, and such a rule should have been prescribed by this Gentleman, but in the three Reflections he tells the Reader, what, as he conceived, should not have been done; I should not have said that my Adversary in propounding of the Queries went three miles about, while a journey of one would have been more serviceable for finding out the truth and I should not have sa●d that the 〈…〉 k can pled as great Antiquity and Succession for his Religion as the Romanists can do for theirs, pretending to the Antiquity of Austin, a●d the ancient Britai●s and that the Jew can pled a greater Antiquity and longer Succ●ssion for his; and I should not have requi●●d my Adversary to prove the Affirmative of the three Queries, that are propounded by him; but he doth not declare his mind to inform us, what he conceived necessary to be done, yet by this crooked and defective Rule the Reader must give Judgement concerning my Papers; I perceive he would have the Reader to be, as his self is, an imitator of his great Lord and Master, the pretended head of the Church; to draw conclusions from any kind of premises, and to determine by any kind of rule, nor is this to be accounted a matter of admiration, while this principle is maintained by the Romanists, that it is meritorious to speak or do any thing that is serviceable for the advancing of the Romish Religion.   

Upon the first Reflection.  
HE misreports the end of propounding the Queries, they were not propounded to satisfy some friends, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same that was first preached in England, but to unsettle and pervert some Christians that believed the truth of the Reformed Religion; it is too frequently known that the first method and practice that is used by Impostors in sowing their Tares, is to beget scruples and doubts, which is done by propounding of Queries.  
To Quaere only was never accounted a method of satisfaction, nor ever known to produce that effect; if the Reflector will have it thus operative, why may not a Protestant as easily and effectually demonstrate and satisfy the contrary that the Religion now professed by the Romanists, is not the same that was first preached in England; suppose that the same Queries should be set forth with an intimation, that they are to be resolved in the negative; or suppose that these Queries should be sent forth: first whether the Religion professed by the Protestants in England be the same which Luther professed: secondly whether his was the same that was maintained by the first four General Counsels: thirdly whether that be the same that was taught by Christ & his Apostles; why should not these Queries be as powerful to demonstrate and satisfy that the Religion professed by the Protestants is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, as the Queries of my adversary are to demonstrate and satisfy, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same that was first preached in England.  
But says the Reflector, had my adversary taken the pains to derive the Catholic Religion through every Century, it would in all reason have added very much to the satisfaction of any discreet enquiring person; what than, this would not have demonstrated, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists, is the same that was first preached in England, for there is as great a difference between that Catholic Religion, and the Religion now protested by the Romanists, in what it differeth from the Protestants, as there is between truth and error: whether the present Romish Religion be the Catholic Religion is the great question that hangs in dispute between the Protestants and the Romanists, which the Protestants do justly deny; and which the Romanists with evident proof will never be able to affirm; and it is a most unjust usurpation in them to assume that Title, before a right unto it be fully proved.  
Had the Reflector said, if my adversary had taken the pains to derive the present Romish Religion through every Century, he would have spoken somewhat of pertinency to the Queries, but than I would have told him that derivation would have been as great a wonder as the production of an impossibility; if my adversary, or the Reflector, or any other will go to the Fountain and examine the present Romish Religion by the Doctrine of the first Ages, that is the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles delivered in the Sacred Scriptures, he will soon discover this impossibility; I am sure, if it be impossible to derive it through the first Centuries, it is impossible to derive it through every Century.  
Upon the supposition that is made, the fault charged upon me is aggravated in a high measure; I did but cavil (says the Reflector) when I said that my adversary went three miles about while a Journey of one would have been more advantageous for finding out the truth; and I might as well have said that he went sixteen miles about: but I perceive that he is like unto the Actor in the Tragedy, who was so desparately bend to accuse his Enemy that he forgot what he did; while he thought to have laid diversity of Crimes to his charge; instead of multiplication he made a repetition: By the method which the Reflector prescribes for the resolution of the Queries, he confessed that I said this very thing; for if the Queries are to be resolved by a derivation of Religion through every Century; in saying that my Antagonist went three miles about; I said that he went the Reflectors sixteen miles about, while a Journey of one would be far more serviceable; and this is not to cavil, but seriously and pertinently to speak the truth. That Travellers may deservedly be charged with great indiscretion, that declines the short, and plain, and easy road, and chooseth to range over craggy Mountains, and through darksome Woods and Thickets, and unfrequented Deserts: It is not probabble that this Traveler will ever arrive unto the end of his Journey: and I desire the Reflector to show some reason, why for the prevention of all such long, troublesome, and sruitless vagaries, an inquisition in the Doctrine of the first Ages may not lead unto a clear, and speedy discovery of the truth.  
But if this be the method that is to be used in resolving of the Queries, how can the Reflector with any show of discretion make this supposition, while in the third Reflection he takes upon him to show some reasons, that the Queries were not to be resolved at all by Romanists; and how can he lay down this position, to see a Religion proved to be visibly handled down through all Ages, should be the greatest assurance and satisfaction imaginable that it must be the true Religion, while he tells us likewise there, that must not be proved by them, they being in possession the obligation of proving the negative lies on the Protestants side.  
Mark gentle Reader, the Reflector is propounding of Riddles; what Religion is that, of which it is only queried whether it be true, yet this was to make a demonstration, & to give satisfaction of the truth of it? and what Religion is that, the derivation of which through every Century, would be an irresistible proof of the truth of it; and yet this derivation is not to be made; and to see it visibly handed down through every Age, would be the greatest assurance that could be made of the truth of it; and yet this must not be seen? thou mayst without ploughing with Sampson's Heifer easily unfold this Riddle.  
Lo here thou hast the visibility and succession and antiquity that is boasted to belong unto the Romish Religion: Great is Diana of the Romans, who would not be a worshipper of this Goddess; a Religion (says the Reflector) so anciently settled, so universally acknowledged, so Apostolically delivered: but thou seest that the proof of all this hangs wholly upon imagination; and this must act contrary to the experiment and evidence of the outward senses, as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; though thou seest bread, and feelest bread, and tastest bread, yet thou must imagine that it is the real and proper body of Christ: so, though thou must not have the Queries resolved by the Romanists, no● s● their Religion proved to be visibly handed down▪ nor must thou have it derived through every Century, yet thou must imagine all this to be done. Now it appears plainly, that the strange matter that was feigned to be the occasion, was a true prediction of strange matter to be found in the Reflections; but let us proceed and we shall found greater abominations.   

Upon the second Reflection.  
HEre is a great Cry, but little wool; a great outcry made against me, but little, yea not reason for it but the fictions of his own disturbed fancy, where did I speak of antiquity and succession in relation to that Religion which is acknowledged by all to be true, and proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninterrupted succession from the Author of the true Religion? and where did I speak of an undefined antiquity and succession?  
It is evident to him that will see, that I spoke of antiquity and succession in relation to the present Romish Religion, which is not acknowledged by all to be true, but accounted by a great part of the Christian World to be false, and is so far from being proved to have its derivation from the Author of the true Religion, (That if we must believe the Reflectors) it is unreasonable for us to require any such proof; and it is evident that I speak of that antiquity and succession, which claims not farther than to the Times of Austin the Monk, and of the ancient Britain's that were contemporary with him.  
Is this the man that comes furiously against me saying, mentita est sibi iniqu●tas, while he stinks of that odious crime which he lays to my charge? and is this the method that is by the Champions of the Roman Church in showing their ●alour, to charge the figments of their own Brain upon their Antagonists? certainly this is a plain discovery of the nature of that cause and Religion which is maintained by them; an unconscionable management is a clear evidence of an evil cause, and the use of such fictious supports as these, is a plain demonstration of a rotten Religion; Truth will not endure to be supported with lying inventions.  
And by my consent the odious imputation of fondness shall be translated, if the present Romish Religion be acknowledged by all to be true, who is there that can be blinded with passion, or prepossesse●● witherrour against it? & to whom, and to what purpose must that manifestation be made, which is pretended to flow from antiquity and succession? surely all will not come so near in fondness to this Gentleman, as to make this acknowledgement without a previous ground and reason for it.  
But the present Romish Religion being accounted by a great part of the World to be false will antiquity and Succession alone afford a convincing argument to prove it to be true? St. Austin 
* Aug. in quest. vet. & nov. Test. quest. 114.  maintains the negative, quod anterius est, says he, inquiunt Ethnici falsum esse non potest, quasi antiquitas & vetus consuetudo praejudicet veritati, the Heathen say, that the Religion that was first cannot be false, as if antiquity and old custom could prevail against the truth, and Tertullian 
† T●t▪ de Virg. Veland.  says, viderint ergo quibus novum est, quod sibi est vetus, haereses non tam novitas, quam veritas revincit, quodcunque contra veritatem sapit, hoc est haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo, let them therefore take heed who count that new which in its self is old, heresy is reproved not so well by novelty as by verity, whatsoever thing savoureth against Truth, the same is an heresy, though it be a custom never so old.  
The argument that is to be raised upon this medium in the behalf of the Romish Religion, is this; That Religion which hath antiquity and succession is true, but the present Romish Religion hath antiquity and succession, ergo etc. unless the mayor proposition be an universal truth, the premises are not able to bring forth a conclusion, ex particularibus nihil concluditur; if it be, I would know some better reason than is expressed by the reflector, why this argument may no● be used by a Turk or a Jew, both having Antiquity and Succession for their Religion; neither Turk nor Jew will acknowledge his Religion to be the mere invention of man, but are both pretende●s to a Divine original, and the Romanists having only a pretence unto Christ and his Apostles, the meanest capacity that sits under the instruction of the reflector, will easily discern the disparity spoken of, to be a mere nullity, is there any difference between feigned pretences whatsoever show or colour they do bear, they are but feigned pretences still, and the opinions of the Romanists that are contradicted by the Protestants can be not more really derived from Christ and his Apostles, than the Religion of a Turk or a Jew.  
Should I comply to his humour, and say what cannot be truly said, that a mere pretence unto Christ and his Apostles, altars the nature of the argument, making it serviceable for the Romanist, while it is unserviceable for the Turk and the Jew; suppose than that a Nestorian, or Arrian, or Pelagian should step forth, and pled Antiquity and Succession for his opinions, saying that they were handed down from one to another, from Father to Son, through all ages until they arrived with him, they all pretend to Christ and his Apostles as well as the Romanists do, and if upon this pretence the argument be irrisistable for the Romanists, it must be as serviceable for all the other Heretics; but it is an undoubted truth that Antiquity and Succession alone cannot be serviceable for any, whatsoever they pretend unto; for that can never be an evidence of truth that is common to error. and it is certain that many heresies are of an ancient standing and long Succession.  
His argument of Antiquity and Succession alone being defeated, now let us observe, first how artificial he is in his juggling, confounding different things to tender that expression, which savoured of nothing but truth, more odious unto the ignorant, that are not able to discern his legerdemain; he makes no difference between Antiquity and Succession in the abstract, and that Antiquity and Succession which is Primitive and Apostolical, otherwise why doth he tell us, that Antiquity and Succession alone is a sufficient manifestation of the truth, and afterwards tells us, that for us to press this argument against the Turk and the Jew, that the Catholic Religion is that which our Saviour taught his Apostles, and from them it hath descended unto us, therefore it is the true Religion, would be of no force to convince them: to say Religion hath Antiquity and Succession, is it to say that it was taught by Christ and his Apostles, and that from them it hath descended unto us? no Sir, there is a great difference between Antiquity and Succession alone, and that Antiquity and Succession which is Primitive and Apostolical, and the Romanists wanting this, whatsoever title they have to that, yet the claim which they make unto truth upon that ground, is but like unto the plea that was made by the base son, who because he had a spurious Succession, would have taken the inheritance from the right Heir.  
Secondly; let us observe how rational and demonstrative he is in his deductions, he tells us, that to any rational Person not blinded with passion, or prepossessed with Error, Antiquity, and Succession alone of that Religion which is acknowledged by all to be the only true one, would be a sufficient manifestation of the true Religion, and that of necessity it must be granted that the Religion which is most ancient, and which is proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninterrupted Succession from him that is acknowledged by both Parties, to be the Author of the true Religion, is to be admitted of as true by all, and consequently the continuance and Antiquity of it, allowed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof.  
The Gentleman would be very much offended, if I should assimilate him to Balaam the forcerer; but truly there is very great reason for it, they are so visibly alike in their performances, both acting quite contrary to their intentions; Balaam came with a purpose to curse Israel, but he altogether blessed them; and this Gentleman intended to prove Antiquity and Succession alone to be a great supporter of his Religion, but he hath altogether wrought the contrary; Reader, whosoever thou art (it is not extorted from his words, but his own plain and free confession) thou must not believe the Romish Religion to be true upon the account of Antiquity and Succession alone, before thou dost know it to be acknowledged true by all, and it must not be admitted as true by all, until it be proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninterrupted Succession from him, who is acknowledged to be the Author of the true Religion, afterwards by consequence the Antiquity and Succession alone of it, is to be allowed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof.  
Verily he hath done so worthily in the behalf of that transcendent, and always reputed argument of Antiquity and Succession alone, that he deserves, serves, I will not say a Cardinal's Cap; just as if he should say, a black Horse must first be proved and acknowledged to be an Horse, and than by consequence his blackness is a manifestation and mark, and testimony that he is an Horse, whereas thou canst not distinguish him by his blackness from an Ox.  
If he be asked when his Religion will be acknowledged by all to be tru●, he can return no other answer, but ad C●lenda● Grecas, that is to say, never, and why it must have that acknowledgement, and how it is proved to be unalterably derived from the Author of the true Religion, by a continued and uninterrupted Succession; I doubt he will be in a great straight for an answer, unless he says by Antiquity and Succession alone, and than that Antiquity and Succession may return unto him (as Jeptha returned to the Elders of Gilead) didst thou not hate me, and expel me out of my Father's house, and why art thou come unto me now, when thou art in distress, didst thou not make me a consequent of the proof of the truth, and wouldst thou have me to be an antecedent to prove the truth.  
It is the will of providence to infatuate this Gentleman so much, that instead of a builder he proves a destroyer of his own cause, wherefore it will be his greatest wisdom to be of another mind, to lay aside that manifestation which is pretended to flow from Antiquity and Succession alone, as unsufficient, and unnecessary; and instead of saying that Antiquity and Succession alone is a sufficient manifestation of the truth, le● him say this which will stand against all opposition, that the truth of Religion is a sufficient manifestation of the Antiquity and Succession of it that Religion which is proved to be true, is proved to have Antiquity and Succession, but every Religion that is proved to have Antiquity and Succession, cannot be proved to be true.  
Let him prove the present Romish Religion to be true, and the Antiquity and Succession of it to this day shall be freely aknowledged, but not as needful for the clearing of the truth of it, for this will be done by the pr●ceeding Proof, and until that be proved, let him not make these senseless brags, telling us they pretend to derive their Religion, and to prove a continued Succession of it from our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, it being by them delivered unto others, and so downwards to this present, as they make it to appear by Scripture, Tradition, Counsels, Holy▪ Fathers, in an unanimous consent of all Nations; I would know what Scripture they have for those opinions wherein they differ from Protestants, and what Nations, what Fathers, what Counsels they are that are consenting unto this, that the body of the Romish Religion, that was compacted by the Council of Trent, and never saw the light before, received this Derivation and Succession; did the Fathers, and Counsels, and Nations of the former ages, foresee what would be done in the latter age by the Romish Church, and upon that foresight praefix and afford their consents unto the actions and determinations of that Church concerning points of Religion.  
Nor let him break out into impertinent flourishes, telling us that Christians are not to impugn and answer one another, as they would impugn and answer the Turk and the Jew, and as the Turk and the Jew would impugn and answer Christians, for though it be granted that there must be a difference in treating and handling each other, yet the argument of Antiquity and Succession alone in the mouth of a Romanist, is of no more force than when it is to be found in the mouth of a Turk or a Jew; for if it be lame in itself, it is not a feigned pretence that can work a miracle, and make it to leap in the Temple.  
Nor let him upbraid us with mutability and novelty, these faults (injuriously charged upon Protestants) do sleep in the bosom of the Romish Church; they are the Changelings that coin and declare new Articles of Faith; and they are novelists that have not Primitive and Apostolic Antiquity and Succession; this was never yielded unto the Romanists by any real Protestants; but whatsoever Antiquity and Succession hath been granted unto them for those opinions wherein they differ from Protestants is merely spurious, and many ages postnate to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles.  
Nor let him tell us that we are assured that Antiquity and Succession will not befriend us, until he do prove his Religion to be true, we are assured that it will not befriend him; as for ourselves we do profess that we stand not in need of any such friendship; though that Antiquity and Succession which is sound and legitimate belongs only unto us, yet it is not Antiquity and Succession in the abstract, but the proof of the truth, that is the ground on which we do build.  
Which proof will not be made for the present Romish Religion, by saying that Religion professed by the Romanists, is the same with Austin's, his the same with the ancient Britain's, their's the same that was first preached in England; or by saying that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same with that of the fifteenth age, that the same with the Religion of the fourteenth, and so backward to the first; can he say that the water at the foot of the River is proved to be as pure and clear as it is at the head, by saying that it runs through those cuts and passages of land, which do strike up to the head, possibly many stinking sinks and unclean puddles, and muddy ditches may empty themselves into the stream, between the head and the foot.  
And let him tell us how he knows all this to be true, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same with that of Austin, his the same with that of the Ancient Britain's, theirs the same with that which was brought into England; I am certain that for the determination of this Identity in most points of Faith, he wants the evidence of Histories; and let me ask him likewise how he knows that the Religion of this last age, is the same with the fifteenth, and so backward to the first; doth his measure of knowledge exceed that of Cardinal Perron, who being required to show his Romish opinions in the three first ages, cries out upon it as an unjust demand, because (saith he) the monuments of the three first ages are so far ●ost, as no● the hundredth part of them remains unto posterity, so that it is very foolish and unjust from such a paucity of books to require us to decide all the controversies of our times, or prove the Articles of our Faith; with the want of Histories for some ages, let him take the corruption of Histories in others, and the contradiction of Histories in others, and than let him proceed to a resolution of the question; he is an excellent artist that can build an house without a foundation, or can draw a certain and infallible conclusion from uncertain and fallible premises.  
That the truth hath continued and succeeded from Christ and his Apostles, unto this day cannot be denied, but that there was never any chaff or tares mixed with the wheat, that corruptions & errors never entered into the Church in any age, since the first cannot be proved; Histories do inform us of the contrary; that sometime Pellagianism over spread the Churches of Britain, sometime▪ Arrianism the Churches of the whole world, certainly he will be at a great loss for the visible Succession of his Religion in those times, unless he do say that it is the same with Pellagian sin and Arrianism, and it is reported that Pope Liberius was an Arrian; C●lestinus a Nestorian, Honerius a Monothelite; and that John the twenty second denied the Immortality of the Soul, he must acknowledge that his Religion failed in its visible Succession during the times wherein those Popes did live, or he must say that his Religion is a maintainer of those errors, or that he doth not derive his Religion by Succession from the Popes of Rome, neither of which (I suppose) will be affirmed by him.  
The purity of the water at the foot of the River is to be tried by that which is taken up at the head, the truth of Religion is to be proved by the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles delivered in the sacred Scriptures, and whether the Protestants or the Romanists do make the fairest claim unto this proof, the Romanists themselves have determined, by their wicked rejection of the Scriptures, denying it to be the rule of Faith, and loading it with many Ignominious and Blasphemous Titles.   

Upon the third Reflection.  
IF the ground of the controversy, and the propounding of the queries was to satisfy some friends concerning the truth that is pretended to belong unto the Romish Religion, the proof of the queries in the affirmative was absolutely necessary; yet says the reflector, it was unreasonable to require it: first because it is the most unreasonable thing in the world, to urge any one to prove a thing, and at the same time to declare that the proof of it shall be of no benefit or advantage, or no more than if a Turk or a Jew should pled the same.  
Where was this Declaration made, I am very unwilling to use this expression, but the present discourse constrains me unto it, he that is frequent in telling of untruths, hath need of a strong memory, is it likely that a Tu●k or a Jew should prove the affirmative of the queries; do not impose upon me an improbable supposition from thence to draw a worse conclusion, in your appendix to your reflections you acknowledge that I have declared the contrary; I have said (and you confess it) that to grant your Religion to be the same with Augustine's, his the same with the ancient Britain's, theirs the same that was brought into England, is in effect to say that yours is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, to say this is to declare contrary to that wherewith you charge me.  
But to salve this sore, you make a strange Interpretation, and do tell how you would have the proof of the a●ffimative of the queries to be understood, to wit (say you) this continuance and ancient tient Succession: verily every one will say that you wanted either grace or wit, when you made this (to wit) to prove the present Romish Religion to be Augustine's, his the same with the ancient Britain's, theirs the same that was first brought into England, is it not more than barely to prove the continuance and ancient Succession of it; to prove a Religion, to have Primitive and Apostolical Antiquity and Succession, certainly is a great deal more than barely to prove the continuance and ancient Succession of it; and to prove the continuance and ancient Succession of the Romish Religion, is it to prove that it is the same with Augustine's, his the same with the ancient Britain's, theirs the same that was first brought into England? If your witty interpretation be not a wilful perversion, the expressions will be convertible, and than every Religion that is proved to have antiquity & suceession, is proved to be the same with Augustine's; than the Turk proving the continuance and ancient succession of his Religion, proves it to be the same with Augustine's, or a Nestorian, or Arrian, or Pelagian proving the continuance and ancient successiof his Religion, proves it to be Augustine's.  
And from whence do you make this Deduction, that I have declared, that the proof of the three Queries, as you do interpret it, should be to no purpose? though some account of the words hath been already given, yet it is necessary here to make a repetition of the substance of them; I have said that the Turk may pled as great antiquity, and as long succession for his Religion, as the Romanists do for theirs, pleading to the time of Austin and the ancient Britain's, which were contemporary with him; and a Jew may pled a greater antiquity and longer succession for his.  
By the woeful experiment of the bloody Rebellion in Ireland, I have learned that some Romanists will act any cruelty for the advancing of their Religion; and now I learn by experience that some will speak and writ any thing for the same end, though it be never so absurd and false; I speak of a defined and limited antiquity and succession; you charge me with speaking of that, antiquity and succession which is illimited and undefined, between which there is as great a difference, as there is between a particular Country, and the vast extent of the whole world; and this you do make the interpretation of the proof of the three Queries in the affirmative, when will you be more honest and upright in your carriage for the defence of your Religion? when will you leave of these deceitful devices wherewith you do blind the eyes of the ignorant multitude, persuading them to believe that you say very much to the advantage of your Religion, while you say nothing to the purpose; and nothing but what any rational man would be ashamed to speak.  
Secondly, it was unreasonable to require a proof of the affirmative of the Queries, because (say you) the Catholic Religion, the Romish Church was in possession when the Reformers first attempted the work of Reformation.  
I say little of your confounding two different things; the Catholic Religion is not the Romish Church, nor the Romish Church the Catholic Religion, any more than a particular Church can be said to be the Catholic Religion; but what mean you by Catholic Religion? If that which our Saviour commanded his Disciples to preach, when he gave that commission in the last Chapter of the Gospel according to S. Matthew, go and teach all Nations; it is denied to be in possession according to your expression; that is, flourishing in the greatest calm, peace and serenity that could be all the world over; within the compass of the Romish Jurisdiction the truth was darkened with the Clouds of superstition and errors; the professors of the truth persecuted and driven into Corners; if you will believe one of your own Bishops, Cornelius of Bitonto by name, who sat in the Council of Trent, and advanced your great Master, the Pope, unto a dignity equal to that which our Saviour appropriated to himself, saying Papa Lux venit in Mundum, which in English is this, The Pope which is the Light is come into th● world; you will found him declaiming thus against the Romish Church, utinam a Religione ad superstitionem, a fide ad Infidelitatem, a Christo ad Antichristum a Deo ad Epicurum, velut prorsus unanimes non declinassent, dicentes incorde impio & ore impudico non est Deus, would to God they had not fallen with common consent, and altogether from tru● Religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicure, saying with a wicked heart, and shameless mouth there is no God.  
If you mean the Religion that is now professed by the Romanists, you beg the question, which will never be proved in the affirmative; it will never be proved that the present Romish Religion is the Catholic Religion; and I must ask what the present Romish Religion was possessed of? if you say of those places wherein the truth was sometime sincerely professed; I deny this possession to be (as you say it was) without disturbance and contradiction; witness the persecution of those Christians, and the blood of those Martyrs, which suffered and died for the sake of the truth, in opposition to the Romish Religion.  
But suppose this possession had been without disturbance and contradiction, is it therefore unreasonable to require a proof of the affirmative of the Queries? because the Turk hath been a long time possessed of those places where Christian Religion once flourished, and that without disturbance and contradiction, is it therefore unreasonable to require him to prove the truth he pretends to claim for his Religion? because a Thief hath been possessed of an honest man's purse without disturbance and contradiction, is it therefore unreasonable to require him to prove a right of possession? If the Lawyers do tell you, that melior est conditio possidentis, the condition of the Possessor is best; this is to be understood with this supposition, if the possession be legal, otherwise if it be an usurped possession, gotten and kept by force or fraud, the condition of the dispossessed that hath a legal Title is best; and in this case the Lawyers will tell you, that prescriptio temporis non tollit bonum Titulum, prescription of time doth not make voided a good Title, which being the case of the Romanists, the Court of Equity will compel you to bring in your evidence to make out your Title.  
And you denying to do this, which equity obligeth you unto, it is a most fond and vain practice, to make such great cracks and flourishes, crying out of the present Romish Religion; a Religion so anciently settled, so universally acknowledged, so Apostolically delivered, and the only one in possession; and being through the Christian World, and confessed by Protestants to be justly presumable to have come from Christ: all this must be taken upon your own bore assertion, there being not proof of it to be found; and there is no more ground or reason for me to believe you, than there was for the Prophet Elijah to believe his servant Gehazi, when he said that he went not whether; the Romish Religion was not primitively, nor legally settled, wheresoever it was settled, but by usurpation, as the Turk hath been settled where Christian Religion sometime flourished; nor was it universally acknowledged, but opposed and contradicted in every Age since it first sprang up in the world; nor was it Apostolically delivered; it is my desire to be informed what Apostle it was that delivered these Doctrines, that the Pope is the Head of the Church; that Images are to be worshipped; that Saints and Angels are to be invocated; that Christ is corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the rest of your superstitious and Idolatrous Opinions; nor was it the only one in possession and being; there were Christians in Asia and Grecia that never submitted to the Romish Jurisdiction, nor embrace the Romish errors; but if the Romish Religion had been the only▪ one in possession according to your acceptation of the word; yet this could not be an argument to prove it the only one in being; though in Ahab's Time the Religion and Worship of Baal was only visible in Israel; yet the Lord told the Prophet Elijah, that there were seven thousand in Israel that had not bowed their Knees to Baal; nor ever was it acknowledged by any real Protestant to be justly presumeable to come from Christ, but proved to be a composition of superstition and Idolatry; therefore the mere invention of erring and deceitful men.  
Because you lay this great weight upon this argument of possession, do us the right to suffer it to be as serviceable for us, as you expect it should be for yourselves; and you will found yourself beaten with your own weapon, and forced to confess that which you have peremptorily denied, melior est conditio possidentis, the condition of the Possessor is best; and the Protestant Religion hath been, and is in as calm, and serene, and flourishing possession in England as ever the Romish Religion was; therefore it aught not in common reason to be changed or disobeyed upon pretences, suppositions, and mere probabilities, but to be obeyed and admitted as the only true, and undoubted Religion, until the contrary be evinced and demonstrated by most vigorous and manifest proofs; therefore it was unreasonable to propound the Queries; and being unreasonably propounded, there was great reason to require a proof of them in the affirmative.  
And though you do suggest the contrary, it was not upon pretences and suppositions, and mere probabilities that the Reformers disobeyed, and changed the Romish Religion, but upon manifest and convincing proofs made of the superstition and Idolatry, which was and is maintained by the Romish Church; the expression of the Prophet Isaiah might justly have been applied unto her; how is the faithful City become an Harlot; it was full of judgement, righteousness lodged in it, but now Murderers; thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water; it was high time for the Refiners to work, to purge away her dross, and to take away her Tinn; to dispel those mists of Romish errors that clouded the truth, and cried against Religion, as the Edomites did against Jerusalem, down with it, down with it even to the ground.  
As to your report concerning Luther; first, I answer that all reports made by Romish Writers are not true; witness the untruths that are reported in your Prologue and Reflections; and this I know, that many things are charged upon Luther, of which he was not guilty in the lest measure; and this report which you do make here, is one of them, to charge this expression upon him, in that manner as you do, is a wilful and wicked slander; the expression was vented in the heat of disputation with Eckius and his companions, whom Luther perceived to be desperately settled in opposition to the truth, they being stirred up by ambition and malice, and hired thereunto by the Pope, when L●ther found that they would not be convinced by the light of the truth, but would persist in a desperate opposition against it; he says in relation to that opposition, non propter Deum haec res caepta est, nec propter Deum finietur, this work was not begun for God's sake, nor for God's sake will it be ended; and so I may say of you, your writing against me in defence of your erroneous Religion, was not begun for God's sake, nor unless I had some better ground of hope than yet is visible, for God's sake will it be ended.  
But Secondly, suppose he had vented that expression in that manner as you say, you that build your justification upon charity, should have been so charitable unto him as to have taken his words in this sense; for no other interpretation can be imposed upon them without the breach of charity, that is, it was not by man's entreaty or beging that he was moved to attempt the work of reformation; neither by man's entreaty or begging would he be persuaded to desist from it; you know it was man's entreaty and begging, if the Duke of Saxony desired him for God's sake to return to the obedience of the Church of Rome.  
But should malice make the worst interpretation that could be made of the words, what advantage can you reap from them? if a personal fault must be an argument against Religion, why do you make claim unto S. Peter, to derive from him the chiefest Article of your Religion, to wit, the Pope's Supremacy? you know that he was guilty of a very great fault, in denying and for swearing his Master; and than give us leave to accounted the worse of your Religion, because Pope Hilderbrand threw the Sacrament into the Fire; Pope Sylvester, with several other Popes, were Necromancers and Conjurers; several so prodigious and execrable in their Lives and Conversations, that Platina (one of your own Writers) terms them very Monsters; two of your Bishops at the Council of Trent, were taken in the Act of Adultery, and the one clubbed to death, the other hanged; you will acknowledge yourself to have some personal Faults, unless you will say, that you stand not in need of the Forgiveness of Actual Sins, which if known, by your Logic a Deduction might be made thence, to convince you of the Erroneousness and Malignity of your Religion.  
Now let the Reader determine, whether you have made good your Position, that it was unreasonable to require a Proof of the Affirmative of the Queries; you have builded very much upon the Lawyer's Opinion concerning Possession; therefore it will be unreasonable and unjust to reject his Opinion concerning the Proof of the Affirmative; and (besides all that hath been said to show the Necessity of it) he tells you, that affirmanti incumbit probatio; Affirmatives are to be proved; wherefore, it being a Duty which my Adversary was obliged to perform, he should not have been so careless and slothful in the Proof of his Religion, as to stand in need to be requested to do it, therefore your Charge of Severity vanishes into mere Smoke, and it was just to assimilate him to the Egyptian Taskmasters, because he would be laying of unnecessary Burdens upon us, and would have us to be working to prove the Negative, while he would be neglecting of his Duty.   

Upon the Fourth Reflection.  
IN your Prologue you told me, that it was your purpose to levelly your few Reflections against my Method and way of answering, prescribing them to the Reader, as a Rule whereby to determine concerning my Papers, whether I had in them kept close unto the Matter in controversy, and discussed it with Reason; here you direct one particular Reflection against the very same Mark. It seems your Memory is very frail, you forgot to prosecute your purpose in the three first; but to supply that defect, you rub up your Memory in the fourth: I shall pass by this infirmity, leaving the Reader to descant on it as he pleases, and will mind you of that which you told me in your▪ Prologue concerning the unprofitableness of Disputation; concluding thence, that it was against your inclination to enter into the Lists: but here you say, that solid disputation is a matter of greatest importance: When will you be constant to yourself? It is not you distinction of solid and unsolid, or prudent and imprudent, that can salve the Contradiction; for all that hath been done concerning Points of Religion, hath not been unsolid and imprudent; and yet you say, all hath but made the world to nauseate, and hath not decided one controverted point.  
And here I found you agreeing with that remarkable Disputant M. H. L. in your Opinion concerning my Papers, my Method, and way of proceeding (say you) hath been disordered and unconclusive; so says M. H. L. but he passes an ipse dixit, for a sufficient Proof, while you make some little show of Reason for it; in answer to which, I will tell you a true story: There were two Fencers, that quarrelling about their Valour and Skill, for a decision challenged one another to the Stage; where, when they met, their greatest Quarrel was concerning the Weapons they were to use; and not agreeing about this, they presently whipped of the Stage, leaving the Spectators to gaze one upon another in a friutless Repentance for their misspent Pains and Coin.  
I shall leave the Application of this to be made by yourself, and do appeal to your own judgement to determine how▪ pertinent your present Discourse is, you know my imposed Task was, the resolution of three trivial and unprofitable Queries; will you tell me what infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge there is to be found and used for the effecting of this? If there be none (as I am sure there is none) for the determining of that which is unnecessary to be known, why talk you of an infallible Rule, and Guide, and Judge?  
And why do you say that if I had a mind to have proceeded solidly in a disputation concerning points of Religion, such an infallible rule or guide or Judge should have been nominated, can there be a solid proceeding in a disputation concerning points of Religion, when they are not points of Religion that are to be disputed? The great concern of the Queries is the Identity or Non-Identity of the present Romish Religion with Austin's, and of Austin's Religion with that of the Ancient Britain's, and of the Religion of the Ancient Britain's with that which was first brought into England? which are not points of Religion; they are not points of Religion which may be affirmed or denied without any hindrance to the Worship of God, and the ignorance of which cannot prejudice the health of the Soul, while man is upon the quest of his Salvation.  
Your Discourse here is as pertinent as that was of the Traveller, who when he should have related those things that concerned his Travels, as what Countries he passed, and the nature of their Soil, with the quality of the Inhabitants, and the entertainment he found amongst them, talked of the Land of Utopia, and of the World in the Moon, and other feigned Regions, that are not to be found in rerum natura: it seems that you were resolved to put your Pen upon motion, though you did not matter how irregular it was, and to blind the Eyes of your obliging Friend, you would be saying something, though it was nothing to the purpose.  
But to follow you in this wild Chase, and to show how much your Reflection is troubled with the Simples, as well as with Impertinency; First, I will tell you, that all Disputations concerning points of Religion, that have been made between Protestants and Romanists, have been without a previous Agreement concerning an infallible Rule, Guide or Judge, therefore upon this ground their discourses must be as disordered and unconclusive as mine; and solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris; it is no small comfort to me, to be ranked among those Learned Protestant Writers, against whose convincing Reasons you dare no more object, than a Child dares to enter into the Lists to fight with a Man of War.  
Secondly, By the force of your own Reason, you are compelled to shake hands with me, and to say Hail fellow, well met, in reflecting against my Papers, you have written as much concerning Points of Religion, as I have in answering the Queries, and you have not previously agreed with me concerning an infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge, therefore your whole Discourse hath been disordered and unconclusive; and pray Sir, to avoid this inconvenience in the future, do not writ again, until you be assured that we do agreed about these things: the observation of this Advice will save you the pains and the shame of writing any more Impertinences and Untruths; for if you do continued in retaining your Opinions, for want of this Agreement, you may lay aside your Pen until the last Day of the World doth come.  
But you say, it was my Duty to lay down some Principle per se notum, or to nominate an infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge; if there be an infallible Rule, there is no necessity for an infallible Guide, or Judge; for he that guides and judges according to that infallible Rule, guideth and judgeth infallibly, though he be not infallible in himself; therefore I assure you, being there is an infallible rule, that I do not know any infallible Guide or Judge under Heaven; if you do know any, it is my desire to be informed by you; and if you will comply to my desire, when you lay down your Instructions, be sure to observe your own Prescriptions, and produce not any thing that is probable, conjectural, or uncertain, but some infallible Proof for them; otherwise (according to your Assertion) they must be rejected as erroneous, or at lest doubtful: as for an infallible Rule, or Principle per se notum, the Obligation lies as much upon you, or any other undertaking to writ concerning Points of Religion; will you, or any other have your Assertions to be received for infallible Truths upon your own bore Authority? the Reasons for which you transfer the Duty wholly upon me, are so childish, that it is a shame to take notice of them; he that writes concerning Points of Religion, whether he be Opponent, or Answerer, whether he writ against an ancient, se●led, or a new, upstart Religion; whether he da●e freely to put the nomination of an infallible rule to his Adversary or not, must not think to have his Assertions to pass for infallible Truths, only because of an ipse dixit.  
Thirdly, You have an admirable short and ready way of refuting all Disputations that shall be made against your Religion; though Protestants do lay down never so many Principles per se nota, and tell you of the infallible rule never so much, yet while you do retain your own Principles, you will never agreed with them about it; therefore (you will say) all that shall be objected against your Religion, will be disordered and inconclusive; and thus though your Religion be an House built upon the Sand, yet (in your Conceits) it remains as firm and unmoveable as a Mountain; upon the ground of this shameful Defence, which you do make for it; but, good Sir, if a disagreement about this, be of such strength to conclude, let it be as strong in the mouth of a Protestant, as you would have it to be in the mouth of a Romanist, and let us retort upon you and say, that all that shall be objected by you against the Protestant Religion, will be disordered and unconclusive, because you will not agreed with us about an infallible Rule.  
Fourthly, Either your Ignorance is wondered, or your Unconscionableness not to be paralleled: Do you not know that I have propounded three Queries to my Adversary? the Affirmatives of which are as many Principia per se nota, undeniable Truths, though not for the determination of my Adversaries Queries yet, by which the pretended Truth of your Religion may▪ be examined? And do you not know what Protestants do mean, when they speak of an infallible Rule? Yea, have I not told you what is meant by it in that Expression, viz. I do not wonder that you keep a Veil over the faces of your People to hinder them from looking into the Holy Scripture? And if you do know these things, why do you conceal and deny your Knowledge? Can it stand with the preservation of a good Conscience to speak a notorious Untruth?  
And your inconsistency with yourself is as prodigious as either, what you do expressly deny, you do implicitly confess, that you do know that by the infallible rule Protestants do mean the Holy Scripture, because you do produce arguments to prove, that it is not the infallible Rule, Protestants do maintain the Holy Scripture to be this Rule, and if you do not know this, while you are writing against Protestants, why do you produce Arguments against it? it seems that by the frequent use of contradiction, you have attracted such an habit, that if you do open your mouth to speak you must incur the use of it.  
But supposing your ignorance to be as great as you do pretend, which no rational man will believe, while you do profess yourself to be a Romanist; how can you conclude that I dare not stand to the Judgement and determination of that infallible rule, which I have spoken of, being assured that I should bring a staff upon mine own head, and found my religion to be disagreeable unto it? can you draw conclusions from premises that you do not know? it is a great shame to use this kind of argument, but I have yourself to be my famous precedent, which will shield me from the imputation of folly, and bring it home to your own doors; you talk here of an infallible rule, and guide, and Judge, but you have not told me, nor do I know certainly what you mean, whether Fathers or Traditions, or Counsels, or Popes, or Church, therefore you dare not stand to the Judgement and determination of your own infallible rule or guide or Judge, being assured, that you would bring a staff upon your own head, and found your Religion to be disagreeable to them; this (I confess) is as if I should reason after this simple and contradictory manner, I know not the quality of the man, but I know that he is a dangerous man, and will do me a displeasure, because he hath not made himself known unto me.  
Because you pled ignorance so much, I shall dispel this dark mist, and tell you that by the infallible rule, I do not mean Fathers, or Counsels, or Traditions, or Church, or any thing else, but only the Holy Scripture, that sacred Word of God, which was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and written by such penmen as were specially fitted for that Employment: this is the rule by which we walk, and by which we do prove the truth of our doctrines, and demonstrate the erroniousness of the modern Romish Religion; and this you do know, though you have the face to deny it, saying, That while I speak of an infallible rule: you cannot imagine what I should mean, while I stick unto the Protestant Principles, for Scripture alone, say you, it cannot be for reasons expressed before; the meaning of which is utterly unknown to me, unless by it, you do say, that when you do see you are stark blind, for you do know that this is one of the Protestant Principles, that the Holy Scripture is the infallible rule: as for the reasons wherewith you do labour to refute the truth of it, when they come to be examined, which will be presently, they will be found to be lighter than vanity, in the mean time let me ask you, why you do fasten the reproachful term of a dead Letter upon the Holy Scripture, and in what sense this may be done? I cannot found by the strictest inquisition, that (as from its self) it can (in any respect) have this ignominious Title applied unto it, nor can I imagine how you can reconcile what you say to the experimented Efficacy of it, and the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul; he proves it to be a living Letter; saying that it is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and that it is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to every good work; and that the reading of it hath produced these wholesome effects in many, is so abundantly confirmed by Experience, that it cannot be denied: if the Word of the everliving God can in any respect have the Title of a dead Letter applied unto it,, I would know whose Word it is that is the living Letter: Is it the Word of Fathers, or Traditions, or Councils, or Popes? Are Abana and Parphar, Waters of Damascus, better than all the Waters of Israel? Must the Word of vain, mortal, fallible men be advanced above the Word of the everliving God? take heed of making such blasphemous Assertions, this is the Word that will judge you at the last Day; and if you do not repent for that Blasphemy which you have wilfully and wickedly breathed out against it, it is not the imaginary Flames of Purgatory-fire that will procure you a tolerable Judgement,  
It is not your pitiful Reasons that can disannul the Authority of this infallible Rule; every one will laugh at the simplicity of your first Deduction: The Arrians (say you) quoted Scripture for the maintaining of their Heresy, therefore it is not the infallible Rule. I will help you with another as conclusive as this; the Devil quoted Scripture to persuade our Saviour to cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple, therefore it is not the infallible Rule: Is that Authority disannulled, which is abused by some disobedient and unruly persons? Possibly you may be abused as a Romish Priest; but I suppose, you will not acknowledge, that by this that Power and Authority is disannulled, which you received by Commission from Rome; God is abused by the Sins of men, yet I hope you will not conclude thence, that his Power and Authority is disannulled which he claims over the Sons of men: you do acknowledge the feebleness of this Argument, while you do affirm, that the Abuse of a good thing should not take away the Use of it (of which I will tell you more hereafter) and what was the Arrians impugning the Divinity of Christ by Scriptural Quotations, but an abusing of the Scripture?  
That the Arrians impugned the Divinity of Christ with far more plausible Quotations and Texts of Scripture than I can produce for the Protestant Religion, is an Assertion which I deny; and which you aught to have proved; which being not done, persuades me to believe, that you knew it to be a gross untruth, yet you would confidently avouch it, purposely to deface the Authority, and vilify the Use of the Holy Scripture, that you might induce your followers to believe, that the evidence it holds out, is not a sufficient proof for the manifestation of Truth, and the discovery and confutation of Errors; and all this is done as a mere shift, to prevent (if it might be) the Use of that refuting force that is in it, to be employed against your Religion: what will not the Conscience of this Gentleman swallow? what will he not adventure to do for the defence of his erroneous Religion? while without any sign of regret, he can favour the Arrians, tread under his feet the Sacred Word of God, and maintain it to be a greater Patron and Defender of the Arrian Impiety, than of Protestant Truths: it is well known, that though the Arrians quoted Scripture for their wicked Opinion, yet they were irresistibly confuted by the clear evidence of Scripture; and it is as notoriously known, that you do reject the Holy Scripture, not admitting it to be a rule for the determination of that Controversy which is between the Protestants and the Romanists, and consequently, it is easy to determine which of us, whether I and other Protestants, or the Arrian Heretics can produce most plausible Texts of Scripture for our Opinions; though you distil this false persuasion into the minds of your people, that we cannot found any convincing Evidence in the Scripture for the proof of our Religion; yet you know very well, that the Evidence which we produce thence against you, compels you to fly (as sometime the Israelites did from the Philistines) into Holes and Caves, and Thickets; I mean the Coverts of Church, Traditions, Motives of Credibility, and other dark Corners, to hid yourselves.  
It is a certain sign that you labour under a miserable scarcity of Arguments, while the objections which you do make against me, do put weapons into my hands, to be employed for the overthrowing of yourself, if you maintain either Fathers, or Councils, or Traditions, to be the infallible rule, or guide, or Judge; the Heretic Diascorus cried out at the Council of Chalcedon, Ego habeo Testimonium sanctorum Patrum, I have the Testimony of the holy Fathers on my side; Eutiches appealed to Tradition; sic à progenitoribus accepi & credidi, so have I received from my Progenitors, and so have I believed; the Eutichian Heretic Carosus pleaded the Council of Nice; Ego (says he) secundum trecentorum Patrum expositionem sic credo, My Faith agrees to the exposition of three hundred Fathers; therefore neither Fathers, nor Councils, nor Traditions, are the infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge: Sure you will not have the face to withstand the force of your own Argument; and this is as like unto it, as one Egg is unto another; but howsoever you shall take the force of this Argument against yourself, I will tell you that your Argument is of no force to work against the Authority of the holy Scripture; though all the Heretics in the world should wrist the holy Scripture to maintain their destructive Opinions, yet it will stand according to the purpose and appointment of God, to be an infallible Rule, to direct his people in the way of salvation.  
Nor is it your second Reason that can work any thing to disannul its Authority; it is not Scripture taken according to the private interpretation of fallible men, that is the infallible rule, but Scripture taken in its own native sense, which in things necessary to be known, is plain and evident to the meanest ordinary capacity: He that calls not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, but hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confounded the wise, and the weak things of the world to confounded the mighty; hath not failed in the end, for which he appointed the Use of the holy Scripture, which is the instruction of those whom he doth call; therefore it is suited to their capacity, that they may read and understand the things that concerns their eternal Peace; wherefore it is a most injurious Assertion which you do make, telling us, that we cannot defend ourselves against the pleas of the Quakers, without the use of those Arguments which you do employ against us: while we have the benefit of this infallible Rule, we are sufficiently enabled to deal with all Enemies whatsoever, that do profess any thing of Christianity; for by its power we confounded the Quakers, and you, and all other Heretics, that do maintain Doctrines contrary to the plain and evident sense of it; and by its strength the Protestant Tenets are established and maintained in clearness as far above the Scriptural Pretences of Arrians, as Light is above Darkness, Truth above Error, and beyond the greatest resistance that can be made by the strongest Champions of the Roman Church.  
Where the Scripture is obscure the sense is not necessary to be known, as God doth not cast his pearls before swine, so he doth not hid them from his children, and for the interpretation of such places we willingly submit unto the Wisdom of Counsels, or the Judgement of the ancient Fathers, while they are constant to themselves, and consistent one with another, and do not give out any interpretation, that is contradictory to those places that are manifest and plain: and while we allow so much unto Counsels and Fathers, you have no reason to say (as you do) that we reject all Counsels, and undervalue the Fathers: we must not advance the word of fallible Men above the word of the everliving God, lest we should attract the guilt of blasphemy and Idolatry; but yet our allowance doth exceed that measure, which you do afford unto them: when the Fathers speak against you, they are but children in your account, and when the Decrees of Counsels contradict any of your Doctrines, you cry out against them as illegitimate; you dare not expose your Religion to the decision of the first four General Counsels.  
Your Argument is so remarkable for its vanity, that I cannot yet have done with it, though it be sufficiently confuted already, but must expose it in its formality to the view of the judicious Reader, if the Scripture be privately interpreted and that interpretation employed to maintain errors it cannot be the infallible rule; but the Scripture is privately interpreted by the Quakers, and that interpretation is employed to maintain their errors, ergo, etc. certainly you did not ruminate upon the hypothetical proposition that is included in this Syllogism, when will you prove the consequence of it to be true? if ever that come to pass, it will be miraculous, and than you will be at a very great loss, if you do maintain either Traditions, or Fathers, or Counsels to be your infallible rule, or guide, or Judge, Traditions, Fathers, Counsels, have been privately interpreted, and that interpretation employed by Heretics to maintain their Errors, therefore neither Traditions, nor Fathers, nor Counsels can be the infallible rule, or guide, or Judge verily the world will wonder at your dexterity in defending the cause of the Romanists; while you have been vainly sighting against me, you have been destroying them, and have cast the greatest supports, wherewith they pretend to uphold their Religion, down unto the ground.  
Because you have blasphemed the Holy Scripture, denying it to be the Infallible rule, and you confess, that there is a necessity of having such a rule; I must ask you once again, what and whose word it is, that must have this power and prerogative appropriated unto it; is it the word of any single man, or any society of men, if so, why must that word be advanced above the Word of God? because you say that nothing that is probable, conjectural or uncertain, can be a principle to prove, or a rule to walk by, or a Judge to determine; for the same uncertainty, or danger, which it hath, of erring and being false in its self, the same it must have in proving, ruling and judging; I expect you to produce somewhat of certainty to be the reason; and when this is done, it will afford me that satisfaction, which is not to be found in any of your Writers; but because I am assured, that this will never be done by you; I am bold to commend unto you this wholesome advice, which deserves to be accepted by you; let God be true and every man a liar, be not so desperately wicked as to advance the word of frail man above the Word of the everliving God, but let his Word have the pre-eminence above all: and let his people have the benefit of that light, which it holds out for their instruction, that they may see the vanity and destructiveness of those many Errors, which the Roman Leaders have politicly devised to keep them in bondage, and to maintain the wealth, height and state of the Court of Rome: if you do embrace and practise this advice, you will have lesle blood to accounted for, than otherwise you will have, when the great day of the general Account shall come.   

An Answer to the Appendix.  
THe great Artillery of this mighty Champion, to wit, his four Reflections, wherewith he presumed to levelly all before him, being examined and proved to be like unto Childrens Potguns, charged with nothing but Paper and Blast, I come now to take a view of the Appendix, and here I found him perked on high, sitting in the seat of Judicature, and having (as he supposeth) confitentem reum, he takes upon him to pass a peremptory sentence against me, disparaging my weak endeavours, and advancing his own in the superlative; but he is not like unto Solomon's Judge, scattering away all evil with his eyes, but very like unto the unjust Judge spoken of in the Gospel, that feared not God, nor regarded Man; in his last Reflection he blasphemes God by declaiming against the holy Scripture, and here he brings several accusations against me; for which he had no more reason than Jezabel had to accuse Naboth; it is my persuasion that it is as natural for him to use Forgeries and Calumnies, as it is for the sparks to fly upward▪  
In what Line or Leaf of my Papers was this Concession made, that I cared not how much of Antiquity and Succession was granted unto the present Romish Religion? there was never any Protestant, that granted unto it the lest share in Primitive and Apostolic Antiquity; and as for the Antiquity that was spoken of, it was limited to the time of Austin, and his Contemporaries the ancient Britain's; nor was this spoken of in relation to the Romish Religion, but by way of supposition; my words are plain to any common capacity, which were these; If I grant you so long Succession for your Religion, what advantage could you make of it? Are Suppositions Concessions? I shall make one Supposition more here; What if I say, that all the Ministerial Acts performed by the Romish Priests, are null and voided, because by exalting the Pope to be the visible Head of the Church, they have rejected Christ, disclaiming him as the only head, will he take this Supposition to be a Position? But howsoever he shall take it, verily there is more of truth in it, than of concession in the former; when he did read over my Papers, he could not but found me proving, that notwithstanding the great Brags made by the Romanists concerning Antiquity, the Religion now professed by them, can claim not farther than to the little Council of Trent: if I made that Concession, where was the Gentleman's eyes, that he that is so apt and forward to accuse me of contradiction, could not espy a contradiction between this Concession and that proof, in relation to which he stands like the Guest in the Gospel, that came to feast without a wedding-garment) speechless; but alas, he could not help it, he would have spoken, if he could have found any thing to say.  
And in what Line or Leaf of my Papers is the unexpected change, which is so much wondered at, and that manifest contradiction, which is charged upon me? is there any inconsistency between the forementioned Supposition, and the Answer that was made to the first Query? My Supposition (of which some Account hath been already given, but I am forced to trouble the Reader with another repetition) was this; if I should grant you so long Succession for your Religion, what advantage could you make of it, if you reason after this manner to confirm the Truth pretended to belong unto your Religion, my Father, and my Grandfather, and so onward, until you come to Austin the Monk, and the Ancient Britain's, were of this Religion, therefore it is true; a Jew or a Turk may reason with the same probability; or if you reason thus, Our Religion is as ancient as Austin the Monk, and the ancient Britain's, therefore it is true; a Turk may pled as great Antiquity for his Religion, and a Jew greater for his: My Answer to the first Query was this; we may presume that Austin's Religion was the same which his Master Pope Gregory professed, and your Religion differs from his in these Particulars, the Canon of the Scripture, the Sufficiency of the Scripture, the Reading of the Scripture, etc. Now what carping Momus can found occasion to bark at these Expressions, or what subtle Sophister is there that can draw from them the Position charged upon me, viz. That the Sum of the Controversy, and the main Business is to found out, what Religion Austin professed, it being become the Rule of my Belief, and by which the Protestant Religion must stand or fall; and if this Position be deducible from my E●pressions, how diligent was he upon his watch, that another contradiction should escape his Observation? He finds me telling my Adversary, that the determination of the Queries was a business of very low Concern, not deserving the pains of an Inquisition; therefore I desired him to leave Austin and the Ancient Britain's to stand or fall to their own Master, and without any vagary to prove that his Religion is the same that was first brought into England.  
Is it possible for a man to writ while he sleeps? certainly if he was awake, he was more dim-sighted than the blind man in the Gospel, who saw men walking like trees; or rather did he not look upon my papers (as Astrologers tell us, the Planets do look sometime upon this inferior Orb) with a malevolent Aspect, like the Basilisk to kill with his sight, but that the darting of his Venom is prevented by a careful foresight; here is not one symptom of an alteration, nor any terms of contradiction to be found, which the Gentleman himself doth expressly acknowledge by contradicting of himself, which he doth twice within a little distance, first he says that I granted a boundless antiquity to the Religion of the Romanists, yet he confesseth that I limited the antiquity spoken of to Austin and the ancient Britain's, Secondly, he speaks boldly and positively, saying, that the sum of the Controversy, and the main business was to found out what Religion Austin professed, it being become the Rule of my Belief, and by which the Protestants Religion must stand or fall; but in his Conclusion, he speaks very timerously and doubtfully, and says, I did but seem to rest upon the Judgement of Pope Gregory, and he could hardly believe that I laid any weight upon his authority, which yet was contrary to his own knowledge, for he could not but know that (as the resolution of the first query was designed) the Religion of Austin was to be tried by those opinions that were maintained by his master; here is a perfect imitation of Susanna's accusers, convincing himself to be a false witness against me by his manifest contradictions; I would attempt to persuade him to leave of his practice of bringing false and injurious accusations, but that I know my endeavours would be to no purpose, forgeries and calumnies must be used by him, otherwise he will want one of those rotten supporters, that are frequently used by the Romanists in upholding their erroneous Religion.  
I will tell him, that it is not upon the opinion of Austin, or Pope Gregory, or of any other private Doctor, that the truth of the Protestant▪ Religion is founded, nor do we apply ourselves to any such rule for the trial of it, it is the word of the everliving God contained in the Holy Scripture, that is our foundation and rule, which only is the infallible rule, without the direction of which none can be assured to found out the truth, and without conformity unto which the Religion that is practised, will be not more acceptable unto God, than the offering of Swine's flesh or the cutting of the neck of a dog, and if he will vouchsafe to look upon my papers once again he will see this very plain, that neither the Religion of Austin, nor of Pope Gregory was mentioned for any such end, but only for the determination of the quere in the negative, presuming that Augustine's opinions were the same with his masters, this was all the weight that was laid upon Pope Gregory.  
Therefore it is a wonder to me (unless he did in this imitate the practice of Fencers, who build most upon the use of that weapon, in the handling of which their greatest activity doth cozen what inducement there was, to move him to bestow this high denomination upon it, terming i● a certainty to build on, and choosing it to be the thief Subject of his discourse, and in which he reposed his greatest confidence, to trouble himself in writing, and me in answering, and the Reader in reading a business of very low concern▪ for supposing this to be true, that I was mistaken in quoting and understanding Pope Gregory; what do I loose, or what doth he gain by it, all amounts but to this, that the quere was not sufficiently determined in the negative; that this was not sufficiently proved, to wit, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is not the same, that was brought into England by Austin; and what of all this, what deduction can be made from this serviceable for his purpose, this doth not prove that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same that Austin brought into England, a defect in proving the negative, is not a sufficient proof of the affirmative; because Joseph had not any substantial witness to prove that he was not guilty, it did not therefore follow, that he was guilty of that crime, which was charged upon him by his wantom Mistress; because I cannot sufficiently prove that you are not an Englishman, it cannot be therefore necessarily concluded that you are an Englishman, possibly you may be a Spaniard, or an Italian or a French man.  
But because the Romanists are unwilling to attempt the proof of the Affirmative, and great reason there is for it; being it is far out of their reach, suppose secondly that this insufficient proof of the negative should be interpreted according to their mind, to be a strong demonstration, that the Religion now professed by them is the same that was brought by Austin into England, what use can be made of this? a derivation of Religion from fallible men cannot prove the Religion so derived to be true, if Austin and his Master Pope Gregory had maintained the modern opinions of the Romanists, it is easy to prove that they did err, as well as the Romanists now do.  
But thirdly, this which he is pleased to term a certainty to build on, is a real uncertainty, it being the meaning of Pope Gregorys expressions, that he vented the expressions (either in the same words, or for the substance of them) charged upon him, is as visible to him that ●ill open his ey● to see as the Sun, and whether mine or his interpretation comes nearest to Pope Gregory's mind, doth not belong to him to determine, considering those many faults committed in his papers. I cannot trust him for an infallible interpreter; and for him to judge in his own cause, and to determine on his own side, before I do enjoy the liberty of speaking for myself, is contrary to reason and equity; when I have pleaded in my own defence, and delivered what I have to say concerning Pope Gregorys expressions, who can tell but an indifferent Arbitrator may cast the balance on my side, and determine my interpretation most to deserve the Title of certainty; what ground there is for this, and what building he hath erected upon his conceited certainty, will be presently discovered; I do not doubt but it will prove a lasting Monument to perpetuate his own sha●e, and to witness the vanity of those great clamours that are made for the antiquity of the present Romish Religion.   

Concerning the Canons of the Scripture.  
IT is strange that he should presume to rely so much upon Pope Gregory's Testimony, terming it a certainty to build on, while he is altogether a stranger to his opinions; otherwise how could he be ignorant that Pope Gregory vented that expression, which is charged upon him; and how could it escape his search, while the very Index affixed to Pope Gregory's Writings will afford sufficient direction to found it; this surpasses the running of shooting at Rovers; he is a wondered▪ Artist that can hit the wh●te without looking towards the But: but though he could not found the expression, yet upon a supposition that Pope Gregory said it, he takes upon him to make an evasion, but how seebly he pursues his undertaking the Reader may easily judge.  
Here is nothing of coherency or sense to be sound in most of his expressions, therefore what was the chief reason of this exception against the quotation may be speedily conjectured, he knew not what to say, nor can he tell what he hath said; but to answer him with some sense, though not with as many just exceptions as may be made against his words, if he will allow me that liberty which Printers claim as an undoubted privilege belonging unto them, that is, to correct the Errata of the Transcription; and to writ 17 for 13; and search once again into the Writings of Pope Greg●ry, according to this direction, he will found that the expression was vented by him; where he speaks (as may be presumed) not only of all the Books of Maccabees in general, but also of all those Books that are rejected by Protestants as Apocryphal; and than passeth to a particular quotation of the first Book of Maccabees moralising upon Eleazers killing an Elephant, and dying under the weight of him; therefore to talk at this rate, demanding how I make it out that he speaks of the first and second Book of Maccabees, rather than of the third and the fourth; and to say that Canus speaks in the general, and says only that Pope Gregory held them as disputable, not that he rejected them as Apocryphal, and to say that all that can be inferred thence, is that they are not declared to be or are not truly Canonical, is nothing but vain babbling, altogether unable to resist the testimony, that is given on my side, Pope Gregory's wo●d● being positive and plain; in his Opinion all the Books of Maccabees were non-Canonical, and than by his opinion they were rejected as Apocryphal; for truly I do not know any difference between non Canonical and Apocryphal.  
And let us observe what is said beside; suppose (saith he) that Pope Gregory doth speak of all the Books of Maccabees, not collectively taken, for in that acceptation it would still make more against me, but distributively as well of the first and the second, as of the third and the fourth: I have no reason to say unto him as Festus said unto Paul, too much learning hath made thee mad; but certainly he was beside himself, or else he was in a dream when these expressions were committed to paper, here is a distinction without a difference, as he explains it; if Pope Gregory spoke as well of the first and the second, as of the third and the fourth, he spoke of all collectively taken, and how an absolute Identity doth work more and lesle against me, will nor enter into my apprehension; and every freshman that is but newly matriculated and initiated in Logic will tell him, that the genus doth include the species, and the whole the parts; if the whole heap be unsound, every parcel of that heap is unsound, if all the Books of Maccabees collectively taken, were in Pope Gregory's opinion non-Canonical; let my adversary mention in particular what book he pleaseth, whether the first or the second; for these as will as the third, and the fourth were in his opinion non-Canonical.  
And let us observe here what he says in the conclusion; the thing in controversy (says he) at present not being whether the assertions be true or false; but whether Pope Gregory held them or not: there his integrity is to be applauded; he once spoke truth; but than I must ask him how much truth is to be found in this expression, when he says, so fully is my objection answered by Dr. Bilson: how could Dr. Bilson's words answer my objection, and determine the controversy, while (as he is quoted) there is not any thing spoken by him in relation to this question, whether Pope Gregory held the Books to be Apocryphal or not? surely, this Gentleman is admirable for his answers and reasons, as he is wondered for his contradictions; and this being the controversy, his following discourse may be rejected as impertinent by his own confession; for the whole scope and drift of it, is to prove that though in Pope Gregory's opinion the books of Maccabees were not Canonical, yet now they are to be received as Canonical; but to show how languishing every word that he speaks is, I shall bestow some observations upon it.  
First, the truth of the supposition being granted, which I perceive, he is ●●willing at length to do; my desire is obtained, while he is crying out to triumph as if he had gotten the day; he is flying from his colours; leaving the assertion he undertook to maintain to shifted for its self, and granting that which I undertook to prove: the present Romish Religion differs from that professed by Pope Gregory in this particular, the Canon of the Scripture; and thus far falls short of its highly conceited and boasted antiquity; which concession I take to be a good Omen of Success to follow me in maintaining the other particulars.  
Secondly, I shall let him see what fruit he brings forth in the behalf of his Religion, by labouring to introduce the books of Maccabees into the Canon, it is not the declaration of the Church that makes the holy Scripture to be a Rule; but divine inspiration, which gives its intrinsical rectitude, whereby it is qualified and fitted to be a rule; for a rule is not such because it is declared to be a rule, but because of its intrinsecal rectitude which it receives from the Author, who upon that ground designs and appoints it to be a rule; therefore where a writing wants divine inspiration, it would be a capital error in the Church to declare it to be Canonical: This being preposed I shall offer this Dilemma so his serious consideration, the books of Maccabees, either had divine inspiration, or they had it not; if they had it, it was an error in Pope Gregory to hold them non-Canonical; which was not only his own private error, but it is strongly deducible from his expressions, that it was the error of the whole Church; for sure there is none of this Gentleman's Tribe will dare to say, that the Opinion of the pretended Head of the Church did dash against the opinion of the body; if they had it not, it was an error in the third Council of Carthage; and in the Council of Florence and Trent to declare them to be Canonical: it is supposed now that he will not stand mute at the sight of this Dilemma, but will make choice to some side, and whichsoever is made the object of his choice, it will shake some of the greatest Pillars that are invented for the supportance of the Romish Religion; for the one throws down the infallibility of the Church and Pope, the other the infallibility of Counsels.  
Thirdly, not to spe 〈…〉 much of the nature and the constitution of those Counsels that are nominated and affirmed to declare the books of Maccabees to be Canonical; that of Carthage and Florence were particular, therefore falsely denominated general; and that of Trent was but a Conventicle, made up (like unto Nebuchadnezars' Image of different matter, some real, some imaginary Bishops, only to serve for the advancing of the Pope's Interest; I shall oppose to these Counsels the Council of Laodicea, which excluded the books of Maccabees from the Canon; and likewise the general Council of Trullo, which approved and confirmed the Council of Laodicea; I shall object also against these, the Opinion of 
a Euse. l. 4. c. 25.  Mellito, 
b Euse. l. 6. c. 18.  Origen, 
c Hil. m. Prol. in Psal.  Hillary, 
d Cyp. l. cat. 4.  Cyrillus 
e Atha. in Syn.  Athanasius, 
f Jer. in pref. l. Sol.  Jerom, 
g Cyp. in exp. Sym.  Cyprian, 
h Aug. in civ. dei. l. 18. c. 36.  Austin; all these Ancient Father's maintaining 
● Cox. Lao. can. 59  all the books of Maccabees to be Apochriphal: contradictories cannot be both true; therefore I would have this Gentleman to determine which side the truth is to be ascribed; but in the mean time he may again take notice of the tottering condition of the Romish Religion; how unable the foundation is to support the building, while Counsels are contradictory to Fathers, and the subsequent Counsels to those that were preceding; I desire to know whether the Title of Infallibility is to be fixed upon any of them.  
Fourthly, he speaks of a Catholic tenant that was intended to be assented unto and approved by Protestant Divines, but his meaning lies in the clouds, and truly I have wearied myself in guessing what it should be; if it be that which he hath undertaken to prove here, viz. that though in Pope Gregory's opinion the books of Maccabees were Apocryphal, yet now they are to be received as Canonical: It is a most injurious and false assertion, for all protestants have unanimously maintained the contrary: if he means that tenet, which he says is expressly held and defended, not only by Doctor Bilson, but also by divers of the chief Protestant Divines, to wit, that this most weighty controversy of discerning true Scripture from false, cannot otherwise be decided, but by the Authority of God's Church, I suppose he understands the Church representative, otherwise I do not apprehended his meaning, while he says, that the Church having determined the controversy concerning the books of Maccabees, all parties are obliged to submit unto it; it is most injuriously done to report any Protestant writers to be Patroons of this most gross untruth; what did not the general practice of the Primitive Church, planted and watered by the Apostles, and their immediate Successors, and the opinion of the Fathers, which lived next after them, serve effectually for the deciding of this controversy, and discerning of true Scriptures from false? Did the Apostles (as without question they did) after the writing of the Holy Scriptures, propound them as a Canon to the Church, and while the original copies were extant, did the Apostle John collect and consign a Canon for the Church, as is proved by the concurrent suffrage of antiquity, and was not this transmitted to posterity? did not the Church of God know what Scriptures were Canonical for the space of three hundred years after Christ, during which time there was not any general Council to determine this controversy? and what perspectives doth a general Council use, that the Primitive Christians and Fathers had not the same glass to look through for the discerning of true Scriptures from false, that Religion is very indigent of supports, that stands in need to be sustained by those slanderous reports, that are the Parents of many irrational and senseless conclusions.  
If he had said that Dr. Bilson, and other Protestant writers do affirm that a general Council hath authority to inquire concerning every controverted part of Scripture, and to examine whether the evidence that it hath on its side can afford sufficient inducement, to believe that it can have no other derivation, but from the Fountain of truth, and accordingly to declare and propound their opinions to be embraced by the Church, I should have easily assented to the truth of it; but this is nothing serviceable for him, but altogether repugnant repugnant and destructive unto his present design; for inquisition hath been made concerning the books of Maccabees, and upon examination they have been found so defective in evidence, that they have been judged to be merely the issue of man's invention, therefore they have been determined and declared to be Apocryphal, and that determination and declaration being agreeable unto truth, there is no general Council, can have authority to determine and declare the contrary.  
Fifthly, I will tell him that the books of Maccabees were not only doubted of by some particular Churches and Persons, but rejected as Apocryphal by the Pope (who is pretended to be the head of the Church) declaring not only his own private opinion, but also the opinion of the whole Church, and they were doubted of and rejected not only for some short time, but for many ages upon just and undeniable grounds, they being originally not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and the Jewish Church, to whom (as the Apostle tells us) were committed the the Oracles of God, never received them into the Canon, besides the stile of them is so low and unlike the stile of the holy Scriptures; that it is a disgrace unto the spirit of God, to affirm them to he his dictates; they contain likewise several matters contradictory, to those books, that were never doubted of by any in the Church; nor did our Saviour or any of his Apostles give testimony unto them, by quoting any part of them, as they did to several books of the old Testament: now must he prove that the books of the new testament mentioned by him; were not only doubted of, but rejected by the whole Church for several ages upon as just and undeniable grounds, otherwise the members of his comparison are as unequal and lame, as the legs of Mephibozeth were, and his argument grounded upon it as ridiculous and unconclusive as that of Cardinal Bellarmin, who because there is but one King in an hive of Bees, concluded that there was to be but one visible Monarch in the Church: he must not think to pass that coin, that is proved to be counterfeited by wanting purity of Metal, and the King's impression for current money, as well as that which is proved to have both, though it be questioned by some unskilful persons, that want understanding to distinguish between the good coin and the counterfeit.  
I dare refer it to his own judgement, to determine whether there was as much reason for the rejecting of the books of the new Testament, that were doubted of but for a short time, by some particular Churches and Persons; as there is for the rejecting of the books of Maccabees, that for many ages after their first existence in the world, were not received as Canonical by any part of the Church, and than whether it was rationally and justly done by the Counsels of Carthage, Florence and Trent to decree contrary to the opinion of the Primitive Church and Fathers, and contrary to the Council of Laodicea, which declared them to be Apocryphal, and to the Council of Trullo; which approved of and confirmed the decrees of the Council of Laodicia.  
Sixthly, let it be observed once more how consistent he is with himself, here he labours tooth and nail to bring the books of Maccabees into the Canon, which (if I do understand what the word Canon doth import) is to join them to the Holy Scriptures in being a rule; and in his fourth reflection, with one wipe of his Pen he dashes out the whole Scripture from being a rule, by denying it to be a complete and infallible rule, for if it be a rule, it is propounded by God unto his people, who can propound a rule of faith and manners to direct them in the way of Salvation, but himself? and if it be propounded by God as a rule, it is complete and infallible, I hope he will not face Heaven and say that God hath deceived his people by propounding to them an imperfect and fallible rule, therefore to deny it to be complete and infallible, is to deny it to be a rule.  
He thanks God that he is not a professor of the Protestant Religion, but by this how blasphemously he charged God to be the author of those delusions, that are entertained and owned by him, I leave to the judgement of any rational and pious person; if instead of thanking God for this, he had prayed to God, that he would have given him grace to open his eyes to see and acknowledge those truths that are professed by Protestants he would not have been lest to himself, to use such shameful contradictions, and such pitiful arguments, as he hath used in defence of that cause which he undertakes to manage and maintain against me.   

Concerning the Sufficiency of the Scriptures.  
IN his Fourth Reflection, he denies the holy Scripture to be the infallible Rule, and fastens the Title of a dead Letter upon it: Here, being dazzled with the Light of Pope Gregory's expression, he is not ashamed to make a Recantation, confessing the truth, and bringing with him the witness of Vincentius Lyrinensis to confirm it; saying, that the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and in all points very sufficient in itself: that cannot in any respect be rotten, which is altogether sound; the Scripture cannot in any respect (as from itself) be termed a Dead Letter, if it be perfect, and in all points very sufficient in itself; and if it be such, it alone must be the infallible Rule.  
And it is strange that he did not understand how Pope Gregory's expression (the truth of which is acknowledged by himself, and confirmed by Vicentius Lyrinensis) should be evidently contradictory unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church decreed in the Council of Trent, (Concil. Trid. sess. 4. decr. 1.) viz. Scripturae sine traditionibus nec fuerunt simpliciter necessariae, nec sufficientes; Scriptures without Traditions are neither simply necessary nor sufficient. What, do the Scriptures contain all things necessary for instruction and edification, and are perfect and in all points very sufficient in themselves, and yet not simply necessary nor sufficient without Traditions? truly I do not know how to unfold these Riddles, that Scriptures should contain and not contain all things that are necessary for instruction and edification, and that they are perfect and imperfect, and in all points very sufficient in themselves, and yet not simply necessary nor sufficient without some help afforded by Tradition.  
It is not his distinction between the sufficiency of the Scripture in itself, and its sufficiency to interpret its self, nor the inference of Vincentius Lyrinensis, that can reconcile these Contradictions; for first, though the holy Scriptures be mysterious and dark in many places, yet in all things necessary to be known for instruction and edification, they are plain to every ordinary capacity. Pope Gregory says, that the holy Scriptures are an Epistle sent by God from Heaven unto his Creature upon Earth; and certainly God would not lap up his mind concerning things necessary to be known, in such mysterious and dark Expressions that his Creatures could not attain to the knowledge of it; this in effect would be not to sand any Epistle at all: for I do not apprehended any great difference between denying to set Meat upon the Table, and setting hard bore Bones instead of Meat. St. Augustin is more plain, (Aug. de Doct Christ. l. 2, 5, 9) In iis (says he) quae aperte i● Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur omnia illa, quae continent fidem moresque vivendi; in those things which a● plainly expressed in holy Scripture, are to be found a● those things that do contain Faith and good manners. And Chrysostom is as clear, (Chrysost. Ho● 3. in 2. Epist. ad Thess.) Omnia (says he) pla● & clara sunt in Scriptures divinis, quaecumque necess●ria sunt, manifesta sunt: In the holy Scriptures whatsoever things are necessary, are manifest and plai● And Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge this truth (Bell. de Verb. Dei, l. 1. c. 1.) His sacris Scripture (says he) quae Propheticis & Apostolicis▪ libris cont●nentur, nihil est notius, nihil certius, hae fidei Catholi● sunt sine dubio regulae; There is nothing more know● and more sure than the holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the Prophets and the Apostles, these are without doubt the rule of the Catholic Faith.  
Secondly, I do not found that Vincentius Lyrinensis affirmed that the holy Scripture in every part and parcel thereof is mysterious and dark; nor could this be affirmed by any man with any colour of truth: but it must be acknowledged by all, that as many places are mysterious and dark, so many more are manifest and plain; wherefore his words are to be taken as spoken in relation to those places that are mysterious and dark; and he doth not infer from the mysteriousness and darkness of those places a necessity of the Ecclesiastical understanding, but that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Exposition be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical Understanding; that is, that the mysterious and dark places of the Prophets and Apostles be interpreted according to that Rule which is to be used by the Ecclesiastical Understanding in interpreting such places. I do not say that the meaning of those places is necessary to be known; but that the meaning of them may be known, it is necessary that they be interpreted according to that Rule. Wherhfore was it that Eunomius did interpret the Scriptures one way, Sabellius another way, Donatus another way, and the rest of the Heretics other ways? It was not because of the mysteriousness and darkness of them, but because they did not interpret them according to this Rule, but according to their own Fancies; and all others, interpreting the mysterious and dark places of Scripture after the same manner, will be sure to falter in their Interpretation, and fall upon an erroneous sense. Hence it is that Vincentius Lyrinensis concludes, that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Exposition is to be directed according to the Rule of the Ecclesiastical Understanding; but not a necessity of the Ecclesiastical Understanding. If the holy Scriptures be in all things necessary, manifest and plain, it is but a weak inference, to conclude from the mysteriousness and darkness of some or many places, the necessity of the Ecclesiastical Understanding. If the holy Scriptures be in all things necessary, manifest and plain, the meaning of the dark places is not necessary to be known; and than where is the necessity of the Ecclesiastieal Understanding?  
And it is as deceitfully demanded how we may come rightly to understand the holy Scriptures without mistaking the true sense, there being many things in them so deep and mysterious, that they transcend all Human Reason? It is a mere fallacy, from the deepness and mysteriousness of many things, to conclude a difficulty in understanding all things contained in the holy Scriptures. Though many places are hard to be understood, yet there are many most easy and plain to any ordinary capacity. And though he doth close his own Eyes, and will not see, yet he must give us leave to open our Eyes to see and to understand those places that are manifest and plain.  
And the holy Scriptures being manifest and plain in all things necessary to be known. they are the best Interpreters of themselves, and sufficient to interpret themselves; that is, they are the best Rule to walk by, in interpreting those places that are mysterious and dark, and sufficient to regulate that interpretation for the preventing of Errors and Heresies; and that is the Rule that Vincentius Lyrinensis speaks of, as is evident from his own words, (Vinc. Lyr. c. 41.) he tells us that the Canon of the Scripture alone is sufficient for all things, Non quia (says he) Scripturarum Canon solus sibi non sufficiat ad universa, etc. If it be sufficient for all things, it is sufficient to regulate the Interpretation of itself. But to clear this farther, let us observe what the Reflector says; he interprets the Ecclesiastical Understanding to be the Church's sense and Father's interpretation of Scripture; (here he reckons the Fathers as Giants, ranking them close by the side of the Church; though treating of the Communion in both kinds he counts them all Pigmies;) and he may observe that Vincentius Lyrinensis doth not say that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Exposition is to be directed according to the Church's sense and Father's interpretation, but according to the Rule of it: He speaks of these things as different, and so they are; the sense of the Church, and the interpretation of the Fathers is one thing, and the Rule of this Sense and Interpretation is another thing; the Church's sense and Father's interpretation cannot be a rule unto itself. Now what this Rule is, hath been showed already; it is only the holy Scripture in those places that are manifest and plain. How can we know whether the interpretation of the dark places be agreeable unto the Truth, unless we do compare that interpretation with places that are manifest and plain? Must we take any Interpretation to be infallible because of an ipse dixit? Must the sense of the Church or the Father's interpretation be received for infallible, because she or they do (if they should) say it is infallible? The claim of Infallibility upon an ipse dixit belongs only unto God; and we must not take that for sound Doctrine, which is contradictory or disagreeable to those places that are manifest and plain.  
To put this matter quite out of doubt, I ask the Reflector, Whether is likest to be true, to say that the Ecclesiastical Understanding is a Rule unto the Scripture; or to say that the Scripture in those places that are manifest and plain, is a rule unto the Ecclesiastical Understanding: which is as much as to say, whether it is the Ecclesiastical Understanding that directeth God how to speak unto his people, or it is God that directeth the Ecclesiastical Understanding how to speak and to interpret. Surely he will not say that the Ecclesiastical Understanding directs God how to speak unto his people; than let him acknowledge that the Scripture in those places that are manifest and plain is a rule unto the Ecclesiastical Understanding, and it is God that in those places directeth the Ecclesiastical Understanding how to speak and to interpret.  
Besides, God's holy Word is his Law and Rule, which he hath prescribed unto us; and though it receives very hard measure at the hands of the Reflector, wheresoever he meets with it, yet for the Author's sake he should not be so desperately bend against it, as to deny it that perfection and sufficiency, which he must allow unto Human Constitutions. Now suppose a Statute, or Clause of a Statute, be obscure and dark, who must interpret it? He will say, the Judges. Well; but how must that interpretation be made? Must it be according to Law, or contrary to Law, or according to their own private Opinions? He will not say, contrary to the Law, nor can he say, according to their own private opinions, unless he will maintain the breast and will of the Judges to be Law; and than he must say, that it must be made according to the Law: Possibly one Statute may be clearer than another, and one Clause may afford light unto another; but howsoever, the interpretation must not be made in opposition to the Law, but to run as adequate and near unto that Line as possibly it can. The Law than must still be the Rule of interpretation; and I would have him for God's sake to yield the same perfection and sufficiency to the holy Scriptures: but what need I to beg this at his hands, while the force of Vincentius' words, acknowledged by him to be true, hath granted it already? Vincentius says, that the holy Scriptures are sufficient in themselves. From this undeniable position must issue this Conclusion, That they are sufficient to regulate the interpretation of themselves; for certainly that self-sufficiency was not given to be lapped up in a Napkin, or covered under a Bushel, but to show itself to the understanding of the Reader.  
If the Fathers might pass in any account with this Gentleman, I could produce the testimony of many on my side. Augustin says, (Aug. count. litt. petil. l. 3. c. 6.) Sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, five de quacunque re alia, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam si nos, sed si angelus de coelo nobis annuntiaverit, praeterquam quod in sacris Scripturis legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit; whether it be of Christ or his Church, or of any thing else, I will not say, if I myself, but if an Angel from Heaven should teach us otherwise than we have received in the Book of the Law and the Gospel, let him be accursed. And speaking in relation to Cyprian, he useth this expression (Aug. count. Cresc. l. 2. c. 13.) Nos nullam Cypriano facimus Injuriam cum ejus quastibet litteras à Canonica divinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus, neque enim sine causa tam saluber vigilantiae canon Ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi Prophetarum & Apostolorum libri pertinent, quos omnino judicere non adeamus, & secundum quos de ceteris litteris vel fidelium vel infidelium liber judicemus; We do Cyprian no wrong, when we distinguish any of his Writings from the Canonical Authority of Divine Scriptures; for not without cause is such an Ecclesiastical Rule of vigilancy constituted, to which certain Books of the Prophets and Apostles belong, which we may not at all dare to judge, and according to which we may freely judge of other Writings, whether they be of believers or unbelievers. And speaking of the discourse of Reason in understanding of Scriptures, he says, (Aug. de Doct Christ. l. 3. c. 12.) Haec consuetud● periculosa est, per Scripturas enim multo tutius ambulatur; This manner of expounding is very dangerous, the safer way is to walk by the Scriptures. Irenaeus tells us, that Ostensiones quae sunt in Scriptures, non possunt ostendi, nisi ex ipsis Scriptures; the Evidences that are in Scriptures cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves. Origen likewise speaks after the same manner, (Orig. Enchir. Hom. 2.) Necesse est (says he) nobis in testimonium vocare sanctas Scripturas, sensus quippe nostri, & enarrationes, sine iis testibus non habent fidem; we must needs call to witness the holy Scriptures; for our Judgements and Expositions without these Witnesses carry no credit. Chrysostom also is positive in this, (Chrys. in Oper, Imperf. Hom. 49.) Nec ipsis (says he) omnino Ecclesiis credendum est, nisi ea dicant vel faciant que convenientia sunt Scriptures; we may in no wise believe the Churches themselves, unless they say and do such things as be agreeable to the Scriptures. And Tertullian gives us this rule for the expounding of the Scriptures, saying, (Tertul. adver. Prax.) Oport●t secundum plura intelligi pauciora; it is meet that we expound the fewer places according to the more; and than certainly by the law of parity this rule will hold, it is fit that we expound the darker places by the clearer.  
By this time it appears plainly, that the flash which the Reflector made, saying, that he did not understand how the Doctrine of Pope Gregory concerning the sufficiency of the Scripture, should be contrary to the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, was but like unto the glittering of a Glow-worm, visible to him that is in darkness, but disappearing upon the approach of the light. It is evident that the holy Scriptures are plain and easy to be understood in all things necessary to be known: and to know the meaning of the mysterious and dark places, those Texts that are plain and easy to be understood are the best rule for Interpretation; so that the holy Scriptures need not to be beholding to Councils, or Churches, or Fathers, or Traditions, in borrowing any sufficiency from them. Nor have they any to lend, but whatsoever is delivered by way of Interpretation or otherwise, is to be examined by the rule of the holy Scriptures. And this being the Doctrine of Pope Gregory, that all things necessary to be known for Instruction and Edification are contained in the holy Scriptures; and the Doctrine of the present Roman Church being this, That the holy Scriptures without Traditions are neither simply necessary nor sufficient: Unless some dark M●st doth cloud his Eyesight, he may with half an Eye perceive that the Doctrine of Pope Gregory is as contrary to the Doctrine of the present Roman Church as truth is unto error.  
What is objected concerning the perverting and wresting of the holy Scriptures made by Heretics, is as truly applicable to the Ecclesiastical Understanding: For the same fate hath befallen it; so that it lies open to the force of the same inference which the Reflector doth deduce thence. It is well known that the Fathers have been claimed and quoted by Heretics; and if by the sense of the Church the Decrees of Councils are to be understood, Heretics have pretended and appealed unto them, as I have already showed; Councils as well as Fathers have been perverted by Heretics; and the truth is, nothing can be delivered so plainly, but it may be perverted, where there is a will and a purpose to do it. Therefore the perversion of the sense of the Scriptures made by Heretics, can not more prove a necessity of the Ecclesiastical Understanding to interpret them, than it can prove a necessity of interpreting the Ecclesiastical Understanding, and a necessity of interpreting that Interpretation; and so ad infinitum.  
I ask this Gentleman, whether God could not, or would not speak as intelligibly and plainly as any Ecclesiastical Understanding? To say that he could not, is to deny his Wisdom; and to say that he would not, is to deny his Goodness. Will he say that God purposed for to delude his people, when he inspired those sacred Penmen that were employed to writ the holy Scriptures, that instead of Bread, he would give his people a Stone; and instead of sending a bright shining Light, he would involve them in a thick Cloud, to 'cause them to grope out their way in the dark? I entertain such an opinion of him, as to think that he will not affirm any such thing.  
I demand farther, if the holy Scriptures be not plain and intelligible of themselves in all things necessary to be known, but there is a necessity for the Church's sense to interpret them, why is not the work done? Is there a Talon given to be employed and improved, and must it be lapped up in a Napkin, and lie buried in the Earth? Why are the common people hindered from the enjoyment of that benefit which the Church can afford? Why are not the holy Scriptures, with the Church's sense of them, delivered unto the common people, to be read by them, that they may know the things that concern their eternal peace? I doubt he will be hard puzzled to answer these Questions, unless he tells us, that the Church's sense lies hid in the bosom of the Parish-priest, unto whom the people have liberty to apply themselves at pleasure, to inquire what they must do, and what they must believe; and what he says must be taken for sound Doctrine, though it be quite contrary: Thus, though (according to the Doctrine of Pope Gregory) the holy Scriptures do contain all things necessary for instruction and edification, yet the word of a Romish Priest, and it may be one that is not able to draw a rational conclusion from apt and fit premises, must be preferred before the word of the everliving God; and what is this but the blind leading the blind, whose end will be to fall both together into the Ditch?  
These things being considered, it will be his wisdom to observe this advice, to acknowledge according to the Doctrine of Gregory, Augustin, and Chrysostom, that God in the holy Scriptures hath delivered intelligibly and plainly all things necessary to be known; therefore there is no absolute necessity for private or public interpretation, but all that is needful to be done, is to open the Eyes to see, and the Heart to receive, and to order the Will to practise those truths that God hath delivered plainly in the holy Scriptures.   

Concerning the Reading of the Scriptures.  
TO speak of the occasion of writing this Epistle, is impertinent. Theodorus' Charity to the poor did not entitle him more to the reading of the Scriptures, than the meanest of the people: they all had, or were to have Charity, and the Love of God; and to increase in these Graces, as well as he: neither did any other conjoined acts of his, beget a singularity of Privilege; God keeps open house, and Strangers as well as Children are admitted to this Table. The privilege of reading the Scriptures is common to the unconverted, as well as to the converted: the Apostle Paul says, that all Scripture is given by inspiration from God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness; they that want these things are privileged to seek where they are to be found; every one is privileged to use the means of conversion, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures hath been profitable unto the unconverted, as well as to the converted; St. Augustin was converted by reading of the Holy Scriptures.  
Nor have the learned a greater privilege of reading than the unlearned; but if there be any inequality of privilege between them, the unlearned ha●● most, if it be measured according to the line of necessity; St. Chrysostom affirms this, for thus he writes (Chrysost. l. in Math. hom. 2.) Hoc est quod omnia qua● una peste quadam corrumpit, quod lectionem divinaru● scripturarum ad solos putatis monachos pertinere, cu● multos vobis magis quam illis sit necessaria, itaque mu● to est gravius atque deterius rem superfluam esse puta● legem Dei, quam illam omnino non legere, haec enim verba sunt, quae de diabolica prorsus Meditatione promuntur; this is that which as it were with a pestilence infecteth all things, that ye think the reading of the Scriptures pertaineth only unto Monks, whereas it is much more necessary for you, than for them: it is more wickedness to think God's Law is superfluous, than if you should never read it; for these be the words that no doubt come from the study of the Devil. I am sure that the unlearned want instruction and direction more than the learned do; and as certain it is, that the learned may wrist the Scriptures to an erroneous sense, as well as the unlearned, and whose perverting of the Scripture is most destructive, let the Reflector determine. Who were the authors of those numerous Heresies that have infested the Church of God? not the unlearned, but the learned; and sure he will grant those Heretics wrested the Scriptures to maintain their erroneous Opinions.  
He may found that Pope Gregory (Gregory epis. l. 9 epis. 75.) did not only exhort Theodorus who was a Scholar, but such as he speaks of very contemptably here, illiterate women, to the reading of the holy Scriptures: and there was great reason that he should do so, being that the holy Scriptures (as he says) are an Epistle sent unto the Creature; which general term doth include both learned and unlearned. It had been strange if with the Epistle he had not given unto all a commission for the reading of it: must God beg leave of man, that his creature may know his mind? and shall he writ an Epistle, and must it not be opened without a licence from the Bishop or Inquisitor?  
He tells me that Theodorus was not persuaded to read the Scriptures that he might make himself Judge of Controversies; but what his meaning should be, I am very doubtful, this expression being subject unto a different understanding: it is one thing for a man to assume the power of Judging and Determining for others; another thing for a man to use the liberty of Judging and discerning for himself. If his meaning be this, that Theodorus was not persuaded to read the Scriptures that he might assume the power of propounding his Opinion authoritatively in matters of Controversy to be embraced by others, it is willingly granted. But than if he shall say that Protestants are persuaded to read the Scriptures for that end, it is a most injurious report; our people are not persuaded to read the Scriptures for any such end; but in cases of Controversy they have Governors and Rulers to whom they are to apply themselves, and to them they are exhorted to subject themselves by a ready and willing submission unto their determinations.  
If his meaning be this, that Theodorus was not persuaded to read the Scriptures to judge and discern for himself, it is denied: doth he think that Pope Gregory persuaded Theodorus to shut his own Eyes, and to deny the exercise of his own Reason? to what purpose hath God made Man a rational creature, and given him understanding, if he must not use it? must he not see with his own eyes, and discern with his own understanding between Right and Wrong, Truth and Falsehood? The Apostle Paul enjoined the Corinthians to judge of the Doctrine which he delivered unto them, 1 Epist. ad Cor. c. 11. v. 3. I speak (says he) as unto wise men, judge ye what I say and the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures, and judging of that Doctrine which he delivered unto them, Act. Apost. c. 17. v. 11. And our Saviour asks the common people, Yea, and why of yourselves judge ye not what is right? Luk. c. 12. v. 57 And while the Roman Leaders do restrain the common People from this Liberty, they deal worse with them than the Ammonites would have dealt with the Inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead; their cruelty extends to put out both the Eyes; though their common People have Eyes to see, yet they must not see; and though they have Understandings to judge and discern, yet they must not judge nor discern: but whatsoever is propounded must be embraced, whether it be right or wrong, truth or falsehood; and they must know no other reason for it, but only this, because it is propounded.  
And as the Roman Leaders do put out the Eyes of their ignorant Followers, so this Gentleman endeavours to put out the Eyes of all others, or else would persuade them to believe that they do see that which they cannot see: All their common People are strictly forbidden to read the Holy Scriptures. How is it than the constant practice of the Roman Church, to persuade them that are discreet to read the Holy Scriptures for devotion and encouragement in the Service of God? To reconcile these things, will he say, that all the common People do want Discretion, that is, are mere fools? And he says, the Ecclesiastical understanding is to expound Scriptures: How than have the common People the Scriptures expounded and fitted much better by learned Expositors in their Books almost of any sort? Where are those Books almost of any sort, which do contain the Church's sense upon the Scriptures? It must be a bad Cause that is managed and defended with such contradictory stories as these.  
The common People which (he says) are exhorted to read the Holy Scriptures for Devotion, and encouragement in the Service of God, are some Phantasma's, that are existing only in his own brain: for there are no such common People to be found in the bosom of the Romish Church. And the Expositors which he speaks of, are some such imaginary Entities, or else he must say, that the Jesus Psalter, or the Lady's Psalter, or the Exposition of the Mass, or the Legend of Saints, or some such superstitious and idolatrous Books as these, are those learned Expositors: for these, or some such, are all the learned Expositors that are to be found among their common People. I suppose he will not include the seven Champions of Christendom, or the Maiden-Knight, or the Knight of the Sun, or some such feigned Histories, in the number of those learned Expositors. Such Histories as these (I confess) are frequently and plentifully to be found among their common People; the reading of which, is allowed for the passing away of time, and approved far above the reading of the Holy Scriptures: so careful and provident the Romish Leaders are for the Souls of their poor hood winked and deluded People.  
Because he tel●s me that Theodorus was not persuaded to read the Holy Scriptures to interpret them according to his own fancy, I will tell him again from St. Augustine, Gregory, and Chrysostom, that the Scriptures, in all things necessary to be known, are easy and plain to the lowest ordinary Capacity: So that it is altogether improbable, if not impossible, that a well-minded person that goes humbly to draw Water out of this Fountain, with an earnest desire to be instructed and edified unto Eternal Life, should fetch thence any bitter Waters, that he should interpret the Scriptures to an erroneous and destructive sense; and than what great need is there for those learned Expositors of almost any sort? I would not be understood to undervalue the elaborate Tracts that have dropped from the Pens of learned Expositors; where Scriptures are obscure, there is a necessity of Exposition for him that desires to know the right sense: for which end, learned Expositors are highly serviceable. But I must tell him, that the sense of those places is not necessary to be known; in all things that are necessary to be known, the Scriptures are as plain as any learned Expositor can make them: which himself must acknowledge, or else he must say, that God could not, or would not speak as plainly and intelligibly as any learned Expositor can.  
He makes a tragical Exclamation against the use of the Holy Scriptures; but he bites his own Tongue for it, and very wisely retracts his detracting Expression: for this is the sense of his Yea rather, if any sense can be made of it; It was my great folly to speak unadvisedly; my Tongue hath uttered perverse things against the Holy Scriptures, they cannot be too much tossed and read; nor is it the tossing and reading of them that is productive of lamentable effects, but only the abuse of them: And this being the sense of his Yea rather, alas for the reason of that man, that concludes against the use of the Holy Scriptures, with an Argument taken from the abuse of them. He hath forgotten what he said in his Prologue to the Reflections, there he will not decry Controversies for the abuse of them; but here he will decry the reading of the Holy Scriptures for that very cause. I perceive that he would show himself to be as able an Artist as the Shoemaker is, that can make of the same Leather a shoe to fit any foot; or as the Tailor is, that can make of the same Cloth a stocking to fit any leg, either the right or the left: he can make the abuse of a thing to fit for any purpose. It must depose the reading of the Scriptures, they must not be read at all, because they are sometimes abused; but Controversies must ●●and and proceed in their greatest vigour, though they be subject unto the same fate. Why will he be thus partial in his dealing? why must the Holy Scriptures receive this hard measure at his hands? I know the reason of it, he will serve an Enemy with the same measure that is meted by him; because the Holy Scripture is utterly against his Church and Religion, therefore he is utterly against the Holy Scripture.  
And alas for the Conscience of that man, that, to maintain an erroneous Opinion, and to bring an Odium upon a Religious Duty, which is the reading of the Holy Scripture, fears not to speak a notorious Untruth, manifest to the eye of every Christian that will cast his eye upon it; there is not any girl no● any man in the world that reads the Holy Scriptures, but he will acknowledge a difficulty in understanding the Books of Canticles and Apocalypse: and where are those girls that upon presumption of Wit, or an unknown Spirit, do make themselves Teachers and Controulers, and Judges of Church, Scriptures, Teachers, and all? He says, every Girl: I ask where there is any such? if he cannot (as I am sure he cannot) show any such within the Protestant Communion, let him acknowledge this to be one of his learned Hyperboles; the frequent use of which, will beget this great credit for him, not to be believed whensoever he chances to speak truth. If there be any persons that in the lest measure do abuse the Holy Scriptures, they are not indulged by Protestants in this practice, but sharply reproved for it; and from the abuse of the Scriptures, he cannot conclude against the use of them: He will betray a very soft place in his head, if, because Meat is sometime abused to Gluttony, and Drink unto Drunkenness, he shall therefore conclude that neither Meat nor Drink is to be used. Let him but observe this practice for a while, to abstain from Meat and Drink upon this account, and his Body will be as hunger-starved and lean, as he suffers the Souls of his poor People to be, for want of the use of the Holy Scriptures.  
Alas for the lamentable effects of the injurious detainment of the Holy Scriptures from the common People! the Apostle Paul tells us, that the Holy Scriptures are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness: And the Psalmist tells us, that the Law of God is perfect, converting the Soul, and enlightening the Eyes, and refreshing the Heart: contrary causes do produce contrary effects. Alas than, that for want of the Holy Scriptures, the common people should want Conversion, and Illumination, and Reproof, and Consolation. St. Chrysostom says (Chrys. hom. 9 in Epist. ad Col.) Hoc omnium malorum causa est, quod Scripturae ignorantur: This is the cause of all Evil, that the Scriptures are not known. And he says likewise, (Chrys. de Laz. Can. 3.) Magna adversus peccatum munitio est Scripturarum lectio, magnum praecipitium & profundum barathrum Scripturarum ignoratio; nihil scire de divinis legibus, magna salutis perditio, ea res & Haereses peperit, & vitam corruptam invexit, hoc sursum deorsum miscuit omnia: The reading of the Scriptures, is a great fence against sin; and the ignorance of the Scriptures is a dangerous downfall, and great dungeon; to know nothing of God's Laws, is the loss of Salvation: Ignorance hath brought in Heresies, and vicious life; Ignorance hath turned all things up-side-down.  
Alas, that the common People should pray to Saints and Angels, that they should not worship God without the use of Pictures and Images, but should worship him in and by them, and worship Pictures with him; that they should believe a Purgatory-fire, and be tied to an impossible confession of sin unto a Priest, and build upon merits, and assumed or imposed Penancies, and purchased Indulgencies: That they should believe that Christ's Body (which is ascended into Heaven) is really and properly in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and should be put of with an half Communion; and should pray after such a manner, that they know not how they pray, nor what they pray for; that they should know little or nothing of that Service which they do pretend to perform unto God, and should acknowledge the Pope to be the Head of the Church; and that they should give no other reason for their Faith, but because the Priest, or the Pope, or the Church hath taught it them: all this, and much more is the rotten Fruit, which the want of Scripture doth produce: if they had the liberty of reading the holy Scriptures, they would not believe and practise any of these things.  
I shall use this tragical exclamation once more; alas, that out of a miserable scarcity of better Arguments, he should be forced to use his deceitful and irrational inference again, concluding a general fro● a particular; because some Books and Texts of Scripture are obscure and hard to be understood, an● because St. Augustin says in relation to some particular Book or Text of Scripture, O wondered profoundness, etc. therefore he says (including the wh●● Scripture) it being so hard to be understood by th● learned▪ reason should teach us that they were ●● indifferently to be read by all, and by sad experient we see the inconveniences.  
The sad inconveniences of the want of Scripture are obvious; the inconveniences of reading the Scepture are only imaginary, otherwise this Gentman would have instanced some particulars, and t● us where to found them. Truly, I know not where to found, nor did I ever hear or read of any Girl, that by reading of the Scriptures, did make herself a Controller, and Teacher, and Judge of Teachers, Church, Scripture, and all. But, to answer his childish inference:  
1. He may as rationally and probably conclude, because some men are rich in the world, and some Kings, therefore all the men in the world are such; as he can infer, because some parts and books of Scripture are hard to be understood, therefore the whole Scripture is so: St. Gregory and Augustin, and Chrysostom do say, and so say I, and so will every one do that is not sottishly ignorant, or blinded with prejudice, that as there are some Books and Texts that are hard to be understood, so there are several Books and Texts that are plain and easy to every ordinary capacity, and whatsoever is necessary to be known is fully contained in them.  
2. If the difficulty of understanding a particular book or Text of Scripture, be a reason why the Scriptures are not indifferently to be read by all, it is a reason to prove that it is not to be read by any; for if none must read the Scriptures, but such as do understand every particular book and Text, there is not any learned man in the world that must read them, because there is not any learned man in the world that doth understand every particular book and Text of Scripture.  
3. I shall offer to his consideration an inference that doth fully and firmly conclude the contrary, as himself will acknowledge, unless he be possessed with a wondered prejudice against the Truth: as the Books of Canticles and Apocalypse, and other Texts of Scripture are hard to be understood; so there are many other books and Texts of Scripture that are plain to any ordinary capacity: therefore the Scriptures were ordained indifferently to be read by all▪ In them (as Pope Gregory saith) there are Ebb▪ waters where the Lamb may wade, as well as deep waters where the Elephant may swim. In them (as Fulgentius saith) is Milk for Babes to suck, as well as Meat for strong men to eat. The unlearned will found in them matter of instruction to beget and increase Knowledge, as well as the learned, matter of scrutiny, to exercise their Wit and Industry, to found out the meaning of obscure places.  
If there be such a dismal number of false Translations, and corruptions of Scriptures, threatening no lesle than the ruin both of Church and State, as is pretended, why doth he suffer his Pen to lurk away under this Cloud of generals? Why hath he not told us what and whose they are, and wherein they are false and corrupt? Had he done this, he might have seemed to have spoken somewhat like unto Truth; but now this high expression will be taken for one of his exorbitant Hyperboles, far surpassing the bounds of Modesty and Truth, used purposely to bring that sacred book into contempt, which above all books is most serviceable for the benefit of the Church of God; thus tender this Gentleman is of the Glory of God, and the Welfare of his People.  
Doth he think that the Governors of the Reformed Churches are not as careful to provide wholesome Viands for the nourishment of their People, as the Governors of the Roman Church are cautious that their People be kep● hunger-starved, without that Provision which is necessary for them? The Translations that are common in the Church of England, are not many, nor are they different in any matter of importance; which have been diligently penned, revised, and approved by as learned Doctors as any the world can afford, who were employed by Authority; and laying aside all sinister respects, aimed directly at the Glory of God, and the Good of his Church. And I leave it to any man of common sense to determine whether is safer for the common People to rely upon such Translations for instruction in matters of Faith and Manners, or to rely upon the instructions of the Priest, and the Dictates of the Pope with his Conclave, declaring for their own private ends, matters to be believed and practised contrary to the Scriptures.  
His Objection of corrupting, and adulterating, and mistaking the sense of the Scriptures, is so silly, that a mere Novice that hath not yet learned the Principles of the Romish Religion, would be ashamed to expose it to the public view: Upon the same ground let not any Romish Priest, nor the Pope and his Conclave, nor the Representative Church, propound any thing to the common People: for the sense of their plainest Declarations is as much subject to corruption, and adulterating, and mistaking, as the sense of the Scripture is. Pray let him grant that God hath a will and power to speak for the instruction of his People as far out of the compass of this danger, as any Romish Priests, or Pope, or Council can: and having a will and power to do this, let him not detract from the goodness and tendemesses of God towards his People, and say, that this hath not been done by him.  
And I perceive that he harps still upon the same string, though he doth make very harsh Music. What is falsifying and corrupting Translations, and what is corrupting, and adulterating, and mistaking the sense of the Scripture, but an abusing of the Scripture? And what a pitiful Argument this is to conclude against the use of it, hath been already demonstrated. What if there were twenty corrupt and false Translations, would it therefore follow that there is none true, or that the true Translations are not indifferently to be read by all? And what though the sense of the Scripture in some places be subject to be mistaken and adulterated, and that by come ill-disposed persons; doth he certainly know the Capacity of all the common People, that he dare conclude, that there is none amongst them that can make a good use of the Scripture, & take it in a right sense? Hath God by his special Providence appointed the penning, and preserved the being of the Scripture for his People, and will his Providence now fail in providing a true and pure Translation? And hath he promised the guidance of his Holy Spirit to lead his People into all Truth, and will that Spirit suffer them to pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction? Let not any one be so wicked as to think that God will not perform his promise, and make all necessary provision that is fit for his People; and than let not any one dare to say, that there is danger in reading of the Scriptures, jest the People of God should fall upon a false and corrupt Translation, or should mistake the sense of it, and pervert it to their destruction.  
If St. Augustine had seen never so many false Translations, he would not have concluded as this Gentleman doth, but have taken care to furnish the People committed to his charge with a true Translation, and would have taught them how to distinguish between the true Coin and the Counterfeit. He quotes St. Augustin in speaking (as he pretends against the reading of the Scriptures, how pertinently, shall presently be showed;) but he doth not observe how he exhorts Christians to the reading of the Scripture, not fearing the danger of falling upon a corrupt Translation: Non solum, says he, (Aug. in cap. Jeju.) sufficiat quod in Ecclesiâ Divinas lectiones auditis, sed diam in domibus vestris aut ipsi legite, aut alios legentes requirite: Think it not sufficient that ye hear the Scriptures in the Church; but also in your houses at home either read yourselves, or get some others to read unto you. And he tells us, that there were many Translations in his days, and testifies their incorruption, by showing the happy Fruit that sprung from the use of them: Scriptura Divina, says he, (Aug. de Doct Christ. l. 2. c. 5.) ab una Lingua profecta per varias interpretum linguas, long lateque diffusa innotuit gentibus ad salutem: The Holy Scriptures passing from one Tongue, and being published abroad far and wide by sundry Tongues of Interpreters, have come to the knowledge of Nations to their Salvation. If there were many Translations in his days, and not any of them corrupted, how comes it to pass that there is such variety of corrupt Translations in these days, as is affirmed by this Gentleman? Doth God's Providence fail now in relation to his People? and are all the Rulers of the Church in a deep sleep, while there is none but this vigilant Gentleman with his Romish Brethrens, awake to discern them?  
Augustin's Expression makes nothing for his purpose: for he doth not say, that the reading of the Holy Scriptures is the Spring of Heresies, but the misunderstanding of them: Nor is this all the original that he speaks of, but he tells us, that this misunderstanding must be confidently avouched and maintained; which is a fault more incident unto the Learned than the Unlearned. There is no rational man will think that an unlearned person wanting abilities, can or will as confidently avouch and maintain his misunderstandings, as the learned who conceit themselves to be able to make out any position, though it be never so much contradictory unto truth. But however, if some ill-disposed persons (like unto the Spider) should suck Poison by abusing this Rose; yet let him acknowledge that the well-minded and humble (like unto the industrious Bee) do gather Honey from it. Now it appears plainly to the Reader, that the great Thunder-crack that he made, crying out alas for the inconveniences of reading the Scriptures, was nothing but a great blast of Wind without any Bolt to hurt, or hinder the common people from reading of the Scriptures.  
But I perceive that he is resolved to have the good hap to fall upon Truth sometime: For though Contradictions cannot be both true, yet it is very unlikely that they should be always both false. He affirms and denies the very same thing; a little before he told us, that Pope Gregory did not allow of a Licentious and Popular reading of the Scripture, only he exhorted Theodorus who was a Scholar: and it is the practice of the Roman Church to exhort those that are discreet, but to restrain Girls, and enthusiastic Women, and Artificers; and he gives this reason for it, The difficulty of understanding Scriptures by those that are learned, is sufficient to convince a rational man, that they were not indifferently to be read by all. Here he says, that though Pope Gregory's words do make nothing for a Licentious and Popular reading of the Scriptures, as it is used now adays, to intermeddle and judge of matters of Faith; yet they make for this kind of reading, to intermeddle and judge for instruction of life and manners; and this very allowance is made by the Roman Church.  
It is strange that he should be such a refractory son to his holy Mother the Church of Rome, as to labour to prove that is not to be done, which (as he says) she doth freely allow: And how can I make these things to hung together? that the Church of Rome doth allow the common people to read the Scriptures for instruction in life and manners; and yet the Scriptures are not indifferently to be read by all, because of the variety of corrupt and false Translations, and the difficulty of understanding them; and because the sense of them is subject to be corrupted, mistaken and adulterated?  
But why must this Licentious and Popular reading of the Scriptures, to intermeddle and judge for instruction of life and manners be allowed, and not also for instruction in points of Faith? Is it because the holy Scriptures are more intelligible, or the Understanding more apprehensive in matters of life and manners? Or is it because the Church of Rome doth not much regard how the Life and manners of the common people are ordered, she being an excellent Physician, having a ready Cure for every Distemper that is made known by auricular Confession? Or is it because she dares not trust God for instruction in matters of Faith, as well as in matters of Life and Manners? I would inquire concerning the validity and truth of these Reasons, because some of them are of a strong influence; but that there is another thing that carries the pre-eminence above all, that which wrought upon Demetrius the Silver-smith, causing him to cry out, Sirs, ye know that by this Craft we have our wealth. Whatsoever the rule be that regulates the life and manners of the people, their Faith must be pinned upon the Priests or the Pope's sleeve; this is the Harvest that brings in their full sheaves; this is the great supporter of the Roman Hierarchy; this maintains their pomp, and state, and wealth: the Fire of Purgatory would be quite extinguished; the price of Indulgences would fall; and soul-Masses would be at a very low rate; besides, many other new-coined commodious Articles of Faith would vanish out of the world, if the common people should be permitted to read the Scriptures to be instructed in points of Faith.  
The meaning of that restriction, which he lays upon the allowance, that (as he says) is made by the Roman Church, is as dark and doubtful as the predictions of Astrologers; but I shall use my best endeavours to found it out: The Text which he hath quoted speaks not one word of reading the Scriptures, nor of any limited measure of knowledge, which is to be attained by reading of them: If he use these words (unto sobriety) in the same sense with the Apostle, Rom. c. 12. v. 3. they are to be taken in opposition to excess, and than he must say that the extent of this allowance, which is granted unto the common people for reading of the Scripture reaches not further, but to the attainment of that Wisdom, which is bounded with Moderation, that they may not be excessively wise.  
But than I must ask first what this wisdom to excess is, for the preventing of which, the Church of Rome is thus circumspect: I never heard, nor did I ever read of any person that was made too wise by reading of the Scriptures, nor will any real Christia● believe, that the common people can be made too wise by the greatest liberty that can be granted ● used in reading of them. To answer this questi● will be a matter of great difficulty, unless he will say▪ that it is too much wisdom for the common people to know that they are enjoined the doing of man● things which God doth not require of them; an● that there are many Doctrines imposed upon the● for articles of Faith, which are not to be found i● the Apostles Creed, nor the Nicene Creed, nor Athnasius Creed, nor in any part of the Holy Scriptures; and so to know that the way in which they are conducted by their Leaders, is not the beaten Tract that was used by the Primitive Christians in walking towards Heaven.  
Secondly, What are the bounds of Moderation, within the Compass of which it is the care of the Roman Church to keep the wisdom of the common people? he will be as hard puzzled to answer this, unless he will say, that it is the greatest security of the Church of Rome, that is to say, the greatest assurance she can make for herself, that the common people shall not discern those follies and errors that are imposed upon them to be believed and practised; and than we know what this allowance to be wise to sobriety is. The surest way to keep a man from Gluttony, is to keep him quite without Meat: And the surest way to keep a man from Drunkenness, is to keep him quite without Drink. Thus the surest way to keep the common people from discerning those follies and errors that are imposed upon them, is to keep them quite without Scripture; this is the allowance that is granted by the Church of Rome to be wise to sobriety, as is very evident by that strict prohibition that was made by Clement the 8th, Biblia vulgari lingua edita legi non possunt, nec retineri; Bibles in the vulgar Tongue must not be read nor kept: and it is undeniable, that one among a thousand of the Church of Rome hath not the Bible in possession.  
I wonder that the following expressions should fall from the Pen of one that pretends unto Christianity; can the reading of the holy Scriptures bring forth these deformed issues, Heresy, and Blindness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called, that the Church of Rome should restrain it from the common people to prevent the production of them? God appointed the penning, and commanded the reading of the holy Scriptures; Can he be the Author of sin? and if the reading of the holy Scriptures doth produce these monstrous births, I would know what writings are to be read by the common people for the preventing of them; is it the Writings of a sinful man? Is the writing of a Priest, or a Pope, or a Council, more virtual and powerful than the writing of the Holy Spirit, that the reading of that will open the eyes of the common people, and make them really cautious, and wise, and Orthodox, while the reading of the Scriptures will produce the contrary effects? unto what height of wickedness is this Gentleman transported, to act contrary to the common notions of Christianity?  
How much Atheistical he declares himself to be, by reproaching the Word of the everliving God, I shall not determine; but I will be bold to say, that the Christianity practised by him is not conformable to the pattern of Trent; he will not reproach and condemn Traditions after this manner, and say, that the knowledge of them is to be withheld from the common people for the preventing of Heresy, and Blindness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called; and that the holy Scriptures should receive as great respect from him, was decreed by the Council of Trent, denouncing an Anathema against such as do not receive them both pari pietatis affectu, with an affection equally pious.  
The reading of the holy Scriptures doth not produce any of these things, but the contrary effects; Timothy (2 Epist. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 15, 16, 17.) Knew the Scriptures from a Child, yet was neither heretical, nor blind, nor ignorant, nor falsely wise; nay, the Apostle told him, that they were able to make him wise unto salvation; and that they are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work. And Cyril says, (Cyr. count. Jul. l. 7. p. 162.) Etiam pueri in sacris litteris enutriti, statim fiunt religiosissime, etiamsi minus eloquentes; even our Youth being brought up in the holy Scriptures, straightway become most godly, although not so eloquent. And chrysostom affirms, Manichaei & omnes haeretici decipiunt simplices, sed si babuerimus sensus animi exercitatos ad discretionem bo●i & mali, poterimus hujusmodi discernere: quomodo autem fiunt sensus nostri exercitati? ex usu Scripturarum, & frequenti auditione: the Manichees and all Heretics deceive the simple; but if we had the senses of our minds exercised to discern good and evil, we may be able to discern them; but how may our senses become exercised? by the use of the Scriptures, and often hearing. Theophylact speaks to the same purpose, (Theoph. de Laz.) Illis (says he) qui scrutantur Scripturas divinas nihil potest illudere, illae enim sunt lucernae, qua fur deprehenditur; nothing can deceive them who search the holy Scriptures; for they are the Candle whereby the Thief is discovered.  
But how can the reading of the holy Scriptures be both allowed and restrained? this is like unto his teaching of the common people how to fast and to eat both at the same time; though they eat Fish, he will tell them that they fast from Flesh; but this is but a mock-fast: and so though the reading of the holy Scriptures be restrained for the preventing of Heresy, and Blindness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called, yet it is allowed to be wise to sobriety; but this is but a mock-allowance, these things being inconsistent. If the reading of the holy Scriptures be restrained for the preventing of those destructive inconveniences, it cannot be allowed to be wise to sobriety; and are not these things Identities? Is not avoiding of Heresy, and Blindness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called, the same thing with being wise to sobriety, taken in his own sense whatsoever it be? and if so; how can the reading of the Scripture be allowed and restrained for one and the same end?  
I suppose he will now say that I have set his Expressions upon the Rack, and tortured them to make them speak quite contrary to his meaning; but I appeal unto any indifferent Judge to weigh his Expressions, and if he do not say that I have charged nothing upon him but what is plainly expressed, or necessarily deduced from his words, I will acknowledge myself to be so impotent in my own defence, that I do not understand common English. When he hath more grace, he will have more wit, and than he will be so cautious as to hinder his Pen from dropping such nonsencical, contradictory, blasphemous, and atheistical stuff as there is to be found in his Expressions.   

Concerning the Real Presence.  
WOuld he forbear the use of this Term Catholic, until he had proved the present Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, and the Tenants wherein she differs from the Protestants, to be Catholic Doctrine; his Pen would never speak this Language. The Reader is to take notice, that wheresoever he useth this Title, as pertinent to his Church or Religion, it is to be taken abusively: and verily I must say, That in teaching his Premises to bring forth Conclusions, his Faculty is admirable. First, Pope Gregory speaks of a Sacrifice: Secondly, of an Imitative Sacrifice: Ergo, He holds the Real Presence, That the Body of Christ is really, properly, and externally sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Lo, these are his Demonstrations.  
Now some inquisitive Logician, that shall examine his Logic, will be ready to ask him, how he knew the Mind of Pope Gregory, that he durst conclude thus à genere ad speciem, and à signo ad signatum; that because Pope Gregory speaks of a Sacrifice, and of an Imitative Sacrifice, therefore he meant a particular, proper, and external Sacrifice? As if he should say, Pope Gregory speaks of an Animal, therefore he speaks of an Horse; as if there were no other Animals in the World but Horses: and as if he should say, Pope Gregory speaks of the Ambassador, therefore he speaks of the King; as if there were no Personal difference between the Ambassador and the King.  
But Protestants do deny all proper, real and external Sacrifice; thus he proves the Consequence: But thus (as Tinkers use to do) in stead of mending one Hole, he makes two. Verily he was to blame with himself, to toil in searching into Pope Gregory's Writings, to know whether his Opinion in the Controverted Particulars be the same that is maintained by the present Roman Church, and to prove it to be contradictory to the Opinion of the Protestants. Here, at a pinch, his Ingenuity hath found out an Inference that will speedily do the whole Work, without any further trouble: What Protestants do deny, Pope Gregory doth affirm; therefore he maintained the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, and contradicted the Doctrine of the Protestants. But besides the disability that is in the Antecedent, for the proof of the Consequence; it is not more true than Chawcer's Winter-Tales, that are mere Fictions. Protestants do acknowledge That One true, proper, and real Sacrifice of the Son of God, once offered upon the Cross, for the Redemption of Sinners, which is remembered and represented in the Sacrament of the Lords Sup-Supper; and besides, they do acknowledge the infinite Value and Efficacy of that Sacrifice, which the Romanists do deny, by maintaining the Necessity of a frequent Repetition of it.  
As there was a proper and external Sacrifice, so there is a spiritual Sacrifice, and a figurative and mystical Sacrifice; and it is plain to him that will open his Eyes to see, that Pope Gregory speaks of a figurative and mystical Sacrifice: he tells us, That it is a Sacrifice by imitation; and that which is a Sacrifice by imitation, cannot be a proper Sacrifice; as he that imitates the King of France, cannot therefore be said to be really the King of France. It was a Practice used sometime in England, by Boys in their Sports, to imitate Priests in singing of Masses; I suppose he will not therefore conclude, that they were true and proper Priests. Besides, Pope Gregory terms the Sacrifice which he speaks of, a Mystical Oblation, and says, That it renews the Death of the Son of God per mysterium, by a Mystery; and in the same sense that his Blood is poured into the Mouths of the Faithful, and his Flesh divided to the Health of his People, must this Sacrifice be taken. Now Pope Gregory could not hold, nor can this Gentleman say, That his Blood is properly and really poured into the Mouths of the Faithful, and that his Flesh is really and properly divided to the Health of his People, but only in a mystical sense.  
He tells me a Tale, That the Sacrifice of the Lords Supper is a Representative, unbloody, particular Sacrifice, applying the general and bloody Sacrifice; which agrees with some of his former Expressions as Light and Darkness do together, and hangs in its self as coherently as a Rope of Sand. This Sacrifice which he speaks of, must be really the same that was offered upon the Cross, or really another. He cannot say that it was really another, because he cannot say that it is another Christ that is sacrificed, and another Body of Christ that is offered; for Christ hath not several distinct Bodies: Wherhfore he must say, that it is the same Sacrifice: And it exceeds my Understanding to apprehended, how the same Sacrifice can be bloody and unbloody, particular and general, a representation and the thing represented, the thing applying and applied, the imitation and the thing imitated. When he writes again, he will proclaim his Wisdom wonderfully to the World, if he shall unfold these Riddles, and reconcile these Contradictions: And the Sacrifice which he speaks of being invisible, (for, What Priest is there among the Romanists that can see the Body of Christ in the Sacrament?) it will be a further promulgation of his Wisdom, to tell how that Sacrifice which is invisible, can be a Representation of that which was visible.  
It is a double Injury to the Memory of Pope Gregory, to interpret his Words in that sense, which chargeth him with these gross Absurdities and Contradictions, and makes him to maintain an Opinion that is first contradictory to the clear evidence of Scripture; the Scripture tells us plainly, That it was not a Sacrifice to be offered up unto God, but a Sacrament given unto the Disciples, which our Saviour did institute: Take, (says he) eat and drink, and do this in remembrance of me. In all the Passages and Circumstances of the Institution, there is not the lest mention made of any Oblation; and the very Words of Institution are as contrary to the Corporeal real Presence, as Light is unto Darkness: This is my Body (says our Saviour): The Demonstrative This must be referred unto something that was present, and had a Being; for a Non ens cannot be demonstrated: and something that was visible, otherwise the Disciples could not have understood our Saviour's meaning; and that which is invisible cannot be demonstrated to the Eyes: But this thing could not be the Body of Christ contained under the species of Bread, for That (according to the Opinion of the Romanists) is not in the Sacrament until the last Syllable of the Words of Institution be pronounced; and it is visible to the Eye that it is not to be seen there: It was Bread that was present, and Bread that was visible; therefore the Demonstrative This must be referred unto That. This is cleared, beyond all contradiction, by the foregoing Words, As they were eating, Jesus took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body, Matth. cap. 26. v. 26. What can be plainer? It was real Bread which our Saviour took, and that he blessed, and that he broke, and that he gave unto his Disciples; and of that he said, Take, eat, this is my Body.  
The other Part of the Institution is as clear, This (says our Saviour) is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of Sins. What doth the Demonstrative This relate unto here? It must be that which was contained in the Cup, the continent being put for the thing contained, of which mention was made before; And he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, Matth. cap. 26. ver. 27. which, by the confession of the Romanists, must be Wine; for, as I said before, according to their own Tenets, until the last Syllable of the Words of Institution be uttered, the Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament; and it is evident, that our Saviour bade his Disciples drink of it, before he uttered those Words: Besides, after the Words of Institution, in the following Verse, he tells them expressly, that it was the Fruit of the Vine; I will not drink henceforth (saith he) of the Fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new in my Father's Kingdom, Matth. cap. 26. ver. 29.  
Dare any of the Romanists affirm, That our Saviour falsified his own Words? He said that he would go away, John cap. 16. ver. 5. and leave the World, ver. 28. and be no more in the World, cap. 17. ver. 11. which cannot be understood of his Deity, for that is Omnipresent; nor of his spiritual Presence, for that was promised to his Disciples, and is with his People, and in his Ordinances: Wherhfore it is to be understood of his Humanity. Nor must it be understood of an imaginary, but of a real departure. Will the Romanists affirm, That though he said these things, yet he would not go away, nor leave the World, but be in it Corporally, under the species of Bread and Wine? And will they contradict the Voice and Testimony of Angels? Ye men of Galilee, (say they) why stand ye gazing up into Heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into Heaven, Act. Apost. c. 1. v. 11. which must be understood likewise of his Humanity. And how could he be taken from them, if he was still with them Corporally in the Sacrament? And how could he be said to come again, if he was not taken from them? And how can it be said that he comes again invisibly, and ingloriously, under the species of Bread and Wine; while the Angels said, That when he came again, it should be after the same manner in which he went away, that is, visibly and gloriously.  
Doubtless the Apostle Paul knew the meaning of the Words of Institution; and had he known that the Romish Sense was to be imposed on them, being that he was so earnestly desirous (as he expressed, 1 Epist. ad Cor. cap. 2. ver. 2.) to instruct the Corinthians in the knowledge of those Mysteries that related unto Christ, he would not have concealed it from them; but while he treated of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, would have told them plainly, that in the use of it they were not to believe their own Senses, though they did feel, and see, and taste Bread and Wine, yet they were to know that it was not Bread and Wine, but the real and proper Body and Blood of Christ: But he declares no such thing, telling them with several Repetitions, that it was Bread, and it was the Cup, that is, Wine in the Cup after Consecration; and applying several Actions to those Elements, which could not be used to the Body and Blood of Christ, as breaking, and eating, and drinking, 1 Epist. ad Cor. cap. 11. ver. 26, 27, 28. Besides, he tells them, That the Cup of Blessing which we bless, is the Communion of the Blood of Christ; and the Bread which we break, is the Communion of the Body of Christ, 1 Epist. ad Cor cap. 10. ver. 16. These Words must be taken as an Exposition of the Words of Institution; otherwise speaking of the same thing which Christ did speak of, how could he express it better, than by conforming his Words to the Pattern of Christ, and saying, That the Cup which we bless is the Blood of Christ, and the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ? But in stead of this, he says, That the Cup and the Bread is a Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; whence it must be concluded, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration, and Christ is not Corporally in the Sacrament: For, a Communion cannot be the same thing with that of which it is a Communion; nor doth this Communion of which the Apostle speaks, require the Corporal Presence of Christ, any more than that Communion which the Israelites received while they were journeying towards the Land of Canaan, and by which they did partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, as well as Christians do by theirs: The Apostle says, That they did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all drink the same spiritual Drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Epist. ad Cor. cap. 10. ver. 3. & 4. And we are assured, that to be saved, there was not one way for them, another for Christians; but as Christians are saved by Christ that did come, and hath suffered in the World; so they were saved by Christ that was to come, and to suffer in the World. And this is as true, That their Communion could not require the Corporal Presence of Christ, it being celebrated many Centuries before Christ came into the World.  
That Text which is frequently quoted by the Romanists in favour of their Opinion, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you, John cap. 6. ver. 53. makes a great sound in the ears of the Common People; but while it is interpreted to that purpose, how shamefully it is perverted, contrary to our Saviour's meaning, is evident to every one that will open his Eyes to see. First, It cannot have any reference to a Corporal eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ to be made in the Sacrament, because the Words were spoken at lest a year before the Sacrament was Instituted, which is acknowledged by several of the Romish Doctors. Besides, the Eating and Drinking which our Saviour speaks of, is sure to produce the Fruit of Eternal Life: Whoso (saith he) eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life, ver. 54. which cannot be verified of a Sacramental Eating and Drinking. Judas (according to the Opinion of St. Augustine) had the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood administered unto him; and the Romanists themselves must acknowledge, that wicked Persons do receive that which (they say) is the real and proper Body and Blood of Christ; unless they will affirm (which cannot be affirmed with any colour of Truth) That no such Persons are to be found in their Society.  
Secondly, It is a Spiritual Eating and Drinking that is spoken of in that Text, as appears plainly by several Contexts. The Disciples being offended with our Saviour's Expression, to heal that Sore, and take away the Offence, he tells them how it was to be understood, What and if (says he) ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing: The Words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life, ver. 62. & 63. Which is as if he had said, You must not think that I speak of a Corporal eating and drinking of my real Body and Blood; for this cannot be done: I must leave the World, you shall see me ascend with my Body into Heaven: It is a Spiritual eating and drinking which I do speak of, for it is that only which is profitable, a Corporal eating and drinking doth not profit. This is further cleared by that which is expressed before, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, (says our Saviour) dwelleth in me, and I in him, ver. 56. What kind of Indwelling is this which he speaks of? It cannot be Corporal; for it cannot be said that Christ dwelleth Bodily in a Christian, or a Christian Bodily in him: Wherhfore it must be Spiritual; and than this eating of the Flesh, and drinking of the Blood of Christ, must be also Spiritual. St. Augustin affirms them both to be one thing, making the latter to be an Exposition of the former: Hoc est (says he) manducare illam escam, & illum potum bibere, in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere; This is the eating of that Meat, and the drinking of that Drink, for a Man to devil in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him: Agust. in Johan. Tract. 26. Besides, there is this undeniable Reason expressed in the Text; the Eating and Drinking which is spoken of, is absolutely necessary for the obtaining of Eternal Life; Except (says our Saviour) you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you: Which cannot be said of a Corporal eating and drinking, without the uncharitable guilt of excluding all Infants and Children, who dying in their Minority, and all others who through any invincible necessity do not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, from a possibility of obtaining Eternal Life.  
Thirdly, This Spiritual eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ, is a believing in Christ: This is likewise evident by several Contexts. Our Saviour enjoins the People to whom he preached, to labour, nor for the Meat that perisheth, but for the Meat that endures unto Life everlasting, ver. 27. Upon which, in the following Verse, they propound this Question, What shall we do that we might work the Works of God? Which is as if they had said, (and this must be the meaning of the Words, taking them in a right Coherence with the former) What must we do to gain the Meat that endures unto Life Everlasting, for that is to work the Works of God: To which our Saviour returns this Answer, This is the Work of God, that you believe on him whom he hath sent. ver. 29. Christ's Flesh and Blood is the Meat and Drink that endures unto Life everlasting; and it is plain, that to believe in him, is to work for it, to gain it, to eat and drink it. This is further evidenced by what follows; And Jesus said unto them, I am the Bread of Life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst, ver. 35. What can be more plain than this? He tells us that this Bread is his Flesh, that he would give for the Life of the World; and it is evident, that to come to him, is to believe in him; and to believe in him, is to eat that Bread: therefore it is, that he that believeth in him, shall never hunger; and so to believe in him, is to drink his Blood; therefore it is that he that believeth in him, shall never thirst. Certainly the Romanists will grant, that it is Eating and Drinking that doth satiate the Stomach, to the preventing of hungering and thirsting.  
While our Saviour doth attribute the gaining of Eternal Life to Eating and Drinking, and the very same effect to Believing, as is abundantly testified in the Holy Scripture, John c. 6. ver. 47. & cap. 3. ver. 15, 16. & cap. 5. ver. 24. and while there are such great and saving Effects ascribed unto Faith, as that by it we are regenerated, by it we are justified, by it we are the Children of God, by it we overcome our Spiritual Enemies; and all this, because Faith is the Hand that lays hold on Christ, who works all our Works in us and for us, and from whose fullness we receive all that is necessary unto Eternal Salvation; who can be so senseless as to think, that this Eating and Drinking of Flesh and Blood, which our Saviour speaks of, can be any other thing, but an unfeigned believing in him? I ask the Romanists, Whether the Fathers that lived and died before the Nativity of Christ, did eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, in that sense of which he speaks? If they did not, how could they be saved, it being absolutely necessary for obtaining Eternal Life? If they did, how could they do it otherwise than by Faith? And that they did it by Faith, is confirmed by our Saviour's Expression, telling the Jews, That their Father Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it, and was glad, John cap. 8. ver. 56. That day must be the day of his Nativity, and living and suffering in the Flesh: And how did Abraham see this day? Surely it was by Faith, after which manner he did eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man; for it is without doubt that Abraham was saved by him.  
Besides all this, which (I hope) the intelligent and impartial Reader will judge to be abundantly sufficient to prove the repugnancy of the Romish Interpretation to our Saviour's meaning, I shall add, for the consideration of the Romanists, how suitably their Interpretation works for them, displaying their Religion in fit and proper Colours to the view of the World. The Doctrine of the Romish Church is this, That it is not requisite and necessary for the Laiety to partake of the Cup; according to which the Practice of the Roman Leaders is conformed, they denying to administer the Cup unto the Laiety: And our Saviour's Assertion being positive, declaring both the eating of his Body, and the drinking of his Blood, to be equally and absolutely necessary for obtaining Eternal Life; if by it we must understand a Corporal Eating and Drinking of his real and proper Body and Blood, than that Doctrine is damnably sacrilegious, and that practice diabolically cruel. How dare the Romanists detain from the Common People that which is absolutely necessary for them? and why will they sand poor Souls in numberless numbers posting to Damnation, by withholding it from them? The Concomitancy of the Blood with the Body cannot acquit them from this Gild; for daily Experience doth inform us, that Eating is not Drinking: therefore the eating of the Body, cannot be the drinking of the Blood of Christ.  
Secondly, This Opinion, which the Reflector endeavours to fasten upon Pope Gregory, is contradictory to the Judgement of the Ancient Fathers. Some (I confess) have given out high Expessions concerning the Sacrament; but it was only for this end, to beget in the minds of Christians a reverend Apprehension and Esteem of it, and this to work upon them to entertain a greater Devotion in receiving it; but that they did not maintain this absurd Opinion, is evident out of their Writings. Tertullian expounds those Words of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body, after this manner; Hoc est figura corporis mei, This is a Figure of my Body, Tert. cont. Marc. lib. 4. cap. 40. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of Christ's Body, useth these Terms, A Figure, a Similitude, a Sign, a Token of Christ's Body, Amb. de Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 4, & 5. St. Augustin saith, Christus adhibuit ad convivium Judas in quo corporis sui figuram Discipulis suis commendavit, Christ took Judas unto his Table, whereat he gave his Disciples a Figure of his Body, August. in Psal. 3. & cont. Adia. cap. 12. So St. Chrysostom speaks, Si mortuus non est, cujus symbolum ac signum est hoc Sacramentum? If Christ died not, whose Sign and whose Token is this Sacrament? Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. And thus St. Jerome speaks, In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum, In token of his Blood, he offered not Water, but Wine, Jerom. adv. Jou. lib. 2.  
Thirdly, It is an Opinion that is contrary to Reason, first, That Christ should be really and properly sacrificed again in the Sacrament, to represent the Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross: For, first, that Sacrifice once offered (as the Apostle speaks) was either perfect, or imperfect. To say that it was imperfect, is Blasphemy; and to say that it was perfect, is to affirm that it cannot be iterated; contrariorum est contraria ratio & consequentia; If the Imperfection of the Legal Sacrifices was a reason why they were to be repeated, as the Apostle to the Hebrews doth abundantly testify, Epist. ad Heb. cap. 7. & cap. 10. certainly the Perfection of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, must be a reason why it cannot be repeated.  
Secondly, The Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was not only perfect in its self, but it also makes the comers thereunto perfect: So the Apostle Paul affirms, By one Sacrifice (saith he) he perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. And can any thing be added to Perfection? Is there any need that Christ should be again sacrificed, while that one Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross does all that is necessary to be done? Surely Christ will not have the Priest to do that which in every respect is altogether needless.  
Thirdly, If Christ be really and properly sacrificed again in the Sacrament, to represent the Sacrifice upon the Cross, he must be sacrificed either as he was in this World subject to Misery and Mortality, or as he is now in Heaven living and glorious: But the first cannot be, because Bodies that are glorified in Heaven cannot be subject to Misery and Mortality any more; nor can the second be, because a living and a glorious Body cannot represent, with any fit resemblance or likeness, that Body which suffered, shed its Blood, and died; and to represent being to expose to the view some signification or sign of the thing represented, the living and glorious Body of Christ cannot be there to represent, where there is no such representing Body to be seen.  
Fourthly, That a Sacrifice may be real and proper, the thing sacrificed must be destroyed, and besides it must be visible; this is acknowledged by their great Champion Bellarmin, (Bellarm, de Miss. l. 1. c. 2. & 27.) but we are assured that Christ cannot be destroyed, he can dye not more, and that which the Romanists do say, is offered, is not to be perceived by any of the senses.  
Secondly, It is contrary to Reason, that Christ's Body and Blood should be really and properly in the Sacrament; first because this is contrary to the end of the Sacrament, which was to be a Remembrance of Christ, and to show the Lords Death until he come, do this (says our Saviour) in remembrance of me, and as often (saith the Apostle Paul) as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you do show the Lords Death till he come. The use of Memorials is only needful in Relation to Persons that are absent, need I any thing to put me in mind of my Friend, while I see him with mine Eyes, or know him to be close by my side? and need I any thing to show the Lords Death till he come, if he be not gone, but is present under the species of Bread and Wine to show his own Death.  
Secondly, It is contrary to the constitutive parts of a Sacrament, which are a Signum and ●ignatum, a sign and the thing signified; If the Body of Christ and his Blood be really and properly in the Sacrament, I ask what is the visible sign? It cannot be the accidents belonging to Bread and Wine, these (according to the Opinion of the Romanists) must be left to hung in the air without a Subject, and indeed our Saviour did not say, this whiteness, or roundness, or redness, or any other accident is my Body and Blood, nor could the Body and Blood of Christ, which (they say) is shadowed under the accidents, be said to be the visible sign, because it i● invisible; but should the Romanists (contrary to sense) say this, it would confounded the sign and the thing signified, making them one and the same thing, for Christ hath not two several different Bodies.  
Thirdly, It chargeth Christ) who knew better how to speak than the Pope himself, though he be pretended to be infallible, and the visible Head of the Church) with a gross Solecism, and Tautology; for if Christ's Body and Blood was really and properly in the Sacrament, the meaning of the Words of Institution must be this; This my Body is my Body, and this my Blood is my Blood.  
Fourthly, It is productive of many strange Conclusions, that Christ should take his own Body in his Hand, and eat it, and give it to his Disciples, and they should swallow it, while he wa● sitting visibly with them at the table; th● Christ's Body which is now glorified in Heaven, should be in all the Kingdoms of the Earth where the Sacrament is administered; that it should be in the Hand of one, and in the Mouth of another, and in the Belly of another, and carri● upon the Shoulders of men in Procession, ●● Myriad of Persons should every one receipt the whole Body of Christ, and yet still be ●● one individual Body; that Christ should have▪ Body fitly proportioned with Parts, and endo●ed with Properties, and the same Body to ● without Parts and Properties; which is as mu● as to say, that Christ hath a Body and no Bod● for there cannot be a Body without these ●● Parts and Properties, that do belong unto it; that Christ should have an humanity that is finite, and the same Humanity to be in a numberless number of places at the same time (and if in many places why not every where?) which is as much as to say, that Christ hath an Humanity, and no Humanity, for Omnipresency, or to be in many places at the same time, is an incommunicable Attribute peculiar only unto the Deity, and cannot be transferred to any created Nature; besides, what a blasphemous sound doth ● make in Christians Ears, to say that the Body of Christ may be devoured by Mice and Rats, may be thrown into the Fire, may be mingled with poison to the destruction of the Receiver? ●ll which (as experience hath proved) hath befalln the consecrated Host: These things are above the power of Wonder, and the reach of credibility, and all these, with many more; are the deformed Issues that are naturally derived from that monstrous▪ Opinion of the corporeal, real Presence.  
To pled the Omnipotency of God, will not set a gloss upon it, to pass it under any show of probability, and to excuse the absurdities that are consequential unto it; we adore the power of God more than the Romanists do, while we apply ourselves unto him, and not (as they do) to the intercessory help of Angels and Saints; and we do acknowledge with Theodoret, that Deus potest quaecunque vult, God can do what he pleaseth; but his Will and his Power having determined the nature of things, and appointed what essential Parts and Properties they must have to constitute them in a Being, without those essential Parts and Properties they cannot be, for his Will is immutable, and the effect of his Power must be established; God cannot worl● against himself, he cannot deny himself, nor lie nor repent; God hath appointed man to be a rational Creature, consisting of Soul and Body; will the Romanists say, that man can be without that specific difference, and those constitutive parts; in like manner he hath determined the nature of Bodies, and they cannot be without those Parts and Properties that by his appointment are necessary for their existence; a Body cannot be without a place, or space and circumscription, a Body cannot be without longitude and latitude, profundity; St. Augustin says, (Aug-Ep. 57) Spatia locorum Corporibus tolle, nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt; Take from Bodies their places, and they will be not where, and because they will be not where they will not be. And an human Body cannot be without Head and Feet, and Legs and Arms, and Flesh and Bone●. I would know of the Romanists whether the Angels reasoned solidly, when they made use of this inference to prove the certainty of Christ's Resurrection, saying, He is not here, he is rises, come see the place where the Lord lay. If so, than a Body cannot be in many places at the same time: And I would know likewise whether o● Saviour's Argument was concluding, when he reasoned from the Nature of his Body after h● Resurrection, to prove that he was not a Spirit, saying, Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it ● I myself, handle me and see, for a Spirit h● not Flesh and Bones as you see me have. If so, than his Body cannot be where there is no Hands, no Feet, no Flesh, no Bones to be handled and felt  
Had not carnal ends and advantages been the midwife, certainly the Roman Church had not ●ravelled to bring forth this opinion, but (as it ●alls out sometime with the fruit of unchaste embraces) it would have been smothered in the Womb, and not permitted to see the light: what will not worldly men do to gain their desired ends, upon this ground God's commands will be violated, and his Worship slighted, truth will be contradicted, and errors maintained, and the Worship of Diana, and of the Image that fell down from Jupiter will be cried up; this puts activity into the Tongues, and Pens of the Romanists to pled in defence of this monstrous opinion, for the return which it makes, comes in richly laden; by this means the sacrificing Priest is advanced to the highest pitch in the esteem of the common People, how powerful is he deemed to be, while he is conceited to be able by the rehearsal of a few words to make the substance of Bread and Wine to vanish away; and the real and proper body and Blood of Christ to be present, and that he can offer this fruit of his lips as a propitiatory sacrifice, prevalent to take away the sins both of the living and the dead; this advances the trade of Soul Masses, and upon this ground what lesle respect can be paid unto him, than the Worship of genuflection, and to implore his favour for a benediction, saying holy Father bless us thy Children? This made Father Cotton to say, that while he carried his God in his hand, and had his Prince upon his knee in confession, he could do any thing. But the Romanists should fear to imitate the example of the Scribes and Pharisees, who for Corban dispensed with the breach of the commands of God, and for a pretence made long Prayers, jest they should share in those woes which were denounced by our Saviour against the Scribes and Pharisees; surely there is a woe to be inflicted upon them that draw out the points and practices of religion, according to the line of carnal ends and advantages.  
Having proved the disagreement of the opinion of Pope Gregory to that of the present Roman Church, concerning the corporeal Presence, I come now to refute those arguments that are produced by the reflector to prove the contrary; what though Beacon do say that the Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory; this makes not one fillable on his side, he speaks not of the Mass as it is now compounded, for as such it cannot be affirmed with any colour of truth, that the Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory; it is very well known that several successive Popes have added many ingredients as necessary to the constitution of the present Romish Mass, and the late Council of Trent hath coined several new Articles of faith relating thereunto, which were not used or known in Pope Gregory's time, and particularly (if he will believe his own Dr. Tonstall, the articles of transubstantiation was not determined until the Council of Lateran, which was many centuries after Pope Gregory; Erasmus (whom he will believe, as I suppose) says, in Synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit ecclesia, in the holy Ministration it was long and very late ere the Church determined the article of Transubstantiation.  
And what though Melancthon doth confess that Pope Gregory allowed by public Authority the Sacrifice of Christ's Body, and Blood, not only for the living, but also for the dead, this brings no advantage to his cause, for he doth not say, that sacrifice which Pope Gregory allowed, was in Pope Gregory's opinion a real and proper Sacrifice, neither Melancthon nor any other Person could rationally conclude from Gregory's expressions that he maintained any such opinion, but directly the contrary; he terms the Sacrifice of the Lords Supper (as I have declared already) a mystical and representative Sacrifice, and tells us, that though Christ dyeth not more, death hath no more dominion over him, yet ever living in himself, he is again sacrificed for us in this mystery of the holy oblation; for there his Body is taken, his flesh divided, his blood poured out into the mouths of the faithful. Besides he says (Greg. m. 6. poens. Psal.) Quis exponere queat quantae fuit miserationis sacratissima pretiosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere, & sacrosanctam vivifici corporis & sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere, cujus perceptione corpus suum quod est ecclesia pascitur & potatur? How great mercy was it to redeem Mankind by the most holy effusion of his precious blood, and to give the holy mystery of his living body and blood to his Members, by the receiving of which, his body, that is the Church, is fed and refreshed; and farther he says (Greg. comment 2. hom. 37. in evang. circa med.) Christus qui a se resurgens a mortuis, jam non moritur, adhuc per hanc in suo mysterio pro nobis iterum patitur. Christ who rising from the dead by himself, now dies no more, yet by this he suffers again for us in his mystery. Now if the Sacrament be a mystical Sacrifice, and a mystery of his living body and blood, and that partition of the flesh of Christ, which he speaks of, and the pouring out of his blood, and that feeding and drinking and suffering is not to be taken in a literal and proper sense, as every man will affirm that looks upon his words; than the Sacrifice of Christ, which he speaks of, cannot be a real and proper Sacrifice, wherefore the meaning of Melancthons' expression must be only this; The Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a mystical Sacrifice, Pope Gregory did allow of the use of it, that in it thanksgiving might be offered up unto God, for the benefits that flow from Christ's death to the living and to the dead, to the Saints in Heaven, and to the Servants of God upon Earth; this is made more evident out of that prayer which Pope Gregory used at the time of consecration, (Gregory de Sacr. in Miss.) in it he terms the Sacrament a Sacrifice of praise, and says that it is offered for the whole Church, for all the Servants and Handmaids of God, and farther I will tell the reflector, that I do interpret Pope Gregory's words, as his own Schoolmen, Peter, Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas do interpret the Sacrifice that is offered up in the Sacrament; they do acknowledge that it was not a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living, and for dead that was offered, but only a commemorative and eucharistical Sacrifice. (Pet. Lom. sent. l. 4. dist. 12. Aqui. 3. part, q. 83. Art 1.)  
As to his Allegation out of Doctor Humph●y, it is a most notorious Untruth, to charge this acknowledgement upon him, which (in propriety of Speech) could not be made by any rational man, that knew any thing of Pope Gregory, or of Augustine's mission into England; Pope Gregory was never in England, therefore it is certain that he did not bring the Archbishop's Pall into England; nor did Augustine bring it with him when he arrived, for it, with other Utensils, was sent unto him by Pope Gregory, after he had been several years there, so that the privilege of wearing the Archbishop's Pall was not granted unto him, until he had made some Progress in the work of Conversion; but if it had been as clear a Truth as it is a gross Untruth, that Dr. Humphrey did acknowledge, that Pope Gregory and Augustin did bring into England the Archbishop's Pall for solemn Masses, can any man rationally conclude thence, that Pope Gregory did maintain the corporeal presence? If the virtue and power of Transubstantiating be affixed to the Archbishop's Pall, than whensoever the common Priests of the Romish Church do consecrated the Sacrament, there is no transubstantiation in it, because they are not privileged to wear the Archbishop's Pall; and thus by his own acknowledgement, though he finds the corporeal presence in a Metropolis, yet it is not to be found in the greatest part of the Romish Dominion.   

Concerning the private Mass.  
FOr want of better Arguments, he makes a great outcry against me, because of a Mistake in the Transcription, 13 being written for 23. I could present him with the like Dish of his own cooking, but I forbear it as trivial. Besides he says, that if the Expression was Pope Gregory's, there is nothing of Ordination or Prohibition to be found in the words; un to which I answer, that Doctor Morton upon the very same words makes this following Observation; The Roman Church (saith he) ordained in the time of Pope Gregory, that at the Celebration of the Sacrifice, the Deacon should say, Whosoever doth not communicate let him departed; (Moort. App. l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 8.) Against which Mr. Brerely (as wise and as stout a Champion as this Gentleman is) durst never object; and if from thence the Ordination of the Church may be concluded, why not likewise the Ordination of the Pope? Surely it will be granted, that the pretended Head was some part of the Church, and that his power did concur in that Ordination; and it is strange that the Order which Pope Gregory reports to be observed in celebrating the Mass, should not be by his own Ordination, being that he was (though not supreme Head, yet) a Ruler in the Church; and especially if that be true, which (the Reflector says) is testified by Beacon, to wit that the Mass was fully completed by him; certainly if this was done by him, he did give Order when, and where, and after what manner the Mass was to be celebrated: Besides, the words that were pronounced by the Deacon were Imperative, commanding the Noncommunicants to departed. Now the Reflector must say, that the custom of pronouncing that command was raised and continued either by the Ordination of the Deacon, or of the Pope, or the Church; he cannot say the first, because the Office of the Deacon was but subservient in the Church, and by saying either of the other, he will affirm that which he hath denied, that there is somewhat of Ordination in the words, and that Gregory being Pope, it was by his ordination they were pronounced.  
But all this wind shakes no Corn; though this Objection do work its utmost against me, yet it is as trivial as that of the Cook, who excepted against a fat Capon, because it wanted some feathers; notwithstanding all this blustering stir that he makes, the truth which was affirmed stands unshaken, that Gregory in his opinion differed from the present Church of Rome concerning the private Mass, which this Gentleman must acknowledge, or else he must say that the practice of the Roman Church in his time was contrary to his Opinion; for his words are plain and easy to be understood, cumque in eadem ecclesia, etc. When Masses were celebrated in the Church, and the Deacon according to custom cried out, if any doth not communicate, let him departed: his strange distinction of solemn and unsolemn, or solemn and private cannot resist the force of this testimony; it is folly in the abstract to use a distinction, when it is known before hand that the controversy is concerning that distinction, and it is affirmed that there was no such distinction between Masses used in Pope Gregorys time, as is manifest from his words; for Pope Gregory doth not limit the exercise of that custom, which he speaks of, to any particular day, but speaks in the general, and says, when soever Masses were celebrated, and the Deacon according to custom pronounced, If any one doth not communicate let him departed; whence it may be assuredly concluded, that whensoever the Sacrament was administered, it was the custom of the Deacon to make this dismission, upon which the Non-communicants departed out of the Church; while the rest stayed to communicate with the Priest.  
Should I comply to his humour, and suppose (contrary to the express Testimony of Pope Gregory) that the words were spoken of solemn in opposition to private Masses, we found in them, as they relate unto that which follows, a convincing Argument for the condemnation of private Masses, and to prove that the use of them is an abuse and Profanation of the sacred Institution of Christ. Pope Gregory reports an Apparition that was frequently made in the Church, The Spirits (says he) of two persons that died while they lay under a threatened Sentence of Excommunication, were observed to departed out of the Church whensoever the Deacon dismissed the Non-communicants. Whence we must conclude that when private Masses were celebrated, those Spirits resided in the Church, because than the dismission was not made: Now I ask this Gentleman, why they departed when the dismission was made, and what was the reason of their residence in the Church when it was not made? certainly he can return no other answer but this, when the People were admitted to communicate with the Priest, there was a secret divine Power working to drive such Spirits away, commanding them to this purpose, procul hinc procul este prophani, therefore the Sacrament was than celebrated according to the Institution of Christ; but when private Masses were celebrated, there was no such power working to that purpose; therefore the observance and use of them is not agreeable to that sacred Institution, but an abuse and profanation of it; and it is my persuasion that private Masses have many such Attendants to take notice of the mimical gestures of the Priest, and how much Christ's sacred Institution is abused and profaned by his solitary receiving.  
But I need not be beholding unto Suppositions for Arguments to condemn the use of private Masses, or to prove the disuse of them in Pope Gregory's time, for his Testimony is as clear as the Sun to evidence, that than it was the custom of the Church to dismiss the Non-communicants when the Sacrament was to be administered; therefore there was none but Communicants to stay in the Church, and there were some that did stay to communicate with the Priest; the Priest only did not receive the Sacrament, the People being permitted to stand by as Spectators to take notice of his Actions, as is done now at the celebration of private Masses; wherefore I must say that the Reason of the Reflector in the use of his impertinent Similitude runs as low as his confidence speaks high: but being in a great strait, he is lesle to be blamed, because it was the best Device that he could invent to involve the Reader in a dark Mist, that he might not discern the weakness of that Reply, that he makes to Pope Gregory's Testimony.  
What parity is there between Easter-day, and that time which Pope Gregory speaks of, when he says, cumque missarum solemnia celebrarentur? and what parity is there between my saying of Service at other times besides Easter, and private Masses, which are not mentioned at all by Pope Gregory? And than what Reason is there why I may not more conclude against private Mass from his words, than it can be concluded that service is not said by me at any other time, because I do administer the Sacrament on Easter-day? Similitudes do not always run on four Feet, but I never knew till now, that sometime they have no Feet at all to stand on. Doth this Gentleman conceit himself to be such an infallible Doctor, that whatsoever is affirmed by him without proof, must be received as a certain truth against Reason? And did Chytrers say, that the great private Masses were used in Pope Gregory's time, without any proof for what he said? And did Pope Gregory maintain private Masses, yet no Expressions to be found in his Writings, sounding to this purpose, If there be any, why is there not some Direction laid down where to found them? His Confidence (I see in his bold Assertions,) is but like unto a Castle built in the Air, without a Foundation; and the Standing of it will be wondered, though it be not a Wonder, that it was the Product of one that professeth himself to be a Pillar of the Roman-Church.  
But I perceive, that his Second Thoughts do correct his First, and now he falls from his former Confidence, At lest (says he) by the words of the Objection, etc. The meaning of which must be this, I have been too bold in concluding against Pope Gregory's words; for I must confess, that his Testimony is plain and positive against private Masses; but yet however, there is mention made of Masses, which are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England; and argues S. F. guilty of Contradiction, or of charging a Contradiction upon Pope Gregory.  
If this Gentleman had been as powerful in proving, as he is confident in concluding, he would be among the Roman Champions, as the Chief was among David's Worthies; but it is his sad misfortune, that his Consequences are mere strangers to his Antecedents, and his Premises altogether unable to bring forth his Conclusions: He may take notice, that the term Missa, which signifies Mass, was not used by the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive▪ Church; and when it came most into use, it was of different Significations; sometimes it signified the Assembling of God's People, sometimes it signified Common Prayers, sometimes it signified the Communion. Now, I suppose, that this Gentleman will not say, That Assemblies, or Communions, or Common Prayers, are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England. In this Expression, which is quoted, Pope Gregory doth not say, When Masses were to be Celebrated, speaking in relation to that which was to be done, after the Deacon had dismissed the Non-Communicants; but he says, When Masses were Celebrated, speaking in relation to that which was done before the Deacon made this Dismission; wherefore it is evident, that Pope Gregory, by Masses, doth understand that Common Service, which was performed before the Administration of the Sacrament; and than, where is the Contradiction incurred by me, or charged by me upon Pope Gregory? It seems, this Gentleman entertains an Opinion, that travels far beyond the Limits of Romish Transubstantiation, being that he would have the Corporal Presence to be where and whensoever any kind of Masses were Celebrated.  
If the Use of the term Mass be so powerful to conclude, what does he think of the Disuse of it? May not I more rationally and firmly conclude from the Negative, than he can do from the Affirmative, the term Mass was never used by our Saviour, or his Apostles? The learned Doctor Jewel, Bishop of Sarum, tells us, That it was not used by the Doctors and Fathers of the Primitive-Church for Three hundred years after Christ; and that it was seldom used by St. Augustin, St. Jerom, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius; and that unto St. Chrisostom, Basil, Naziansen, Gregory Nissen, and all other Greek Writers, it was utterly unknown; therefore the Doctrine of the Church of England is the same that was maintained by them and the Doctrine of the Private Mass, and Corporal Presence was never owned by them.  
And now, Christian Reader, take notice what a load of Injuries is laid by this Gentleman upon Pope Gregory, charging him with an opinion, which is first contradictory to his own plain and positive Expressions, as I have already in some measure shown, and have farther yet to show; If Pope Gregory did allow of Private Mass, how could that Prayer suit unto the Sacrament, which he penned to be used after the Receiving of it; Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti & gratia repleamur? That as many of us, as by partaking of this Altar, have received the holy Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all Heavenly Benediction and Grace.  
Secondly, Contrary to the Institution of Christ; for it was not a Private Mass, but a Communion, that was instituted, and administered by Him, and He commanded the Disciples to do the same in Remembrance of Him.  
Thirdly, Contrary to the Injunction of the Apostle Paul, who commanded the Corinthians, to tarry one for another in the Holy Administration, and to conform their practice to the example of Christ.  
Fourthly, Contrary to the Canons of the Apostles; for in them it is decreed, That if any resort unto the Church, and hear the Scriptures, and abstain from the Communion, that he shall stand excommunicate as one that troubleth the Congregation.  
Fifthly, Contrary to the Nature of the Sacrament; His own Doctor Harden, in his Answer to the Reverend Bishop Jewel, concerning the Private Mass, tells us, That in Christ's Institution three things are contained, which Himself did, and by His gave Authority to the Church to do the same; the Consecration, the Oblation, and the Participation. Now in Private Mass, I desire to know where this Participation is?  
Sixthly, Contrary to the Opinion of Ancient Fathers. St. Jerom saith, That the Lords Supper must be common to all; for the Lord delivered the Sacrament to all the Disciples that were present, Jer. in 1 Cor. 11. St. Ambrose, expounding these words, Invicem expectate, Waint one for another, saith thus, Ut multorum oblatio simul celebrentur, That the Oblation of many may be celebrated together. Amb. in 1 Cor. 1. Clemens, who was called the Apostles Fellow, writeth thus, Let so many hosts be offered upon the Altar, as may be sufficient for the People, Clem. Ep. 2. Augustin saith of the Congregation in his time, Every day we receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body, Aug. de ser. Tom. in monet. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, After certain (as the manner is) have divided the Sacrament, they give every of the People leave to take part of it, Clem. Strom. l. 1. Chrysostom plainly describeth the very Order of the Communion that was used in his time, by these words, The Spiritual and Reverend Sacraments are set forth equally to the Rich and to the Poor; neither doth the Rich Man enjoy them more, and the Poor Man lesle; they have all alike coming unto them; the Sacraments being once laid forth, are not taken in again, until all the People have communicated, and taken part of that spiritual Meat; but the Priests stand still, and wait for all, even the meanest and poorest of them all. Chris. in 1 Cor Hom. 27.  
Lastly, An Opinion that brings forth many vain and ridiculous Practical Positions, not fit to be believed, and observed by Christians; That the Priest alone should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and that his solitary Receiving, should be productive of Spiritual advantage to the Common People, who must live by their own Faith, and be saved by a particular application of the Benefits of Christ to their own Souls; That his eating, in effect, should be theirs, and his drinking theirs; and what descends into his Belly, should be offered up unto God as a Propitiatory Sacrifice, effectual to take away their Sins; All which is as like to be true, as that One Man may be sustained in a temporal life, by the Bread which Another Man eats, and may be refreshed by the Drink which Another Man drinks: And what likewise can be more ridiculous, than to see the Roman Leaders sometime admitting the whole Congregation to stand by as Spectators, to behold the Histrionical Gestures of the Priest, and at other times dismissing the Non-Communicants with an Ite Missa est, while the rest are permitted to stay to Communicate in an half Communion, the Priest himself receiving the whole, is the institution of Christ, subject to such variety of handling; that sometime one alone, sometime the whole Congregation may celebrated it, and that with this Distinction of Partially and Totally. Did Christ institute his last Supper with this respect of Persons, that some were to Communicate more freely and fully than others? And is there a Conformity unto his Institution observed, while the observance is maimed, and part of his Command, Drink ye all of this, disobeyed? Is this institution as Soft Wax, that may be moulded into any Form or Fashion, that suits to the Humours of Men? The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in the Primitive Times, was termed a Love-Feast; and surely he must be a niggardly Feast-maker, that cannot found in his heart to afford all his Guests an equal Entertainment; and that must be a very spare Feast, where the Guests are fed with one bore, dry Mosel, and not allowed the Refreshment of a little Drink.   

Concerning the Communion in both kinds.  
SOme Persons are so dimsited, that nothing but a close Conduct will keep them in the right way: This Gentleman, finding this Marginal direction, (Greg de cons. didst 12.) seeks for Gregorius de Consideratione, while he● should have sought for Gregorius de Consecratione, a Book that is quoted by Sr. Humphrey Linne, mentioning the same words which I have expressed; but because this Quotation hath not been plain enough to his view, I shall present him with some other, as plainly as I can, and as pertinent to my purpose; proving, that the Practice of the Church of Rome in Pope Gregory's Time, was to Administer the Sacrament in both kinds to the Laity, as well as to the Clergy. Pope Gregory tells us, That in the mystery of the holy Oblation, the Flesh of Christ is divided, and the Blood of Christ poured into the Mouths of the Faithful; and he says, That by the holy Mystery of Christ's living Body and Blood, his Body (that is the Church) is fed, as it were with Bread, and refreshed as with Drink; Diol. Greg. l. 4. c 58. & in 6. Psal. Pen. which could not be said by him, if he had maintained the half-Comunion. Can the Flesh of Christ be said to be divided, where there is no Division at all, but only one whole Morsel received? And can his Blood be said to be poured into the Mouths of the Faithful, where there is no pouring at all used, as it is in the Half-Communion? And can there be any feeding as it were with Bread, and refreshing as with Drink, where there is nothing like unto Drink used for Refreshment? But more plainly in that Method and Order of Consecration, which Gregory appointed to be observed in the Church of Rome, we found that the Cup was to be consecrated for the Laity, as well as the Bread; and in that Prayer, which he penned to be used after the Receiving of the Sacrament, there is mention made of the Cup as well as of the Bread, Greg de Sacra.  
But should I bring a Thousand clear, undeniable Testimonies out of St. Gregory, or any other, witnessing that the Laity had received in both kinds, all would be to no purpose: Thus says this great Champion here; but, good Reader, observe what he says in the Appendix to his Reflections, where having stated the Question between me and my Adversary, and speaking of Pope Gregory's Authority: Here at length (says he) I had somewhat more certain to build upon; and observe likewise what he says in the Conclusion; The thing in controversy, saith he, at present, not being whither the Assertions be true or false, but whether St. Grogory held them, or not. What, is this Gentleman like unto a Proteus, that he can change himself into any shape, or as subject to Mutability as the Wind, that blows one while from one Corner, and presently upon a contrary Point? It is something upon his own confession, if Pope Gregory do say, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was administered in both kinds unto the Laity, as well as to the Clergy in his time; than I attain my End, the Cause is yielded, and that by this Gentleman: The Religion professed by Pope Gregory differs from the present Romish Religion in this particular, the Communion in both kinds.  
And it is not S. F. that mistakes the State of the Question, but it is this Gentleman, that contradicts himself, and starts new questions to divert the Reader, that he might not take notice how weak and childish he is in prosecuting his Design concerning the Communion; His great Foundation is quite deserted, and the Building which he intended, proves nothing but an idle Imagination. We must not dispute now, whether Pope Gregory agreed with the Mode 〈…〉 Romanists, in maintaining the half-Communion; but whither Christ did give any Command to Administer the Sacrament in both kinds, to the Laity? and whither the Sacrament be entire in one kind? What is spoken in relation to these Questions, might be passed by, as altogether impertinent; for if all were as visibly true, as it is palpably false, it would be nothing prejudicial, or contrary to my design; But because Truth shall not want that maintenance, which my slender ability can afford unto it, and that the Reader may see what Chaff the Reflector hath provided to entertain and feed him with here, and to discover what kind of Champion he hath showed himself to be, by the Management of his Questions, I am content to deal with him upon his own terms, and will spare some time to examine his present Discourse; but first, I hold it my Duty to celebrated the due Praises that belongs unto the Church upon the account of those Opinions and Assertions that are maintained by him.  
O wondered Church! that (while the Body of Christ is maintained to be really and properly in the Sacrament) hast Power to dispose of the glorious Body of thy Crucified Saviour, and that as thou pleasest; that canst ordain it to be delivered unto the Laity under one kind or both kinds, without any Divine Precept or Command from thy Lord and Master: Hadst thou a commission from him, the matter would be lesle wondered; but being it is only by thy own Ecclesiastical Power and Authority, that thou dost it, this fills me with admiration! what glorious privileges art thou endowed with? how highly art thou favoured of God, that thy various and licentious dea●●ng with the glorious Body of thy Crucified Saviour, is not interpreted to be Heinous Presumption and Desperate wickedness?  
And indeed here is a whole heap of the wonders to be considered; That that Body which is in Heaven, according to an Article of our Creed, and to be contained there according to the Assertion of the Apostle Peter, until the time of the restitution of all things, should be also upon the Earth, and in more than Ten Thousand places at the same time; That the Body of our Saviour, which had Legs and Arms, and Hands and Feet (as he told his Disciples after his Resurrection) should be in the form of a Wafer-cake, that hath no suitable and answerable Proportions; that Christ's Body, which was visible upon Earth, should be in the Sacrament, and yet not to be seen; That his glorious Body, which is more resplendent than the Face of Moses was, which the Children of Israel could not behold for the Lustre and Glory of it, should lie undiscerned under the forms of Bread and Wine; That Christ's Body, which he would not suffer Mary Magdelen to touch after his Resurrection, should be touched and handled by the Priest and the People, of whom some may be presumed to be impure and unclean, unless the Tares be separated from the Wheat without Reapers, and before the last Day of the great Harvest be come; That that Body which our Saviour said, was flesh and Bones, after his Resurrection should be touched and felt, and yet no Flesh nor Bones to be felt; and That Body should lie under the Form of Bread, or under the form of Wine, or under the Form of Bread and Wine, according as the Church shall please, to be delivered to the Laity without a Command from Christ?  
Certainly, this Church is as powerful to cure all Spiritual Diseases, as she is to produce all these forementioned Wonders. Come hither than, all ye Blind, ye Halt, ye Maimed, ye withered; here is the Pool of Bethesda, that can cure you without the motion of an Angel, or the condition of Priority in stepping down. You that know not the Fundamentals of Religion, those necessary Truths that are to be believed, the Church tells you, That you must believe as she believes, and thus your Spiritual Blindness is cured; you that have neglected the Service of God, and Halted by the commission of many heinous Sins, the Church tells you, That you must Confess unto the Priest, and obtain his Absolution, which you may have upon reasonable consideration, and thus your Spiritual Lameness is cured; you that cannot speak the Language of Canaan, to pray in a sense of your wants, the Church tells you, That it is sufficient if you do mumble out a certain number of Pater Nosters, and Ave Maria's, and Credo in Deums, in a Language that is not understood, to equal the knacking of the Beads, and thus your Spiritual Dumbness is cured. You that are like unto the barren Figtree spoken of in the Gospel, wanting the Fruit of Good-deeds, the Church tells you, That She hath power to dispose of a Treasury of Good-deeds, that is heaped together out of the superfluous works of Saints, where as much as is needful is to be gained by an Application made by the Church, without any great charges to be expended, and thus your Spiritual Witheredness is cured. What should I trouble myself in numbering particulars? Take the Power of the Church in Gross, Whatsoever Spiritual Diseases doth infested you, apply but yourselves unto this great Mistress of Physic, and you will be cured, as sure as she can do it, and as sure as the forementioned wonders are real.  
But all this while, I must confess that I do not know what is to be understood by the Church; nor will, nor can this Gentleman inform me. What Church can that be, which according to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, is endowed with Power to Ordain and Appoint the Communicating of the Laity in one kind or both kinds, as She pleaseth? It is not the Essential Church; all the Members of that Church never did, nor ever will meet together; nor have they commission to consult, or Ordain any thing to this purpose. It is not the Representative Church; for there was not a General Council in the World for Three hundred years after Christ: And will he say, that in all this time the Sacrament was Administered (as it was) in both kinds, to the Laity, without an Institution? It is not a Particular Church, That cannot make any Sanction, that shall be Obliging to the Whole Church. It is not the Virtual Church, which some Romanists will have the Pope to be, by this Gentleman's Assertion Pope Gregory is utterly rejected, and a manifest difference expressed to be between him, and the Church that is spoken of; Let him Speak or Writ what he will, it is to no purpose, unless it be the Institution of the Church. Nor can it be the Consistorial Church (as some Romanists do likewise speak) the Sacrament was Administered to the Laity in both kinds, before any Pope did sit at Rome, and before ever the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinals were heard of. And had he meant this Church, he could not have excepted against Pope Gregory's Testimony, nor have divided between him and the Church, being the Pope is the chief part of this Church, as the Romanists affirm; and certainly what he Writes is, ex Cathedra, with the consent and approbation of his glittering and Princely Cardinals; wherefore the result of all is this, That this Church which hath Power to Ordain and Appoint the Communicating of the Laity under one kind, or both kinds, as She pleaseth, is not to be found: And than what Truth is to be found in his Expressions, let the World judge.  
But for a farther discovery, let us inquire what strength is produced to determine the Questions; had not this Gentleman conceited that an empty flourish of words would pass for Demonstrations with his Followers, he would never have exposed this Stuff to the view of any Reader; The Catholic Church (saith he) holdeth, and hath always Taught, That there is no necessity or divine Precept for the Laity to Communicate under both kinds; but it is sufficient and lawful for them to do it under one or both, as the Church appoints; so that the Precept herein being not Divine, but only Ecclesiastical, the Church hath Power to Ordain and Dispense with it according to the various exigencies and occasions of Times and Places; and accordingly sometimes has allowed of Communion under both kinds, and at other times has forbidden it, as She judged it more expedient for the Receivers, or the Reverence of the Sacrament itself.  
Here is nothing but a vain Repetition of the Church's Doctrine, and a Concluding like the Dancing about a Maypole, tracing of the same steps backward and forward, because there is no Divine Precept (as the Church Teacheth) forth Laity to Communicate under both kinds, therefore the Church hath Power to make it to be sufficient and lawful to do it uner one or both: and because the Church hath Power to do this, therefore the Precept concerning the Communicating of the Laity is Ecclesiastical; and because the Precept is Eclesiastical, therefore the Church hath Power to Ordain the Communicating of the Laity under one or both kinds; which is as like to be true as this, because the Father begets the Son, therefore the Son begets the Father; and because the Mother brings forth the Daughter therefore the Daughter, brings forth the Mother; and all this Teaching and Concluding divested of its impertinent Words and Tautologies, and put into a proper and fit Dress, is but one pitiful Doctrine, That the Catholic Church hath always taught that Christ did not give any Command for the Communicating of the Laity in both kinds, but left it to the Ordering and Appointment of the Church, according as exegencies and occasions fell out, and according as She judges most expedient for the Receivers, and most conducing to Reverence towards the Sacrament; for which these Reasons are given, because there is as much in one kind as in both; and because our Saviour Christ himself, and also his Apostles did Administer the Sacrament to the Laity under one kind. Now, to prove that this hath been always taught by the Catholic Church, and that in Teaching this, the Catholic Church hath taught nothing but Truth; and to prove that there is as much in one kind as in both, and that Christ and his Apostles did Administer the Sacrament to the Laity in one kind, there is not one Syllable produced; the Reader must take all this upon his own bore word: But if he believe it to be true, he is as careless in employing of his Faith, as a Prodigal is of his Purse; for there is not one word of Truth to be found in it. And to make this plain to the view of every one, I shall propound these following Queries?  
1. What is that Catholic Church, which hath always Taught that there is no Divine precept for the Laity to Communicate under both kinds? If it be all the Members of the Church, they were not all Teachers; if the Leaders and Doctors of some particular Ages, they were not always in the World to Teach; if the Leaders and Doctors of every Age, I hope he will admit our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, and several Ancient▪ Fathers into the number of the Leaders and Doctors of the first Ages: And where did our Saviour Christ or his Apostles, or which of the Ancient Fathers did Teach this Doctrine, That there is no Divine Precept for the Laity to Communicate both kinds?  
2. Who taught the Catholic Church to teach this Doctrine; is it of God, or of men? if it be of men, it is like unto the Author, deceitful and lighter than vanity; if it be of God, where, and to whom was it revealed? it is very necessary make this inquisition, because there are many Doctrines obtruded by the Roman Leaders upon the common people, under the name of the Catholick-Church, which are nothing but the mere fictious of erring and deceitful men.  
3. Who did invest the Church with power to ordain and appoint the Laity to communicate under one kind? if our Saviour Christ, let his Commission be produced; where did he speak to any Church under Heaven? saying expressly or implicitly, Take thou power to do as thou pleasest in Administering the Sacrament to the Laity, if there be any Text of Scripture sounding to this purpose, why doth he not quote it? if there be none, how can he prove that the Church hath this power? That Church which presumes to do this without a Commission from Christ, is an impudent usurper for invading and assuming the Royal Prerogative, which is pertinent and peculiar only unto Christ; and an absolute Tyrant in hindering the common people from the use of that liberty; which by the appointment and institution of Christ, they are privileged to enjoy.  
4. What doth this Gentleman mean? when he says that there is as much contained, under one kind, as under both; if as much of the institution? this cannot be; h● confesseth, and it cannot be denied, that our Saviour did institute both kinds; if as much of the body and blood of Christ? he should first prove that the body and blood of Christ is really and properly in the Sacrament, otherwise this is as much as nothing at all; for it is visible to him that is not wilfully blind, that the real and proper body and blood of Christ is not there, and it is utterly incredible that the glorious body of Christ should be subjected and debased to the licentious disposing of a mortal sinful man; if as much of the representation? how can a Wafer cake, or a peace of bread represent and signify the effusion of that precious blood, which was abundantly shed for the redemption of the World? if as much of the efficacy? why did the Apostle Paul? 1 Cor. 10. 16. and how could he vent that expression, attributing and appropriating different effects to the differing kinds, the cup of blessing (saith he) which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? Alexander Hales one of his own Doctors delivers an opinion quite contrary unto him affirming that there is not as much in one kind as in both, Licet (says he) illa sumptio, quae est in accipiend● sub una specie, sufficiat, tamen illa, quae est sub duabus, est majoris meriti, Alex. Hal. 4. quaest 53. m. 1. although that order of receiving the Sacrament, which is under one kind be sufficient, yet the other which is under both kinds is of greater merit; and farther he says, Sumptio sub Vtraque specie, quem ad mod●● sumendi tradidit dominus, est majoris efficaciae, & majoris complementi, the receiving under both kinds, which order the Lord delivered is of greater efficacy and greater fullness.  
5. Where did ●our Saviour administer the Sacrament to the Laity in one kind? his breaking of bread at Emaus was not with the Laity, b●● with two Disciples; nor is it to be understood of the Sacrament, but of common bread, th●● ●● Gregory understood it, Mensam (says he) ponunt, panes cibosque offerunt, & deum, quem in scripturarum expositione non cognoverant, in panis fractione cognoscunt, Greg. in Evan. hom. 23. they spread the table, and bring forth bread and meat, and they knew that God in breaking of bread, which they knew not in expounding the Scriptures; Widefred a Doctor of the Roman Church was of this opinion, Hoc dico (says he) quod non habetur ex textu, vel ex glossa, Luk. 24. ●el per antiquos doctores, quod ille panis, quem Christus fregit post Resurrectionem fuit consecratus ●el Sacramentalis, Wid. con. Wick. this I say, it cannot be gathered neither by the text of St Luke; nor by the gloss, nor by the ancient Doctors, that the bread which Christ broke after his Resurrection was the consecrated or Sacramental bread.  
6. Where and when did the Apostles administer the Sacrament unto the Laity in one kind? If those Texts of the Acts of the Apostles are to be understood of the Sacramental bread, Act. 2. 46. and 20. 7. it is evident that the Apostles and the Laity did receive after the same manner, for they all met together to break bread, and will the reflector say that the Apostles themselves did receive in one kind? it is certain that they had a precept from our Saviour to receive the Sacrament in both kinds, could they so suddenly forget the command of their Master, and violate his sacred institution? and did they do that which the present Romish Church doth accounted sacrilege ●o the Priests to do? unless he do affirm these ●hings, he must acknowledge that by breaking of ●ead the whole Sacrament is to be understood, ●hat they did both break the bread and divide the ●up, and that this is the meaning of the Words is cleared by a like Text, where, the Apostle Paul speaks of the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. 33. and by eating he means both eating and drinking, as is evident by the foregoing verses, in which the Apostle doth mention the whole institution of Christ, and enjoins both eating and drinking; in the Gospel according to St. Luke we read of our Saviour's eating of bread in a Pharisees House, Luke 14. 1. by which we must understand feasting, as is evident by some following Contexts; surely if this Gentleman shall say? because there is mention made only of bread, not a word of me● and drink, that our Saviour was entertained with nothing but bread, it was a very slender, and dry Feast.  
7. What are those exigences and occasions that have fallen out to move the Church to appoint the Laity to Communicate in one kind, as most expedient for them, and conducing to the reverence of the Sacrament? if there we● any, why did not the reflector declare them that it might be seen that he had not a purpose to feed the Reader with an empty sound of vai● words? if there were none (as I am sure the● was none of weight to counterpoise and excuseth● breach of Christ's institution) it is a great sham● besides an Heinous sin to deceive the Read● with feigned pretences: as for those exigences an● occasions that have been invented by the Ro● Doctors, such as these, the Wine will sour, th● liquor may be shed, in some countries it is hat● to be gotten, some men have Beards, and so● have Palsies, the Laity must not touch the 〈◊〉 and the dignity of Priests and laymen wo● be all one, are not fit to be named among C●stians, who should prefer that obedience wh● they do own unto the precepts and Institution● their Lord and Master Christ Jesus, before their own base private and carnal ends.  
8. How can it be expedient for the Laity to Communicate in one kind, yet as the practice of the Roman-Church doth declare, always necessary for the Priests to receive both kinds? as there is but one Ld one Faith, one Baptism, so there is but one Institution of the Lords Supper, one Christ the Author of that Institution, of whom the Laity do stand in as much need, and in whom they are as much interested as the Priests; is it not always as necessary for the Laity as it is for the Priests to receive the sign and Seal of that precious effusion, which was made for the Redemption of the world in which they are as much interested as the Priests.  
9 How can it be conducing to irreverence in the Laity, but to reverence in the Priests always to receive the Sacrament in both kinds? may not a Lay person be duly qualified and fitted to receive the Sacrament as well as the Priests? if not, he is not to receive it in any kind; but if he be, he can always receive it with reverence in both kinds, as well as the Priests.  
It is not the Catholic Church that any time, but the Pope's creatures, that of late days have taught those gross untruths, that are visible to every one that will open his eyes to see, and that they are such I shall prove by these following arguments; first, Christ did institute the Sacrament for the Laity, or he did not; if he did not, what have they to do with it? it is not any particular man, or any society of men that can give them a title to the use of it; he only that conferrs the inward grace, can institute and appoint the outward and visible sign and Seal, and bestow a title and privilege to use it if he did institute the Sacrament for the laity, it was in both kinds that he made this institution.  
Secondly, The Laity are as much concerned and included in the end of the Sacrament, as the Priests are, that is the remembrance of Christ, therefore as much concerned and included in Christ's command, do this, eat this bread, and drink this cup in remembrance of me.  
Thirdly, The Corinthians were not all Priests, and that which the Apostle Paul received from Christ concerning the Sacrament, was Christ's own institution; now it is as clear as the sun, that the Apostle received the institution in both kinds, and accordingly gave the Corinthians an Injunction to receive in both kinds, but let a man (says he,) examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  
Fourthly, if the Sacrament be entire in one kind, two kinds are not necessary to the integrity of it, and than the reflector must say, that our saviour did institute that which is needless, Frustr a fit per plura, quoth potest fieri per pauciora, if one hand can do the work, it is needless to use two; but I suppose he will not charge this upon our Saviour, that he did institute that which is needless, therefore the Sacrament cannot be entire in one kind: Pope Gelasius says, Divisio unius ejusdem●ue mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio pervenire non potest, de con. dist. 2 comp. that the division of the same mystery cannot be done without great sacrilege and to receive in one kind is to divide the mystery; any Durandus tells us, In multis lccis communicatur cum pane & vino, id est, cum toto sacramento Dur. l. 4. c. 24. in many places they communicate with bread and Wine, that is with the whole Sacrament, where we must conclude that it was the opinion of Pope Gelasius and also of Durandus, that the communion in one kind is but the half Sacrament, and consequently that it is not entire in one kind.  
I have dwelled too long upon the confutation of a rude heap of vain and empty words; for a conclusion of this particular, I shall desire the reader to take notice; first, that this Gentleman says that the expression imputed to St. Gregory implies nothing of a command, or of a necessity of receiving the Sacrament under both kinds, without which the Sacrament would not be entire; and yet he says afterwards that whensoever Pope Gregory, or any other of the Fathers speak of the Laity receiving the Sacrament under both kinds, they speak of such times in which the Church so appointed and commanded the administration of it.  
What must be done to reconcile these dissenting expressions, either he must say that the command of the Church is a mere nullity, and there is no necessity to obey it, or that the report of Pope Gregory and other ancient Fathers disanulls the command of the Church, and renders it unnecessary to be obeyed, or when the Church Commands the administration of the Sacrament in both kinds, she commands more than is necessary to be done, when he writes again, he will tell me which of these assertions he will choose to maintain, sure he will not make choice of maintain, sure he will not make choice of the last, and say that the Church can be guilty of so great an error, as to command more than belongs unto the integrity of a Sacrament; and than it cannot be entire when it is administered in one kind; unless he will say that the Church hath Power to make the Sacrament entire in one kind, or entire in both kinds as she pleaseth; and it is the same Sacrament still, whither it be delivered in one kind, or both kinds, which is as much as to say that the Church hath Power to make two to be no more than one, and one to be as much as two; that she can make that body which wants a leg or an arm, as perfect as that body, which hath both legs and arms; that maintaining the corporal presence, she hath power to dilate and extend the body of Christ as he pleaseth; for when the Sacrament is administered in both kinds, his body according to that opinion, must be more dilated and extended; unless he will say that than his blood is separated from his body, his body being contained under one kind, his blood under the other, which (I suppose) he will not do, because his blood cannot be separated from his body; and when it is administered in one kind, it must be more contracted, it is much to ascribe this hideous power to an unknown Church.  
Secondly, that he says that the administration of the Sacrament sometime in one kind, sometime in both kinds proves and confirms the Authority of the Church; and a little before he told us, that the authority and Power of the Church makes it to be sufficient and Lawful to administer either in one kind or both kinds; it is very charitably and gratefully done by two cripples to help one another over the stile; he should first prove that the Church hath power and authority to command this twofold and different administration, otherwise it is so far from proving the Power and authority of the Church, that her precept for admininistring, and the practice of the People in receiving in one kind, is an obstinate rebellion against Christ, by a wilful violation of his sacred institution.   

Concerning the Merit of Good Works.  
IT seems that this Gentleman was not acquainted with Pope Gregoryes writings, because he wanted the direction of a particular quotation, and than how dared he build upon Pope Gregoryes opinion and charge me with falsification; some persons (I perceive) are so confident, that they will take upon them to shoot beyond the Moon, ●hough it be out of a worm eaten and rotten bow; but to help his weakness, and to free myself from that odious imputation, which, had it been just, would have been the strongest argument in all his book, let him search into the ninth Book of Gregoryes morals upon Job. 11. C. where he will found these words, Si ad opus virtutis excrevero, ad vitam, non ex meritis, sed ex venia convalesco, if I do increase in virtue, I grow unto life not our of merit, but by pardon; and in the exposition of the first penitential Psalm he will found this expression, Non de meis meritis confidens ut me salrum facias supplico, sed de sola misericordia tua praesumens impetrare, quod non de meis meritis spero, I entreat to be saved, not confiding in my own merits, but presuming to obtain that out of mercy only, which I do not hope for out of merit; what can be more plain and positive against the merit of good Works?  
The Doctrine of the Roman Church is this, that good works are meritorious, and the very cause of Salvation, so far that God should be unjust, if he rendered not Heaven for the same, and sometimes it is delivered thus, all good works done by God's grace after the first Justification, be truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life, and that thereupon Heaven is the due and just stipend Crown or recompense, which God by his justice oweth to the Persons so working by his grace, for he rendereth or repayeth heaven as a just Judge; and not only as a merciful giver, and the Crown which he payeth is not only of mercy or favour, but also of justice.  
And although he hath tempered the Doctrine of the Roman Church here to an inferior allay, and says that the opinion of Pope Gregory is very agreeable unto it, (in which he observes his accustomed method of proving, presuming himself to be a man of such great credit and trust, that he leaves all to be taken for truth upon his own bore word) yet he hath missed it so much in the cooking, that (as Elisha's guests said of the pottage) there is mors in olla, death in the pot, and it is not more agreeable to Pope Gregoryes Doctrine than darkness is to light.  
Because his words are very remarkable I must crave leave of the Reader to repeat them here, the Catholic Church (saith he) teacheth that our best works in this state of corrupted nature, as they are ours precisely are not meritorious of a reward from God, because we can do no good thing ourselves as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is all from God, yet as proceeding from the grace of Christ working in us, and with us, and elevated by his merits and promises, he hath promised a reward to them, and made them worthy of a reward.  
Observe first, this Gentleman speaks of the best works of man in the state of corruption, which he passes under a double consideration, either as proceeding from a man's own self, or as proceeding from the grace of Christ, working in him and with him; now he says that the best work of man in the state of corruption, as proceeding from himself are not meritorious of a reward, because ●e can do no good of himself, his sufficiency being from God; but the best works of man in ●hat state as proceeding from the grace of Christ, working in and with him are elevated by Christ's merits and promises, and made worthy of a reward; this is the sense of his words if there be any sense to be found in them.  
And is this the Doctrine of the Roman Church, that is like unto a confused Chaos, compounded of nothing but repugnancies and inconsistencies? by the best works of man in the state of corruption he must understand good works, or else he speaks not to the question, and it is strange that good works should proceed from man in that state, works cannot be good, unless they have these three ingredients, rectus, recta, recte, first the person that doth them must be rectus, truly Godly, Secondly, he must do recta such things as are agreeble to the ●le. Thirdly, he must do them recte, in a right manner, the deeds of Hypocrites cannot be said to be good, though they have never so great an outward show of goodness, a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit; and it is strange likewise that the grace of Christ should work in and with man in that state; certainly they are regenerated in and with whom the grace of Christ doth work, God will not cast his pearls unto swine, and give his Childrens bread unto dogs; and it is as strange that the work of man in that state should be elevated by the merits of Christ, the benefit of his merits being applied only to them that are regenerated.  
If he had spoken of the best works of man in the state of regeneration, they would be acknowledged to be good in some Measure, and than his term of elevation might pass so far as to tender them acceptable unto God, for it is the merits of Christ that makes the good deeds of the regenerate to be acceptable to him; but to say that they are made worthy, of a reward, this cannot pass, I have told him already that the glory of meriting belongs only unto Christ; and that glory which belongs peculiarly unto him, he will not give unto Saints or good Works, or any thing else, in relation to which his pen hath been altogether tongue-tied and stands as mute as a fish; it is for the sake of the merits of Christ that the good works of the righteous will he rewarded, and not for the sake of any merit, that is given to be in their good works.  
Observe secondly, what agreement there is between Pope Gregory's Doctrine, and the Doctrine of the present Roman Church; Pope Gregory speaks of himself as in the state of regeneration, Si ad opus virtutis excrevero, if (says he) I do increase in virtue, and in that state he disclaims and renounces all merit, relying wholly upon the mercy of God for life and Salvation; in his book of morals he expresseth himself thus, Si de his divinitus discutimur, quis inter haec remanet salutis locus, quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse, nequaquam possunt, Greg. mor. l. 35. c. 16. if God shall strictly examine us, what hope of Salvation is there for us? when as our evil deeds are simply evil, but our good deeds which we suppose we have, cannot be simply good; and farther he says, Sciunt quippe sancti, qua omnis humana justitia injustitia esse deprehenditur, si divinitus districte judicetur, Greg. mor. l. 21. c. 15. the Saints know that all man's righteousness is found to be unrighteousness, if God do strictly Judge it.  
If Pope Gregory had maintained the Doctrine of the present Roman Church he must have used another kind of dialect, and expressed himself after this manner, if I do increase in virtue, I am fruitful in good works, which do merit at the hands of God, and growing in them, I grow by them unto eternal life, my good deeds are elevated by the merits and promises of Christ so high, that they are made worthy of a reward, therefore I need not to fear the strict disquisition of the great Judge, but may trust to the merit of my good deeds for obtaining eternal Salvation, but there is not the lest sound to this purpose, the contrary being expressed, that it was mercy not merit, pardon not good deeds that was the ground of his hope, and the Rock of his Salvation.  
I have not the Centurists to search into; but this I will say that Pope Gregory is so positive and plain in his expressions, that if the Centurists do charge him with an error in this point, it must be because they mistook the meaning of his words, or else they must make him not only to contradict himself, but also to incur a more shameful and hateful contradiction, that is to the sacred Scriptures, to the clear dictates of reason and to the opinion of several ancient Fathers.  
First to the sacred Scriptures; our Saviour tells us that when we have done all those things, which we are commanded to do, we must say, that we are unprofitable servants, Luke 17. 10. and the Apostle Paul teacheth us, That by grace we are saved, through faith and that not of ourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, jest any one should boast, Ephes. 2. 8, 9 and speaking of the different lots that will fall to the sons of men, he shows that there will be a direct contrariety in the manner of their seizure and possession, one lot being by merit, the other by grace, The wages (saith he) of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6. 23. David had the approbation to be a man after Gods own heart; and Job was commended as a star of the greatest magnitude, shining with the light of good works more than others, yet neither of them stood upon his tiptoes, to ask God to deal with him according to the rule of his justice, and to pay a reward due unto him by merit; but David prays, Enter not into Judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified, Psal. 143. 2. and Job asks how can man be just with God, if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job 9 2. and farther says, That though he were righteous, yet he would not answer him, but would make supplication to his Judge, Job. 3. 15. it is true the good man Nehemias' prays to be remembered according to his good deeds, but for a grant of his petition, he grounds his hopes, not upon good works, but up on God's goodness, not upon merits, but upon mercy, and spare me (says he) according to the multitude of thy mercies, can the same subject include contraries? can a fountain sand forth ●eet waters and bitter, or fire be hot and cold? ● is certain that the best man in the world, hath ●he merit of death in him for the wise man says, That there is not a just man upon earth that doth ●ood, and sinneth not, Eccl. 7. 20. and can there be the merit of life in him too? Our saviour that knew best, how man should make his addresses ●nto God, and accordingly gave Direction to his disciples (who being to act and suffer and dye in their master's cause, if there could be any merit ●n any, must have a portion of the largest size) ●aught them not to ask a debt due unto merits, but the pardon of their sins: certainly this Gentleman, to keep peace in the House must renounce the opinion of merit, or else he must throw the use of his Pater Noster out of his doors, for these two cannot without continual jarring dwell both together under one roof.  
Secondly to the clear dictates of reason, that informs us that there cannot be any merit in the performance of an obliged duty, a debtor cannot merit at the Hands of a Creditor by paying of a due debt besides man hath nothing of his own wherewith to discharge that debt, what hath he that he hath not received, and if he hath received it, why should he glory as if he did not receive it? Farther the Coin that he pays in discharge of this debt is notaltogether pure metal, but mixed with some dross, perfection is not in this life, the best deeds of the best men have many failings adhering to them; moreover there is no due proportion between all man's good deeds (be they never so many) and eternal life, for if the sufferings be not, much lesle are the actions of this life, worthy to be compared unto the glory that shall be revealed in us. Now merit requires with an absolute necessity (without which it cannot be) that there be a due proportion between good deeds, and the reward, and that the good deeds be pure, without any sinful mixture, and that they be a man's own, and that they be likewise free, without the obligation of a previous duty.  
To remove all these obstacles the reflector supposes himself to have a ready and powerful engine, good deeds (says he) are elevated so much by the merits and promises of Christ that they are made worthy of a reward; but before he had laid down this bold and groundless assertion, he should first have proved, that the glory of meriting, which belongs only unto Christ, is given to created natures; this I deny, and this he will never be able to prove. Secondly, he should have proved that good works are capable to receive this merit; surely that which is a duty, and impefect, and not a man's own, and bears no suitable proportion unto eternal life, cannot be capable to receive any such thing. Thirdly he should have considered, that this is to divide man's Salvation between Christ and good works, to say that the merit, which is pretended to be in good works, flows from the merits of Christ, will not excuse this gross absurdity, these two being indifferent subjects, and different in themselves, and the gaining of eternal life is attributed by the Romanists to the one as well as to the other. Fourthly it is as incongruous and absurd to say, that though Christ hath merited eternal life for us, yet we must by good deeds merit it likewise at the hands of God, as it is to say that we have a large inheritance freely bestowed upon us, which was purchased with a large sum, and yet we must purchase ● ourselves to, with the payment of one small ●enny; which is not our on● Fifthly, though the Romanists do affirm that this is serviceable to set forth the sufficiency of the merits of Christ, yet really it doth produce the contrary effect, detracting abundantly from it. If Christ's merits be sufficient, there is no need that good works should be meritorious, but if that be needful, than his merits are not sufficient; Sixthly, to maintain this he must say that the merits of Christ gives unto man ability to satisfy for his sins; for meriting a reward doth necessarily pre-suppose satisfaction for sin, if there be any wrong done (as he knows that this is done by every one, every one being ● sinner) the person meriting must be a person satisfying, otherwise there will be no obtaining by way of merit; now I hope he will not say that Christ gives unto man ability to satisfy for his sins, for to say this is to deny the sufficiency of that satisfaction which was paid by Christ; Seventhly, to say that the merits of Christ gives unto man's good deeds to merit a reward, is in effect to say that Christ gives unto man by his good deeds to ●o be his own Saviour, and his own Redeemer; for the reward which as the reflectour says, the merits of Christ gives unto man's good deeds to merit, what is it but eternal salvation, that is a freedom from all evil, and a perfect fruition of happiness, which is the Inheritance that Christ purchased by the redemption which he wrought; now if it be given to man's good deeds to merit this Salvation, it must be said that it is given to man by his good deeds to be his own Saviour, and his own Redeemer, and how Blasphemous this is, and how abominable it should be unto all Christians ears, every pious Christian is able to determine.  
Thirdly, to the opinion of several ancient Fathers, Vix mihi suadeo (says Origen) quod possit ullum opus bonum esse, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei deposcat, cum etiam hoc ipsum, quod aliquid agere possimus, vel cogit are, vel proloqui, ipsius dono, & largitione facimus, Orig. l. 4. 1 Epist. ad Rom. 4 I can hardly believe that there can be any good work, which may require the reward of God by way of debt, seeing this very thing itself, that we can do, or think or speak any thing, we do it by his gift and largess, Quis nostrum (saith Ambrose) sine divina potest miseratione subsistere? quid possumus dignum praemijs facere coelestibus? quis nostrum ita assurgit in hoc corpore ut animum suum elevet, quo jugiter adhaereat Christo, quo tandem hominum merito defertur, ut haec corruptibilis caro induat incorruptionem, & mortale hoc induat immortalitatem, quibus laboribus, quibus injuris possumus levare nostra peccata, indignae sunt passiones hujus temporis ad superventuram gloriam, non ergo secundum merita nostra, sed secundum misericordiam dei, coelestium decretorum in homines forma procedit, Ambr. 6. in Psal. 118. Octon. 20. which of us can subsist without the mercy of God? what can we do worthy of the heavenly reward? which of us doth rise up so in this body that he doth elevate his mind in such sort as he may continually adhere unto Christ? by what merit of man is it granted that this corruptible flesh should put on incorruption, and this mortal should put on immorality? By what labours, or by what endurng of Injuries, can we abate our sins, the sufferings of this lif● are unworthy for the glory that is to come, therefore the form of heavenly decrees doth proceed with men, not according to our merits but according to God's mercy; Augustin says, Pro nihile fal●os faci●eos, quid est pro nihilo salvos facies eos? nihil invenis in i●s unde salves, & tamen salves, quia nihil (invenis unde selves, & multum invenis unde damns,) Aug. de ver. 6. Apost. Ser. 5. for nothing thou shalt save them; what is meant by these words for nothing thou shalt save them? this is the meaning, thou findest nothing in them, wherefore thou shouldest save them, and yet ●hou savest them, but thou findest much; wherefore thou shouldest condemn them; St. Bernard expresseth himself thus, Meritum meum misera●●nes domini, non sum ego inops meriti, quamdiu ille non est inops miserationum, si miser ationes ejus multae, multus ego sum in meritis, hoc totum est hominis meritum, si totam suam spem ponat in domino; Ber. in Psal. qui. Hab. my merit is the mercy of God, so long as God is not poor of mercy, so long cannot I be poor of merit, if his mercies be great than am I great in merits; this is the whole merit of man, if he put his whole affiance in God.  
Contrary to all this the Romanists do tell us, that they have the Scripture, and reason, and the ancient Fathers on their side; first for the Scripture, in it (say they) eternal life is termed a reward, and this reward is promised to persons that do perform good deeds, and is said to proceed from justice; good deeds will be mentioned when the sentence of absolution shall be pronounced to the righteous by the great Judge at the last day; but all this speaks nothing to their purpose, unless they can prove that nothing can be termed a reward, or be promised, or said to proceed from justice, but what is premerited by the receiver, which will never be done by them: Suppose a Servant so much obliged to his Master for former favours, that he did own himself, and all that he could do, yea more than he was able to perform, and his Master should bespeak him after this manner, thou knowest that thou art so much obliged to me, that shouldest thou strain thy ability to the utmost, thou couldst not make any proportionable retribution, yet however be thou painful and Faithful in my service, and I will endow thee with greater Favours, and advance thee to an higher Preferment, than thou dost yet enjoy; Well, the servant observes his Master's command, and the promise is performed, in this case can the servant be said to merit at the hands of his Master: The weakness of all such objections as these produced by the Romanists from the holy Scripture is clearly demonstrated by that learned prelate and primate of Ireland James Usher, whose excellent words for the greater Satisfaction of the Reader, I shall make bold to insert here.  
Neither do we therefore take away the reward, because we deny the merit of good works, we know that in keeping of God's Commandments there is great reward, and, that unto him that soweth Righteousness, there shall be a sure reward, but the question is, whence he that soweth in this manner must ex●e●t to reap so great and so sure an harvest? whither from God's Justice? which he must do if he stand (as the Jesuits would have him do) upon merit, or from his mercy, as a recompense freely bestowed out of his gracious bounty, and not in justice due for the worth of the work performed, which question we think the Prophet Hosea hath suffciently resolved, when he biddeth, Sow to ourselves in Righteousness, and reap in mercy, Hos. 10. 12. Neither do we hereby detract any whit from the truth of that Axiom, that God will give every man according to his works; for still the question remaineth the very same, whether God may not Judge a man according to his works, when he sitteth upon the throne of grace, as well as when he sitteth upon the throne of justice, and we think here that the Prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence, With thee, O Lord, is mercy, for thou rendrest to every one according to his Work, Psal. 62. 12.  
Originally therefore, and in its self, we hold that this reward proceedeth merely from God's free bounty and mercy; but accidentally in regard that God hath tied himself by his word and promise to confer such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in a sort to be an act of justice, even as in forgiving of our sins, Joh. 1. 9 (which in itself all men know to be an act of mercy) he is said to be faithful and just, namely in regard of the faithful performance of his promise, for promise' we see amongst honest men is counted a due debt, but the things promised being free, and on our Part altogether undeserved, if the promiser did not perform, and proved not to be so good as his word, he could not be said to do me wrong properly, but rather to wrong himself, by imparing his own credit; and therefore Aquinas himself confesseth, Non sequitur quod deus efficiatur nobis debitor simpliciter, sed sibi ipsi in quantum debitum est, ut sua ordinatio impleatur, Thom. 1. 2. quest 14. art. 1. ad. 3. That God is not hereby simply made a debtor to us, but to himself in as much as it is requisite that his own ordinance should be fulfilled; Now because the Lord hath made a promise of the Crown of Life to them that love him, therefore St. Paul doth not stick to attribute this unto God's justice, Henceforth (saith he) is laid up for me the Crown of Righteousness, which the Lord the Righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not only to me, but also to all them that Love his appearing; 2 Tim. 4. 8. Upon which place Bernard in his Book of Grace and , saith most sweetly, Est ergo quam Paulus expectat corona justitiae, sed justitiae dei non suae, justum quippe est, ut reddat quod debet, debet enim quod pollicitus est, & haec est justitia dei, de qua praesumit apostolus, promissio dei, Bern. l. de. gra. & lib. arb. That therefore which Paul expecteth is a Crown of Righteousness, but of God's Righteousness, not his own, for it is just that he should give what he oweth, and he oweth what he hath promised, and this is the Righteousness of God, of which the Apostle presumeth, the promise of God. Thus far that learned Prelate; to which I shall add that expression of St. Gregory expounding those words of the Psalmist, Make me to hear the voice of thy loving kindness betimes in the morning; Si ill● (says he) sanctorum faelicitas misericordia est, & non meritis acquiritur, ubi erit quod Scriptum est, & tu reddes unicuique secundum opera sua, si secundum opera redditur, quomodo misericordia estimabitur, sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud est propter ipsa opera reddere, Greg. 7. Psal. pen. If the happiness of the Saints proceed from mercy, and is not acquired by merits, where will that be which is written, Thou shalt tender to every one according to his Work, if it be rendered according to Works, how will it be esteemed a mercy, but it is one thing to tender according to Works, another thing to tender for the Works; and Farther I shall add this being that Christ is the Altha and Omega, the foundation and Top-stone of Man's Salvation, for it is he that bestows a ●itle to it, and the possession of it, and a capacity ●o receive it, and all this proceeds merely from ●his bounty and grace, and being that there are so many plain texts of Scripture proving positively that eternal life is the gift of God, and what can be more Free than gifts? It is strange that the Romanists should attempt to conclude the merit of good works from texts of Scripture, that make not the lest mention of any such thing; what is this? But wilfully to shut their eyes against the Light of the shining Sun, and to stumble at Noon day.  
Secondly, for the reasons that are produced by the Romanists to prove the merit of good works, they are so miserably infirm if not Blasphemous, that the mention of them is a sufficient confutation; it is more honourable to have eternal life by merit, than by gift, thus Bellarmin and Durandus, Absit (says Tapper) ut justi vitam aeternam expectent, sicut pauper eleemosynam, multo namque gloriosius est, ipsos quasi victores & triumphatores eam possidere, tanquam palmam usis sudoribus debitam, Tap. art. lev. tom. 1. art. 9 God forbidden that the just should expect eternal life, as a poor man doth alms; for it is much more glorious to possess it as Conquerors, and Triumphers, as a Palm due unto their labours; but the Reader may easily Judge how contrary this is to that poverty of Spirit, which (our Saviour says) will be rewarded with the possession of eternal Happiness, Blessed (says he) are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven; Math. 5. 3. And to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 2. 8. 9 Rom. 3. 27. Telling us that by grace we are saved, through Faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast, and that all boasting is excluded by the Law of Faith, but the fairest reason in their flock, as having the most plausible outside is this, That the Doctrine of merits is effectual to promote the Practice of piety, stirring up Christians to be abundant in bringing forth the fruit of good deeds, who (say they) will be negligent in the work of the Lord? while they are assured that it is given to their good deeds to merit the reward of eternal life, whereas on the contrary, to deny this merit is the high way to negligence and idlenese: In answer to which I ask the Romanists, whether to know that God's goodness is so great, and his bounty so large, that he will not suffer the good deeds of the Righteous to pass unrewarded, and that he is truth itself, and hath promised that a cup of cold water given unto a Disciple in the name of a Disciple will not loose its reward, be not as powerful to provoke Christians to be fruitful in good Works? we say in opposition to them, who will not make this seeding, while he is assured of reaping a plentiful harvest? who will not employ the utmost of his care and pains in performing good works, while he knows that though he shall not be rewarded for any merit that is in them, yet he shall be rewarded according to the measure of them? The Apostle Paul made use of this inference as effectual to persuade the Romans to this practice, saying wherefore my bloved Brethrens be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as you know that your labour will not be in vain in the Lord, he doth not say, for as much as you know that there is merit given to be in good works.  
And I ask them whether the immense favours, and unspeakable mercies, wherewith God hath ●evented man, be not powerfully obligatory to ●ain Christians to the strictest care and pains ●f obedeince? The Prophet David was of this opinion, therefore he expresseth himself thus, Bless th●● the Lord, O my soul! and all that is within ●, bless his holy name, Bless the Lord, O my soul! ●●d forget not all his benefits, Who forgiveth all ●ine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases, Who redeemeth thy life from destruction: who Crowneth ●●e with loving kindness and tender mercies; Psal. ●03. 1. 2, 3. And the Apostle Paul was of this opinion, therefore doth he put the Romans in ●ind, not of any merit that is in good works, ●ut of those mercies that God poured down upon them: I beseech you (says he) by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service, and this working the mercies of God had upon Polycarpus, who when he came to suffer (being tempted to save his life by denying Christ,) did not say by my sufferings I shall merit, but expressed himself thus, I have served Christ these fourscore years, and he never armed me, and shall I now deny and blaspheme my King and Saviour.  
And farther I ask how agreeable this reason is to that method of obedience which our Saviour prescribed to his followers, wherein he shown what must be the Root and ●ise of it, and without which there can be no sincerity of obedience performed, if ye love me (says he) keep my commandments; this grace is the principle which actuates the Children of God to obey, and by the working of this, they would be stirred up to obey, though there was no future retribution to be made, a dutiful Child will observe his Father's command, though there be no inheritance or portion to be bequeathed as a legacy unto him, because he is a Child, and because he loves his Father; according to this is that excellent saying of Gregory Nazianzen, Si servus es, time plagas, si mercenarius tantum specta mercedem, at si supra hos es filius reverere tanquam patrem tuum, benefacto quia pulchrum est obsequi patri, & quamvis nihil aliud futurum, tamen vel hoc ipsum erit merces tua, fecisse quod gratum est patri, If thou be a bondslave than fear the whip; if thou be an hireling, than look only for thy reward, but over and besides these, if thou be a child, than reverence God as thy Father, do well because it is good to obey thy Father, yea and though thou shalt have nothing else, yet even this shall be thy reward, that thou hast been obedient to thy father, Gre. Naz. de sanc. ba.  
But what if I can prove that to act upon the ground of merit, and to expect to receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a debt due for the work done, is to pollute the deeds, and to hinder them from passing in the number of good works, than certainly their great reason falls to worse than nothing, and I think to found this no hard task to undergo, I have told the reflector already that to attribute merit unto good works, is to ascribe unto them that glory which belongs only unto Christ, and it is to detract from the sufficiency of the merits of Christ, and a corrupt fountain can sand forth no waters but such as are corrupt, a bad Tree can bring forth nothing but bad Fruit; but to prove this farther, he that acts upon the ground of merit, slights the glory of God, which should be the end of all man's actions, & undervalues the favours and mercies of God, which should bind Christians to use their utmost endeavours in ●ing the work of the Lord; and distrusts the ●unty and goodness of God, which is the rock ● which man must build the hope of his Salva●on; and makes himself the end of his actions, ●ho is not to live unto himself, and whose way ● exaltation is to exalt God, and to debase and ●y himself. It is true, there is a reward for the righteous, unto which they may have some re●ect, to encourage them against those difficulties ●ad sufferings which they will meet with in the ●orld, while they are passing on in the service ●f God, as the Apostle said concerning Moses, he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater Richeses ●han all the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward; but yet they must not make meriting that reward, the ground and end of their actions, for that work cannot be reckoned in the number of good deeds, which ●s ●ainted with slighting God's glory, and undervaluing his mercies, and distrusting his bounty and goodness, and with making man's self the end for which it is to be done.  
Let not the Romanists now say, that I should not have divided between these things, but that a Christian may look upon merit as the ground and end of his actions, and yet (notwithstanding this) advance the glory of God, and be stirred up ●o act by the influence of favours, and may build upon the bounty and goodness of God, and deny himself and all his performances; for they may as well and truly say that man can serve two Masters, and worship God and Mammon, Christ and Belial, and divide the glory of his Salvation between God and the merit of his works. It is a remarkable saying of St. Bernard, Si nos pueril animositate gratis salvari nolumus, merito non salvamur, dignatio locum non habet, ubi fuerit presumptio dignitatis, If out of a Childish animosity we wil● not be saved gratis, we are worthily not saved, dignity hath no place, where there is a presumption of dignity; Bern. in dedic. Eccl. ser. 5. And I will say that he which shall be privileged to chant out the laudatory Song of the Saints in the world to come, must begin it in this world, and say, Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be the praise, for thou art worthy to receive glory and honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.  
Thirdly, as to the ancient Fathers, which the Romanists do pretend to be on their side; it is granted that the term merit hath been frequently used by them, but to save their credit, that they may not be charged with Blasphemy, and barbarism, and contradiction, to and among themselves, we must not say that it was used in the same sense with the present Roman Church. Ignatius (as the Romanists do quote him) says, Give me leave to become the food of beasts, that I may by that means merit and Win God, Igna. Epist. ad. Rom. Epist. ad Rom. 8. 18. This in the Romish sense is contrary to the expression of the Apostle Paul, who tells us that the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared unto the glory that shall be revealed in us; and this is contradicted by St. chrysostom, saying, Although we did dye a thousand deaths, although we did perform all virtuous actions, yet should we come far short of rendering any thing worthy of those honours, which are conferred upon us by God, Christ. de. compu. ad stel. tom. 6. edit. Savil. p. 157. And St. Gregory vents this expression, Paulus cum redemptoris ●● men in terra conaretur extinguere, ejus verba de ●lo meruit audire, Paul when he went about to extinguish the name of our redeemer merited to hear ●is words from heaven; this in the Romish sense is ●eer barbarism if not Blasphemy; Greg. mor. in Job. 9 17. And St. Ambrose useth this expression Omnia quae patim●r minor a sunt, & indigna, quorum prolaboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bo●rum, quae revelabitur in nobis, cum ad dei imagi●●m reformati gloriam ejus facie ad faciem aspicere ●eruimus; All those things which we suffer are too little and unworthy for the pains whereof there should ●e rendered to us so great reward of good things to come, as should be revealed in us, when we being reform according to the image of God we shall merit to see his glory face to face, Amb. Epist. 22. This in the Romish sense is a manifest contradiction; the like may be said of several other Fathers; wherefore to ●ave their credit, it must be said that the term merit was used by them in a sense far different from that of the present Roman Church; and Indeed this is cleared against all contradiction by the learned Primate of Ireland, Ans. to. Mal. p. 499. Merits (says he) in the writing of the Fathers do ordinarily signify nothing but works, and to merit simply to procure or obtain, without any relation at all to the dignity either of the person or the work, and therefore as Tacitus writes of Agricola, Tac. in vit. Jul. Ag. That by his virtues he merited (that is to say incurred) the danger of Cajus Caesar; so St. Augustin saith, that he and his fellows for their good do at the hands of the Donatists, instead of thanks merited the flames of hatred; on the other side, the same farther affirmeth that St. Paul for his persecutions and blasphemies merited, Aug. con. pen. 3. 6. Aug. de. pred. & 'gree. (That is found th● grace to be named a vessel of election; and methinks the Romanists should be easily perswad● to believe this, by the interpretation of th● texts of Scripture, where there is any thing o● worthiness mentioned, the meaning of which is ●o be understood by other texts of Scripture, as the 2 Thess. 1. 5. That you may be counted worthy, of the kingdom of heaven; and Luke 20. 35. But they that shall be counted worthy to obtain the other wor●●; Revelations 3. 4. And they shall walk with me in white for they are worthy; these texts of Scripture are produced by the Romanists to prove the merit of good works, but how impertinently any one may judge, for the worthiness that is spoken of i● of persons, not of works, and what this worthiness is, let the Apostle Paul interpret, Ephes. 1. 6. wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved, and Coloss. 1. 12. who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; from these texts we must conclude that the worthiness spoken of in the forementioned texts, i● nothing but an acceptance in the beloved, and a meetness to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light; and why should not the lathers, where they speak of merit in relation ●o the Kingdom of Heaven, be interpreted after th● manner.  
Thus the Reader may see that there is nothing in the ancient Fathers, or in the holy Scriptures, a in the dictates of reason sounding to this purpose that man's good deeds are elevated by the mer●● and promises of Christ so high, that they are made worthy of a reward, but what is altogether contrary, that there is not any merit either by acquisition or by gift in the best deeds of the best of th● sons of men: for a conclusion of this particular, I ●hall leave it to the Judgement of any humble and ●ious person, that prize●●● his Saviour's glory, and earnestly desires his own Salvation; to determine whither the sons of men, who are vile and sinful dust and ashes, whose sanctification is imperfect in the world, and whose best deeds have many failings adhering unto them, who are so much obliged by God, that though they had ten thousand lives to loose, and would be content to shed every drop of blood that is in their veins in defence of his cause, yet they would but perform their bounden duty, and fall infinitely short of rendering a retribution proportionable to that loving kindness, which God hath expressed unto them. Can 〈◊〉 in their addresses to his glorious Majesty, with greater safety to themselves, and suitableness to their wanting and miserable conditions build upon their own good deeds, to be rewarded according to that merit, which (as this Gentleman pretends,) is in them, whether that merit be by acquisition or donation, or lay themselves low in the dust, to acknowledge their own worthlesness, and unworthiness, and to shelter themselves under the wings of mercy, humbly imploring the bounty of God in Christ for the Free gift of life and Salvation: Waldensis one of the great Champions of the Roman Church, having considered, the matter on every side, at lest determineth it thus, Quid dignum facimus ut participes coelestibus fieri inveniamur? apostolo dicente, existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis, reputo igitur saniorem Theologum, fideliorem Catholicum, & scriptures magis concordem, qui tale meritum simpliciter abnegat, Wald. cont. Wick. Rom. 8. What worthy thing do we that we may be found in the fellowship of the heavenly Spirits? the Apostle saith, I judge that the sufferings of this life are not worthy of that glory that shall be revealed in us, therefore I take him to be the sounder divine the faithfuller Catholic and more agreeable to the holy Scriptures that utterly denyeth all such kind of merit: and Bellarmin, another of their great Champions determineth it after the same manner, though he had strained his invention to Coin arguments, and written much to establish the Romish Doctrine of merit, yet upon better consideration, with this conclusion throws down all that he had builded before, saying, Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola dei misericordia & benignitate repo●ere, Bel. 5. de. just. 7. Because of the incertainty of man's Righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is the safest way to repose the whole trust in the bounty and mercy of God; and there was great reason that the great Cardinal after all his strayings should return at the last into this safe way. I have showed in my reply how destructive it is to instill the Doctrine of merit into the common people, which this Gentleman thought fit to pass by in silence, thereby (as I conceive) yielding a free and a full assent to the truth of it; and I can confirm the destructiveness of it farther by this passage, of which there were many witnesses; ●n the beginning of the rebellion in Ireland, there was an Irish Captain taken in the Pale, who being brought to the City of Dublin, and having the sentence of death pronounced against him, was accordingly guarded to the gibbet to be hanged; while he stood upon the ladder, he used several Prayers, which (to the outward appearance) were servant and wholesome, being directed, not to ●aint or Angel, but to God that hears Prayer; but upon the instant of his turning of the Ladder, he poured out with his last Breath this last and unsavoury Ejaculation: Lord I hope that thou wilt accept of this my Suffering, as a full satisfaction for ●ll my Sins, and so passed to Eternity: Now let any prudent man, that is solicitous for his future Salvation, determine whether the Opinion of Merit be not destructive unto Souls, while it is thus apt to persuade frail man in the time of his great need to forsake the saving Rock of Christ's Righteousness, on which only he is to build, for the obtaining of Mercy, and to rely upon the broken Reed of the merit, of his own Actions or Passions.   

Concerning the Worship of Images.  
ONe Quotation passes without exception; yet had it been in his Power, it had not passed without a wilful per 〈…〉; but let him stretch● until the words do drop asunder, yet he cannot▪ force it to a compliance with the Doctrine of present Romish Church: Pope Gregory reproves Serenus the Bishop of Marsilia for breaking and defacing of Pictures, and that upon this ground, because Pictures (as Gregory Conceited) might in some measure supply in Illiterate persons the defect of Reading the Scriptures; thus he speaks, Nam quod Legentibus Scriptura, hoc idiotis praestat Pictura cernentibus, What the Scriptures do afford unto those that can Read, the Picture affords unto those that see and cannot Read: But he Commends Serenus for forbidding the Adoration of Pictures, and gives these Reasons for it, Because that which is made with Hands is not to be Worshipped, and it is written, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God▪ and him only shalt thou serve: And besides he gives this advice unto Serenus, Et si quis Imagines facere voluerit minime prohibe, adorare vero Imagines omnibus modis devita: Forbidden not the making of Images, but avoid all kind of Worshipping of Images.  
The Doctrine of the present Romish Church▪ (as it is delivered by the Council of Trent) Teacheth that the Images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints, are chief to be had in Churches, and retained, and that due Honour and Worship is to be given unto them, or as it is delivered by this Gentleman, That it is good and Lawful and Profitable to keep Holy Pictures and Images of Christ, and of his Saints, and to set them up in Churches, to give them a Relative Honour.  
This being the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, certainly the Power, which this Gentleman hath over his obliging Friend, and all his Followers is very great; he can persuade them to believe that it is clear day, when dark night, otherwise he would not be so Confident as to say, Now let the Reader compare the words of Pope Gregory with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and tell us wherein they are opposite: Pope▪ Gregory forbids the yielding of any kind of Worship to Images; the Doctrine of the Roman Church tells us, that there is a Worship due, and commands it to be given unto them; Pope Gregory allows the use of Pictures only for the sake of Illiterate persons, and only for this end, ●t they might see on the Walls, what they could ●● Read in the Scriptures; the Doctrine of the Ro●an Church imposeth the use of Pictures upon those ●at are Literate, and can Read Scriptures, strictly forbidding them the use of the Scriptures; that ●●ed (chief) used by the Council of Trent, ● a word of Remark, there is thus much included in it, let the Scriptures be thrown out of doors, ●d let the use of Images be retained in the church, let not the Laiety, that are able to Read, ●e in any wise permitted to converse with the Scriptures, but let them be kept to the use of pictures, for their better Instruction and Edifica●on, together with the payment of an Holy Adoration, this is the very Doctrine of the present Roman Church: And now the Reader having viewed the Comparison between this Doctrine and Pope Gregory's words, may tell ●e Reflector truly, that there is as great an opposition between them, as there is between Truth and Error, and the Temple of God and Idolatry.  
But for the Reader's greater satisfaction, I ●all examine the Arguments that are used to ●rove their pretended agreement: Pope Gregory allows, (saith the Reflector) of the use of Pictures as Pious and Profitable, and all the use for which ●e allows them is this, to be mute Instructors unto ●he Ignorant, that are not able to Read the Scriptures, Frangi non debuit (says he) quod non ad adorandum in Ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas solummodo 〈…〉 tes fuit nescientium collocatum: That aught not ●o be broken, which is not set up in the Church to be Worshipped, but only to instruct the minds of the Ignorant, Greg. lib. 9 Epist. 9 And he tells Serenus that the Abuses of Pictures are to be taken away, and these abuses are the yieldings of any kind of Worship unto them: Hence this Gentleman concludes, that the Doctrine of Pope Gregory i● agreeable to the Opinion of the present Roman Church, because it forbids the giving of Divine Honour unto Pictures, and only commands a Relative and Inferior respect or Honour agreeable to the Objects, which they do represent.  
A strange inference, let the Reader take it in short thus, Pope Gregory forbids the Worshipping of Pictures after any manner; therefore he agrees to the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, which commands Images and Pictures chief to to be set up and Worshipped with an Inferior and Relative Worship; this is a strain of Logic, unknown to former Ages, and far above the height that Pope Adrian, and the second Council of Nice did fly; God took Clay and made man after his own Image and Likeness: Therefore (says Pope Adrian) we must set up Images in Churches, as we have heard, so have we seen, and God is Marvellous i●●is Saints: And no man lighteth a Candle, and putteth it under a Bushel, Adr. Epist. Syn. Therefore (say the Bishops in the Council of Nice) there must be Pictures to look upon, and the Church must be Decked with Pictures, and Pictures must be set upon the Altar: Contempt nic. It is an high proof of a notable Faculty, to draw serviceable Conclusions from impotent premises; but much more (as this Gentlemen doth) to make one contrary to bring forth another.  
But while he shows his Activity in pleading for the Worship of Images and Pictures, he proceeds in his accustomed practice of Contradiction to himself: The Images (says he) of Christ and his Saints are Holy, yet the Worship that is to be given ●to them is not Divine; And yet it must be agreeable to the Objects which they represent.  
I would know what Holiness this is, that is ●scribed unto Images: Pope Gregory, though he ●ote two Epistles to Serenus concerning Images) ●t did not in either of them give this high Title ●o those Deaf and Dumb Idols; if it be an Inherent Holiness that the Reflector speaks of, it is strange that this Holiness should be in a senseless Stock or Stone; if it be Institutive, where is there a Precept, or a Precedent in Holy Scripture for Sanctifying of Images, and setting them apart for Holy ends and uses: And if Images be Holy, and must be Worshipped, certainly the Worship that is to be given unto them, must be suitable, that is an Holy Worship; therefore I would know what Holy Worship there is, that is not Divine, and I suppose that he will acknowledge that the Worship which is most proper and agreeable unto Christ is Divine, therefore the Worship that is to be given to his Image, must be Divine, because it must be agreeable to the Object, which it represents. Besides when he Prays to a Saint, the Worship that he performs unto that Saint is Divine, for Prayer is an act of Divine Worship, and I ask whether the Worship be agreeable to the Saint or not? If not, he is Erroneous in his Devotion, and sins in Praying to a wrong Object; if it be, he must Pray to the Picture of a Saint, because it must have that Worship which is agreeable to the Object, which it represents; and thus we found by this Gentleman's Discourse, that there is a Worship which is Divine and not Divine, that by the present Roman Church is Allowed and Commanded to be given to Pictures.  
Nor doth he contradict himself, but he endeavours to bring Pope Gregory under the same guilt, making his Practice to contradict his own Expressions and Opinion; though Pope: Gregory hath delivered himself plainly and positively, forbidding all kind of Worship to be given unto Images: Yet the Reflector is confident to say, That the Pope had a special Devotion, and Reverence towards them: But his Arguments run very low, having a strong smell of his much frequented Logic: And verily I must say, that his Faculty is admirable in making any kind of Premises fruitful to bring forth serviceable Conclusions.  
Mr. Bale, (says he) Reprehends Pope Gregory, for that he suffered the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carried about: Osyander affirmeth that Austin obtruded Images upon the English Churches: And Doctor Fulke confesseth, that Pope Gregory allowed of Images; for which very point Cab●● affirmeth, that he was not taught in the School of the Holy Ghost: Hence the Reflector concludes, that Pope Gregory had a special Devotion and Reverence towards Pictures.  
I have not these Authors to peruse, therefore I cannot examine the Truth of the Quotations, but supposing this, I will ask him how agreeable his Expressions here, charging Pope Gregory with a special Devotion and Reverence towards Images and Pictures, are unto some former Expressions used by him; he hath told us that the words quoted by me out of Pope Gregory against Image Worship (and sure Pope Gregory did not say one thing, and practise a contrary) do agreed to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, forbidding all Divine Honour to be given to Images and Pictures, ●nly allowing them a Relative or Inferior sort ● Honour or Respect: I always thought a special Devotion and Reverence to be of an high ●ing, not lesle than Divine, and not to be ran●ed under a low and inferior sort of Honour or Respect: But let the force of the words be what they will; I will tell him, that by special Devotion and Reverence towards Images and Pictures, be must needs understand the Worship of Images and Pictures, or else his Conclusion is not add ●em, but sick of Impertinency; and who will not laugh at the Unity and Weakness of that Deduction; what, did Pope Gregory Worship every thing that he allowed to be used, and that he permitted to be carried about, and that Austin obtruded upon the English Churches? He than did Worship Pots, and Cups, and Vestments, and other Utensils, and might have vied with the Heathens, for the number of those Idols, which he did Worship.  
Pope Gregory hath told him again and again, that the end for which he allowed the use of Images was not to be Worshipped with any kind of Worship, but only to Instruct the Ignorant, that could not read the Holy Scriptures; and if Austin obtruded them upon the English Churches, it was only for this end, otherwise he acted contrary to the Doctrine of his Master; and if Pope Gregory permitted the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carried about, it was only for this end; And though this was the only end for which Pope Gregory allowed the use of Images and Pictures, yet was he justly reprehended by Calvin, because this was not the method of Instruction that was prescribed by God to be used for Edification; when our Saviour gave that Commission unto his Disciples, saying, Go and Teach all Nations, he did not enjoin them to carry Images about with them, to commend unto the Ignorant people for this end; and the Apostle Paul tells us; That Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and Evangelists, and some Pastors, and some Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the Edifying of the Body of Christ: He doth not tell us that he gave Images and Pictures for that purpose; and he affirms besides; That Faith comes by Hearing of a Preacher, not by seeing of a Picture: That knowledge which is necessary unto Eternal Salvation cannot be imparted by Dumb and Dead Pictures and Images, but by declaring those precious Truths that are delivered in the Holy Scriptures.  
Now let us observe, first how Partial this Gentlemen is in his dealing between the Sacred Scriptures, and his adored Images and Pictures: he hath declaimed against the use of the Holy Scriptures, and thrown them quite out of the doors of the common people, only for the abuse of them: But here he will not have the use of Images and Pictures cried down, though they be abused, but reasons favourably in their behalf; For if (says he) a good thing should be taken away for the abuse of it, we should have very few good things left: It seems that he takes Pictures and Images for good things, while he hath an hard Sentence to pass against the Holy Scriptures; for if he take them likewise for good things, why did he not reason as favourably for them? I perceive that he knows how to scatter Favours, or to deal Blows for his own greater advantage; and as Malice will not forget the Carriage of an Enemy, so Gratitude will be mindful of the Courtesy of a friend. The Sacred Scriptures are utterly against ●is Church and Religion, therefore deals he this hard measure unto them; but Images and Pictures are Superlatively Serviceable for the advancing of their Interest, therefore doth he bestow this high respect upon them: But the mean while, he that extols the merits of good works, as elevated by the Merits of Christ, to make man worthy of a Reward, deserves little at the Hands of God, for preferring those Senseless Stocks and Stones, that have Eyes but cannot see, and Ears but cannot Hear, unto an higher Favour, than he can found in his Heart to bestow upon those Holy Writings, that contain the saving Truths, which God hath vouchsafed to impart unto his People.  
Secondly, that he says, The present Roman Church teacheth, that it is good and lawful, and profitable to set up Images in Churches, and to give them a Relative Honour: But where is the proof of all this? Hath the Roman Church Taught this, and hath she not produced some clear evidence to prove, that by this Doctrine she hath taught nothing but Truth? Is it good, and is there no rule for its goodness? Lawful, and no Law for it? Profitable, and no profit flowing from it? If there be any, which is not mentioned? Must we receive all this for certain Truth, upon the bore word of the Roman Church? But what if God doth Teach the contrary, whether is to be believed, God or the Roman Church? Let this Gentleman look upon the second Commandment, which some of the Roman Writers have expunged out of the Decalogue, and he may Read that the Worship of Images and Pictures is strictly forbidden: Thou shalt not make to thyself any Graven Image, nor the Likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor Worship them, Exod. c. 20. And let him peruse that Text which is quoted by Gregory against the Worship of Images and Pictures, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Math. c. 4. v. 10.  
These Commands do forbidden the yielding of any kind of Worship to Images and Pictures; otherwise the contrary to them in express terms may be lawfully observed: And we may say, though God hath commanded that thou shalt Worship and serve him only, yet thou mayst not Worship and serve him only, but thou mayst Worship Pictures and Images, to wit, with a Relative Worship; though God hath commanded that thou shalt not make any Graven Image, thou shalt not fall down and Worship them, yet thou mayst make Graven Images, thou mayest fall down and Worship them, to wit, with a Relative Worship, and what kind of Laws would these be? How much obliging to God's People, and how likely to be observed? Can a Law oblige, and is it likely to be observed, when it is not sufficiently and clearly propounded, when it admits of a double construction, and the meaning of it is not understood? God hath no where made any special Prouisoes for the limitation and Restriction of these Laws, and said provided that these Laws be not to be understood to be against that Relative Worship, which is to be given to Images and Pictures.  
I shall let the Reflector have a further view of the nature of Image Worship, according as it is set forth in Holy Scripture; he may Read, That C●●sed is the man that maketh a Graven or Molten Image an Abomination to the Lord, Deut. 27. 15. And Confounded be all they that serve Graven Images, Psal. 97. 7. The Prophet Habakkuk terms Images, A Teacher of Lies, Hab. 2. 18. And the Prophet Jeremiah, A Doctrine of Vanities, Jer. 10. 8. These Texts do likewise tell us, that no that no kind of Worship is to be given to Images and Pictures; otherwise as I said before, the contrary to them may be truly affirmed and justly maintained; and so the propounding of them would be nothing but a puzzling of the Understanding, no direction to the Will; and instead of being a Light unto our Feet, and Lantern unto our Paths, would be (as the Pillar of the Cloud was unto the Egyptians) utter Darkness to distracted and Trouble us in the choice of our way: Let not the Reflector now say, (as some Romanists have done) that these Commands and Texts were only Obligatory to the Jews, not pertinent to Christians; for he may as truly say, that the Love of God and the Love of our Neighbours, is not pertinent unto Christians, our Saviour having told us expressly, That on these two hung all the Law and the Prophets.  
What if to give this Relative Worship to Images and Pictures be to Commit the Heinous sin of Idolatry? What is Idolatry but the Worshipping of an Idol? And what are the Images and Pictures that are Worshipped by the Romanists but Idols? Certainly that must be Idolised, to which that Worship is given, which is due only unto God; and it is as certain that this is done to Images and Pictures by the Romanists, the best Learned among them, who knew best the Constitution of the Romish Religion, and endeavoured with their whole might to maintain the pretended Truth of it, have determined that the Image and Picture is to have the same worship given unto it, which is to be given to the prototype, thus Aquinas, Ozorius, and others; and that manner of Image worship, which is prescribed by the Council of Trent speaks not lesle, Honos (says the Council) Qui jis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae representant, it a ut per imagines quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput operimus & procumbimus, Christum adoremus, & sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerun●, veneremur; The honour which we give to Images, is related to the prototypes, which they do represent, so as that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our head, and bow down, we adore Christ, and worship the saints, whose likeness they bear; and is any other worship but that which is highest fit to be transfered and presented unto Christ.  
But the reflector thinks to avoid this Charge by saying that the Doctrine and the practice of the Roman Church is to forbidden all Divine honour to be given to Images; while with the same breath he affirms the quite contrary thing, Joining with the Romish Doctors, and the council of Trent in qualifying of Image-worship, the relative (says he) honour that is to be given to Images is to be agreeable to the objects which they represent; and what worship lower than divine, what worship but the highest can be agreeable unto Christ? If the reflectors words do admit of any such thing as sense, this must be it, that the worship which is to be given to Images, must be the same kind with that which is given to the prototypes? The same kind of worship is to be given unto the Image of Christ, which is given unto Christ: As to instance in outward worship, we must fall down, we must cast ourselves upon our bended knees unto Christ, and this must be done to the Image of Christ, because it must have that worship given unto it, which is agreeable to the object represented by it. And as so with inward worship, Christ is to be loved, and feared, and our joy, and our trust, and our hope is to be reposed in him, all this is likewise to be done to the Image of Christ, that is also to be loved and feared, and our joy and our trust and hope is to be reposed in it. Because it must have that worship given unto it, which is agreeable to the object, which it represents; let the reflector sort this worship into degrees as he can, and tell (if he can) what degree it is that makes an inferior, and what degree a superior worship, and prescribe how to distinguish between them; this is certain that by his assertion the same kind of worship is to be given to the Image of Christ, which is given unto Christ, otherwise the worship that is given to his Image, cannot be agreeable unto him, there being a special kind of Worship pertinent and due unto him.  
But this matter is put quite out of doubt by the notorious practice of the Romanists; as Samuel said unto king Saul, denying his guilt of sparing the best of the Amalakites , what means this bleating of sheep in my ears, and this lowing of oxen which I hear; so I may say to the Romanists, while they deny their guilt of Idolatry in worshipping of Images and pictures, what means their wearing and carrying of Crucifixes and pictures about with them? What means their setting them up about their beds, and in their Chambers and Closets, and what means their burning of incense, and killing, and uncovering the head, and bowing the knee used to them, and all this is done in obedience to the dictates, and in reference to the exercise of their Religion; and what means their praying to Images and pictures? The cross is on good friday invocated after this manner, O cr●x! ave spes unica! hoc passionis tempore, auge ●lis justitiam, re●sque dona veniam? Which is englished thus, all hail oh cross, our only hope in this time of the passion, in faithful people grace increase, to sinners grant remission; and in one of their prayer books we found a prayer entitled thus, a prayer to the Image of the body of Christ, which runs in these words, O maker of heaven and earth, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords which of nothing didst make me to thy own simlitude and likeness, etc. and what is this but to imitate the practice of that Idolater which the wise man speaks of, saying, he is not ashamed to speak to that which hath no life, for health he called upon that which is weak, for life he prayeth to that which is dead, for a●d he humbly beseecheth that, which hath lest means to ●el●.  
What if Images and Pictures be not capable to receive any kind of worship? Is there any capacity in a stock or a stone? There may be an outward position used to it, as overlaying with gold or silver, beautifying with colours, decking and adorning with precious Jewels, Rich Garments, according to the fancy of the cunning artificer, or Idolatrous worshipper, but there can be no reception made by it, nor is it sensible of any thing that is done unto it; the comfort of a Christian depends upon his experiences of this, that the worship which he performs is wel-pleasing unto God, and God is not defective to his own servants in testifying this, but lets them feel it by that ● which he distils into their Souls, Refreshing ● Cheering their Hearts, after they have deftly performed their Religious Duties: But ● do the Romanists know that their Praying ● Prostrating, and Becking, and Becking, and Bowing, and ●ning Incense to Images and Pictures is accept and well pleasing unto them? To testily ● do they give any outward Sign or Token, ● moving their Lips, or Nodding their Heads, ● pointing with their Fingers? Not, let the Ro●●sts perform never so many Acts of Submission ● Service to their Images and Pictures, let them ●ill, or Cry, or Shout never so loud, (as it was ●h the Idolatrous Baalites) there is neither Voice, ● any to Answer, nor any that regardeth: The ●oression of the Psalmist, displaying the Study of Idolaters, and vanity of Idols, is deser●lly applied to their Images and Pictures, that ● Worshipped with an Inferior and Relative ●orship; The Idols of the Romanists, Are the ●icks of men's Hands, they have Mouths but they ●iak not, Fies have they, but they see not, they ●e Ears, but they hear not, neither is there any ciath in them.  
What if Christians by yielding any kind of ●orship unto Images and Pictures do put of ●eir Humanity, and make themselves more ●p●d than Bruit Beasts, even as Stocks and Stones? ●he Psalmist tells us, That they that make Idols ●e like unto them; and so are all they that put their ●rust in them, and this is acknowledged by one ● the greatest Champions of the Roman Church, ●er●n says, The act of submission can only in rea●n be directed to an Object, which we conceive our superior, or endowed with some more Excellency No man submitting to a lower than himself, mu●less to an Irrational or inanimated Creature; a● whosoever should yield a submission upon this score ● servitude, should prevaricate from Reason, a● commit a kind of Superstition and▪ Idolatry in ● knowledging a Superiority where it is not due▪ V● Rule of Faith, p. 110. Now what Superiority o● Excellency is there in an Image or Picture abov● man, it is not the matter, which is Paper, ● Cloth, or Wood, or Stone, or it may be Si●ver, or Gold, that is above man, nor is it th● Figure, which it receives from the Artificer; fo● there is no cause that can produce an effect, tha● is Superior unto, and more excellent than i● self, nor is there any excellency derived unto ● from the Prototype, that can dart no excellent into a Stock or Stone, that is capable to receiv● none; so that all its excellency must reside in th● imagination of the Worshipper, and than it ca● be nothing, but what is Imaginary: It is acknowledged by the Council of Trent, That Images ●● not to be Worshipped for any Virtue or Divinity th● is believed to be be in them; and than according t● the assertion of Ver●on, To Worship them is to prevaricate from reason, and become more stupid tha● the Bruit Beasts.  
What if the Decrees of Councils and Emperors be contrary to the Worship of Images an● Pictures? The Council of Eliberis Decreed thus▪ Placuit Picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, ne 〈◊〉 colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur; W● think it good that there be no Pictures in the Churches▪ lest the thing that is Honoured or Adored, b● Painted on the Walls: Con. Elib. Can. 36. To avoid the force of this Decree, it is but a pitiful shift that is used by the Romanists, saying, Tha● ●●e Council was held in Persecuting times, and the ●alls in the Churches, than being but slender, were ●bject to ruin by Moisture and other Incommodities, ●hich was the reason that the Council forbade the ●aking of Pictures upon Walls, jest they should be ●●●faced by the violence of the Persecutors, or by the ●●ines of the Walls; but did not forbidden the making 〈◊〉 Pictures and Images to be set upon Altars, and to 〈◊〉 kept in other convenient places: It is plain that it ●as not the Locality, or placing of Pictures, ●gainst which the Council did Decree, but the ●eing of Pictures, in reference unto Worship; and ●●at for this reason, because that, which is to be ●he Object of Adoration and Worship, is not to ●e Pictured upon Walls, there to be Worshipped; and if not upon Walls, than certainly not after ●ny other manner: Melchior Canus, Can. Loc. Theol. ● 5. c. 4. makes no such simple Evasion as this, 〈◊〉 takes the boldness positively and plainly to charge the Council not only with Impudence, but also with Impiety, for establishing that wholesome Decree: The Council of Ments Decreed, That when Images hap to be be abused by the People, they should be notably altered, or utterly abolished: The Emperors Valens and Theodosius gave out this general Proclamation, Cum sit nobis cura diligens, etc. For as much as we have a diligent care in all things to maintain the Religion of the most high God, therefore we suffer no man to Fashion, or Grave, or Paint the Image of our Saviour Christ, either in Colours, or in Stone, or in any other kind of matter; but wheresoever any such Image shall be found, we command it to be taken down, assuring our Subjects, that we will most strictly punish all such as shall presume to attempt any thing contrary to our Decree and Commandment, P. Crin. l. 9 c. 9  
To pled the second Council of Nice decreeing the contrary, will not serve the Romanists to resist the force of the forementioned Decrees; let any rational person determine, whether is most consonant to the rule of Christianity, and therefore most obliging to obedience, a Decree that is conformable to the command of God, and the current of the Holy Scriptures, or a Decree that runs in a direct opposition to both: Yea, let the Romanists themselves determine, whether that Council is to be obeyed, that purposely to act in opposition to the Council of Constantinople, which had Decreed against the Worship of Images, was summoned near 800 years after Christ, and that by the instigation of the Empress Irene, an Heathen Born, and a most wicked Woman, who taking her own Natural Son Constantinus, pulled out his Eyes, only because he would not consent to the Idolatrous use of Images: Besides, a Council that founded its Decree upon Ridiculous grounds and motives, because the Prophet David vents these Expressions, Exalt ye the Lord our God, and Worship before his Footstool, and adore ye in his Holy Hill; and O Lord! all the Rich of the People shall Pray before thy Countenance, Nice con. act. 2. & 4. Therefore it was concluded, that an Image is better than Prayer, and Images are to be Worshipped, and an Anathema was denounced against all those that should refuse to pay this adoration: Because it Decreed after this manner, it was rejected as a Pseudo-synod, and its base Decree opposed as repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of God, by the Princes and Bishops of England first, and by Charles the Great afterwards, and by the Bishops of Italy, France and Germany, which by his appointment were gathered together in the Council of Frankford. What if the Ancient Fathers have delivered ● Opinion contrary to the Worship of Images? ●, Clemens Alexandrinus writes thus? Nobis ●e vetitum est artem fallacem exercere, non fa 〈…〉 m, Inquit Propheta, cujusvis rei similitudinem, ●e plainly forbidden to use this deceitful Art of ●ing or Graving, Clem. Alex. prot. ad gent. ● the Prophet saith, Thou shalt not make the ●ess of any thing: And Lactantius says, Non est ●m quin nulla est Religio ubi simulachrum est; ● of doubt wheresoever is any Image, there is no ●gion, Lact. div. Inst. l. 2. c. 19 Origen writes ● this manner, Celsus objicit nobis, quod non habe● altaria & imagines, Celsus objecteth us against ●we have neither Altars nor Images, Orig. con. Cells.  
And Arnobius says unto the Heathens, Ac●tis quod non habemus Imagines & altaria, You ●se us that we have not Images and Altars: ●ob. count. gent. l. 2. Epiphanius the Bishop of ●as entering into a Church, and finding there a ●l hanged up, with the Image of Christ, or ●e Saint painted on it, Tore it asunder, be●e it was done contra Authoritatem Scriptural, Contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures: ●d further he says, Hujusmodi vela contra Re●mem nostram veniunt, Such Veils are contrary to ● Christian Religion: And again, Haec Scrupulo● (says he) indigna est Ecclesia Christi & populis ● tibi crediti sunt; This Superstition is unmeet for ● Church of Christ, and for the people that is counted unto thee. Epip. Epis. ad Jor. Epis. Dier.  
What if the invention of Image and Picture ●orship came from Heathens and Infidels, that ●ew not God? Gregorius the Bishop of Neo-Cae●ia tells us, That gentilitas inventrix & caput est ●ginum, Heathenism was the Head and deviser of Images Conc. Nic. 2. act. 6. and Eusebius speaks of the Image of Christ and of Peter and Paul sa● Hoc mihi videtur exgentili consuetudine observat● quod ita soleant illi honorare, quos honore dig● duxerunt, this seemeth to be the observation ● heathenish custom, for with such Images they used ● honour them, whom they thought worthy of honour Euseb. l 7. c 17. St. Augustin writing against Ac● mantus expresseth himself thus, Simulant se faver● simulachris, quod propterea faciunt ut miserrimae ● vesanae suae sectae, etiam paganorum conciliant be● volentiam, they would seem to favour Images, wh● things they do, to the intent to make the heathens to th● the better of their most miserable and lewd sect; Au● count. Adia. 13. Lactantius writes of the heathens Verentur ne religio vana sit, si nihil videant qu● adorent, they are afraid (as also the Romani● are) that their religion shall be but vain, if the see nothing that they may worship; Lact. l. 2. c. 2. fro● all this which hath been said, it must be concluded contrary to the reflector's assertion, and th● Doctrine of the Roman Church, that the worship of Images is not good but evil; not lawful but unlawful, not profitable, but destructive to th● worshippers.  
It is strange that the reflector (having attempte● to prove the Romish Doctrine in the rest of th● controverted particulars,) should pass this by, an● leave it to be taken up by the reader without an● colour of proof; doth he think that all other persons are like unto his obliging Friends, a● seduced followers, to deny the exercise of the● reason and sense, and to become so sottish an● stupid as to perform acts of submission and worship to a stock or a stone, or a piece of painted cloth or paper, only because the present Roman Church ●s that this is good, and profitable, and lawful ● be done? Or was he not able to contribute the ●p of one argument to make his Doctrine more ●lable to the understanding? Or did he conceit as it is), so palpably false, that no covering ●ld avail to keep the erroneousness of it from the ● of the diligent observer? Or was he afraid to ●age so far in the behalf of his holy mother, ●owing that hard undertake put the actors ●on hard shifts, necessitating them to a faulty ●nagement, which instead of being a supporter ●a bad cause, brings it unavoidably down upon ●ir own heads? Which of these reasons had ● greatest influence upon him, I will not deter●ne, but this I will say, that had he undertaken ● proof of it, it is very probable that he would ●e done, as he hath frequently done, and ●t is as Children always do, by meddling with edg● tools.  
To prove Lead to be Gold, or the Devil to be ● real Saint, ●s a task beyond the possibilty of per●mance, wherefore it was politicly done to ●s by this Doctrine, after this manner: For this ●ing true, that God's commands, and the cur●nt of the Scriptures, and the degrees of Councils, ●d Emperors, with the opinion of the anti●t Fathers, are against the worshipping of Images ●d pictures, and being they are uncapable to ●ceive any kind of worship, and it is in humanity ●d Idolatry to give them any kind of religious ●orship, and likewise because this dirty puddle ●th issued from the unclean fountain of heathe●m and paganism; the present Roman Church in●ad of saying that the worship of Images and ●ctures is good and profitable and Lawful, should ●ave said that it is utterly unlawful, being an heinous sin, fatal, and deadly to the actors it.  
But what the reflector hath left undone, so● Romanists have attempted to perform, an Id● (say they) is the Image of a feigned deity, or ● Image worshipped as a God, or with that worship whic● is due only unto God, but the Images and Pictures, th● are worshipped by the Romanists, are representations ● real beings, nor are they worshipped as Gods, or wit● the worship due unto God, but with an inferior workship, which is not terminated in them, but referre● to the objects represented by them; and that it i● Lawful to worship them after this manner, they prove thus, Images (say they) do represent heavenly things, and God commanded two Cherubins t● be made of beaten gold, and to be set on both side● the ark, and promise' to speak from the middle of the Cherubins; besides our saviour approved th● making and exalting the Brazen Serpent, by which the Israelites were healed in the desert. And owns it to be an Image and figure of himself exalted on the cross; and to prove that it is good and profitable to worship them, they tell us that they are serviceable to restrain man's thoughts from wand'ring, to stir up devotion and reverence in him, making him mindful of God, and keeping him intent upon the exercise of religious duties.  
This account of Image worship do I found compiled in a Romish Catechism, set forth with approbation, and sent to a Protestant, by Mr. H. L. upon the errand of delusion; which persuades me to believe that here we have the Doctrine of Image worship represented in the fairest dress, and supported with the strongest arguments that Romish art can use; in answer to which, first I must tell the Romanists that they are defective in Numbering of Idols, and consequently in reckon●g the kinds of Idolatry; an Image worshipped ●th any kind of religious worship is an Idol, ●ough it be a representation of a real being, and ●ough the worship be referred unto the proto●pes; And to worship God after that manner is to immit the heinous sin of Idolatry; this very Idola●y is forbidden in the Second commandment of ●e moral Law, Thou shalt not make to thyself any ●even Image, nor the likeness of any thing that is ● heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that ●in the water under the earth, thou shalt not bow down ●y self to them, nor worship them.  
It is replied by the Romanists, that this is not ● particular command, but only an explanation of ●e first; but how groundless and false this plea is, ●easily discerned; and that it is a distinct commandment from the first, cannot (with any ●olour of Truth) be denied, the first showing ●he object that is to be worshipped, that is the true God, and forbidding the worship of any other God; and the Second showing how the true God is to be worshipped, and forbidding to worship ●im by pictures and Images, surely the Romanists will acknowledge God and Christ to be in heaven ●nd the Images of things in heaven, as well as ●hings on Earth are forbidden to be made and worshipped.  
The Children of Israel might have pleaded to excuse themselves from the guilt of Idolatry, as the Romanists now do, when they worshipped the golden calf, they might have said, that it was not the representation of a feigned deity, but of the true God; and the worship which they gave unto it, was not terminated in it, but refered to the prototype; for this was really their case; they said these be thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; Exod. c. 32. v. 4. Can any man think that they, who not long before had chanted out a song of praise and thanksgiving unto the true God for the destruction of Pharaoh and his host, whereby they were delivered out of the oppressive and tyrannical hands of the Egyptians, saying, I will sing unto the Lord for he hath triumphed gloriously, the Horse and the Rider hath he thrown into the Sea, should so suddenly forget the Lord their deliveret, and be so stupid as to ascribe their deliverance unto a calf, which a little before hung by parcels in their ears, and which was made before their eyes? wherefore the meaning of the expression must be this? O Israel this is the representation of thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; And that the worship which they gave unto it, was referred unto the true God, is confirmed beyond all contradiction by the following verse, And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it, And Aaron made proclamation, and said to morrow is a feast unto the Lord; he did not say to morrow is a feast unto the Calf.  
Jeroboam might have excused himself and the ten Tribes after the same manner, and said that the Calves which were set up in Dan and Bethel, were representations of that God which was worshipped at Jerusalem, and that the worship which was performed unto them, was referred unto him; it is evident that those Calves were set up to prevent the Israelites from going to Jerusalem to worship, and Jeroboam said, If this People go up to do Sacrifice in the House of the Lord at Jerusalem, than shall the heart of this people turn again unto the Lord, even to Rhehoboam King of Judah. Whereupon the King took Council, and made ● Calf's of Gold, and said unto them, it is too 〈…〉 h for you to go up unto Jerusalem; Jeroboam did attend that he and the Israelites might worship ●od nearer home, by a Relative worship, for it ●as said of the Calves (as of Aaron's Golden ●alf) These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought ●ee out of the Land of Egypt; and Jeroboam and ●e Israelites could not be so senseless as to think, ●at the Calves newly made and set up, were ●he Author of that deliverance, which was ●rought some hundreds of years before.  
Several likewise of the Heathens might have 'cused their Idolatry after this manner, Cicero ●lls, Nemo unquam tam fatuus fuit, qui saxum aut ●pidem Jovem esse credidit, None ever was so voided ●f sense as to believe a Stone to be Jupiter; and the Inhabitants of Lystra, when they saw Paul and Barnabas heal one that was a Cripple from his Youth, said, The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men, Acts 14. 11. they supposed their Gods to be in Heaven, whose Images and Statues they worshipped upon Earth; it is acknowledged by the Apostle Paul, Acts 17. 23. that the Athenians worshipped the true God, and it is evident that this worship was performed by the use of Statues and Images.  
Secondly, I ask the Romanists how these things do hung together, that God's worship is not given to his Image, and yet that the worship which is given to it, is referred unto him? will they refer that unto God which is not his? how than can they think to found acceptance? and how dare they pretend to worship God after this manner? The offering of strange Fire cost Nadab and Abihu dear, even the loss of their precious lives. Besides, how can these contradictory pleas excuse them from the guilt of Idolatry? when they do worship the Image of God by Thurification and kissing, and uncovering the head, and bowing the knee, whether are these outward acts of submission and reverence part of God's worship or not? if not, God is not worshipped by them, and consequently the Romanists are gross Idolaters in directing their worship to mere liveless Stocks and Stones; but if they be, than are the Romanists confessed Idolaters in giving that unto Stocks and Stones, which is due only to God.  
Thirdly, I ask them what strength is to be found in this inference, Images are representations of Heavenly things, therefore they are to be worshipped? Are all such Representations to be worshipped? why than was not the Tabernacle and the Temple worshipped by the Jews, they were representations of heavenly things? and why are not the Heavens worshipped by Christians, the Psalmist tells us that the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament showeth his handy work? why is not the Sun, the Moon, and all living Creatures; yea, every Shrub and Herb worshipped, the Poet telling us (and that nothing but Truth) Presentem refert quaelibet Herba Deum? The inference which they draw from the Cherubims, and the Brazen Serpent is as weak and ridiculous; the Romanists will never prove that these things were set up and commanded to be worshipped, the contrary being expressed in the holy Scripture, that when the Israelites fell to worship the Brazen Serpent, by burning of Incense unto it, their carriage was so offensive and abominable, that it was broken in pieces by the Godly King, Hezekiah, for which act he had this approbation, That he did that, which was right in the sight of the Lord.  
Fourthly, I will tell them that they are very forgetful of holy Duties, and very backward in the performance of them, if they stand in need of the monition of Images and Pictures; and if they must have such senseless admonitors, why must they be of their own making, will not such as are God's own handy work serve their turn? But to infer hence that those admonit 〈…〉 are to be worshipped with a relative worship, is a strain of Logic that requires admiration; what goodly conclusions will this antecedent bring forth, their Ghostly Fathers (the Priests) do (as they say) put the common people in mind, and do stir them up to the performance of holy Duties, therefore they are to be worshipped with a relative worship; every provident and indulgent Parent is careful to do this unto his Children, therefore he is to be worshipped with a relative worship; yea, every part of the visible Creation may and aught to be improved to this behoof, therefore every part thereof is to be worshipped with a relative worship.  
He that is convinced with such silly Arguments as these, that the worshipping of Images and Pictures is good and lawful and profitable, hath his understanding totally eclipsed; that he sees nothing as it is in itself, but takes every thing upon trust, as it is represented by the present Roman Church, though the nature of it be quite contrary.  
That kind of worship can never be good and lawful and profitable, that is First, not derived from the fountain of goodness; where did God ever enjoin or approve of the worshipping of Images and Pictures? He hath strictly forbidden the making, and frequently prohibited and punished the worshipping of them; but never did he give the lest hint of an injunction, or the lest sign of approbation for this worshipping of Images.  
Secondly, That was never used by any of the Primitive Christians; which of those mentioned in Scripture, that were first Converted unto the Christian Faith, did ever observe this practice? we read▪ of their meeting together to hear the Word of God, and to pray unto him, and to praise him for his blessings; but never of their meeting together to worship Images and Pictures.  
Thirdly, That is not conformable to that manner of worship, which was prescribed by our Saviour; God (says he) is a Spirit, and is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth; to worship God by Images and Pictures, is not to worship him in Spirit and in Truth.  
Fourthly, That is not agreeable to that walking, which was used by the choice Saints and Servants of God, while they were in the World; We walk (saith the Apostle Paul) by Faith, and not by sight, and our conversation is in Heaven; to walk by the sight of a Picture, is not to walk by Faith; and to converse with Pictures, is not to have our conversation in Heaven.  
Fifthly, That is a scandal and reproach unto Christianity, giving occasion of offence unto Jews and Turks▪ in the second Council of Nice, where the worshipping of Images and Pictures was decreed, several Bishops Assembled there, did acknowledge that the use of Image and Picture-worship among Christians kept the Jews and the Saracens (whose Religion was the same with that ●f the Turks, at a greater distance from the pro●ession and practice of the Christian Religion.  
Sixthly, That is nearly allied to that manner ● worship, which was used by the Heathens, for which we have the Testimony of Ludovicus Vives, ●ho, having compared the worship, that is given ●y the Romanists to Images and Pictures, with ●hat which was used by the Heathens to their Statues, affirms that the only difference between them ●as in the change of some names and Titles; the Romanists do worship their Images and Pictures by burning of Incense, and uncovering the head, and bowing, so did the Heathens their Statues; and Arnobius tells us that one main ground and ●●d for which Statues were worshipped by Heathens was, Non quod es, aurum, argentum, & si●●les statuarum materiae dii sunt, sed quod per eas ●● invisibiles honorentur, & colantur; Not because the Gods are Brass, Gold, Silver, and like unto the ●atter of Statues, but because the invisible Gods ●ay be honoured and worshipped by them; this very ground and end is pretended and pleaded for ●mage and Picture-worship by the Council of Trent, Imagines (says that Council) Christi etc. The Images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints, are specially to be had, and kept in Churches, and due honour and worship is to be given unto them; not because any Divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be worshipped, etc. but because the honour which is given unto them is referred to the Prototypes, so that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we do uncover our Heads, and bow down, we do adore Christ, and worship the Saints, whose likeness Images do bear; never was issue more like unto its Parent, than the worship of Images and Pictures used by the Romanists is like unto the worship that was used by the Heathens, so that it may be truly said, the one is the Mother, the other is the Daughter.  
Seventhly, That endangers the damnation of the common people, by drawing them to gross and downright Idolatry; Polydore Virgil speaks to this purpose, Multi sunt (says he) saltem rudiores, qui ligneas, saxeas, marmoreas, aeneas, item in parietibus pictas imagines colunt, non ut figuras, sed perinde quasi aliquem sensum ipsae habeant, quip eye magis fidunt, quam Christo ipsi, aut aliis d●vis quibus dicati fuerunt; In the Church of Rome there are many who worship Images of Stocks, Stones, Brass, or painted on Walls, not as Figures, but even as if they had some sense in them, and who put more trust in them, than in Christ himself, or in the Saints to whom they are dedicated. To the same purpose George Cassander speaks, Manifestius est, (says he) quam ut verbis explicari debeat, imaginum & simulachrorum cultum multum invaluisse, & affectioni seu potius superstitioni populiplus satis indultum esse, ita ut ad summam adorationem quae vel a paganis suis simulacris exhiberi consuevit, etc. It is more clear than needs many words to declare it, that the worship of Images and Statues is gone too far; and too much liberty given to the devotion, or rather superstition of the People, so as it came to the very height of worship, which even Pagans' do give unto their Idols.  
To conclude this particular, because it is affirmed that the Worship which is due unto God, is not to be given to his Image, and yet the Worship which is to be given to his Image must be agreeable to him; for the preventing of a mistaken and Erroneous Devotion, and that the precious ●ouls of Christians may not be split upon the destructive Rocks of Idolatry, by directing unto God the Worship, which is to be given only to ●is Image, or on the contrary by directing to his ●mage the Worship that is to be given only unto ●im; I would have the Reflector to fasten some ●ote or Mark of Distinction, upon the Relative Worship, which (he says) is to be given unto ●ages, that the common people may know how ● discern (if there be any difference) betwixt it, ●d the terminative and absolute Worship which ●o be given unto the Prototypes; and until this ● done, (which will never be done) let their ammon people be strictly restrained (according ● the advice of Pope Gregory) from giving any ●nd of Worship unto Images and Pictures: ●ely the Roman Leaders should watch carefully ●ver their people, to be tender of the welfare of ●eir Souls, for which end they should be urgent ● pressing them to observe the advice of the Apostle Paul, and likewise of the Apostle John, ●lee from Idolatry, and my little Children keep ●ur selves from Idols, Amen.   

Concerning the Pope's Supremacy.  
TO be Head of the Catholic Church, is a Prerogative that is peculiar unto Christ; The Husband (says the Apostle Paul) is the Head of the Wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church: He only is capable to receive it, and he only hath Power and Ability to execute the Offices that do belong unto it; what is vain, sinful, mortal man, that he should have this capacity and ability attributed unto him? He cannot protect, and support, and nourish, and govern himself, he cannot give motion, and sense, and life unto himself, much lesle can he do these things for the Church of Christ: Besides, when our Saviour was about to leave the World, he did not tell his Disciples, that he would sand a visible Vicar-general to supply his Room, But his Holy and Invisible Spirit to comfort his people, and to lead them into all Truth: Nor did he appoint any such Vicar, when he sent his Ambassadors and Ministers to plant and gather his Church, but he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; and his Kingdom being not of this World, but Spiritual, and his Church a Mystical Body, a visible Corporal Head is not more suitable, and agreeable to it, than an Head of Clay or Straw is unto a Body that is framed of the most Refined Silver, or purest Gold: All this makes it plain to every one that is not wilfully blind, that the Title of Supremacy doth not belong unto the Pope of Rome.  
Yet the Reflector strives to prove the contrary, ●nd that St. Gregory (being Pope) assumed that Title as his own undoubted Right, derived to him by Succession from St. Peter: But mark what he says, ●reating upon the Communion in both kinds; Though I should bring a thousand clear undeniable Testimonies out of St. Gregory, witnessing that the Laity ●●d received in both kinds, it would be nothing to the purpose, unless I had first proved that the Sacrament ● not entire except it be Administered in both kinds. What, are the Assertions of the Pope made to no purpose? Is he the Head of the Church, and the ●ock upon which the Church is built as the Successor of St. Peter, and yet his Assertions of no ●orce to prove a Position to be Catholic Doctrine, ●nless a precedent proof be made for his Assertions? ●s there any man, or Society of men more to be Credited than the Head of the Church? Is there any man, or Society of men higher than the highest? Certainly the Headship that he claims for the Pope is of the same composition with Childrens Babes, made up of nothing but Clouts, or else he hath got some Elixir as precious as the Philosopher's Stone, by the touch of which all his Assertions are converted into Aphorisms, though they be mere contradictions in themselves. This being observed, I proceed to examine how he maintains the Supremacy that he claims for the Pope.  
The Title of Universal Bishop in common reason should Tantomount to that Title, which was given by Clement to James Bishop of Jerusalem, Episcopus Episcoporum, Bishop of Bishops, what Engines are there to be use ●o rack it, to signify only one particular Bishop, excluding all others from the Dignity of Bishops? Two dissenting terms of different significations cannot import the same thing, and Universals do not exclude, but include particulars; it is a pitiful shift to avoid the force of Pope Gregory's Testimony, by sheltering himself under a Nonsensical distinction, and mark how he proves the several Members of this distinction.  
For the first he quotes Pope Gregory, but as Millers commonly take their Toll, it is with some Addition; and (as some Litigious persons do win their Trials at Law) by teaching the Witnesses to speak more than they know: These Words (as if there were no other Apostle but himself) are not Pope Gregory's; who would think that the man that hath been crying out against me, and charging me with falsifying and wresting Pope Gregory, should make himself guilty of this shameful addition; and who would think that he should be thus grossly Injurious to Pope Gregory, to charge him with an Expression that contains in its self a manifest contradiction? If Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, it was impossible that any Title of Universality should exclude the other Disciples from an Apostolic Dignity; if there had been no other Apostles, how could he be Prince of the Apostles? And who would think that he should speak thus contemptibly of the Power of Christ? It is certain that Christ did ordain other Apostles besides St. Peter, and it was impossile to tender that undone, which Christ had done, it was impossible that any Title that was given to St. Peter should divest them of that Apostolic Authority which was given to them by Christ: Because this Gentleman is resolved to be dishonest in his carriage for the maintaining of his Religion, I would advice him to settle himself for some term of years in a College of Jesuits, that he may be instructed how to set a better Varnish upon his Dishonest practices, that they may not appear so gross and notorious (as they are) to the view of the World.  
I can direct him to a Quotation more seeming for his purpose, without any Additional Sophistication or Corruption; Pope Gregory useth this Expression, Triste tamen valde est, ut patienter feratur, quatenus despectis omnibus, praedictus frater, & coepiscopus meus solus conetur appellari Episcopus, It is very sad that it should be suffered patiently that my fore said Brother and Fellow Bishop despising all others, should endeavour to be called the only Bishop, Greg. l. 4. p. 34. But what service can he make of this Expression? Can he infer hence that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop, only as it did Unbishop all others? He may as rationally and firmly conclude, that he rejected the Title of Universal only as it did Unpatriarch all the rest of the Patriarches, because he says, Sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit, quia videlicet si unus Patriarcha universalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen ceteris derogatur: None of my Predecessors ever ●eilded to use this Profane Title, because if one be called Universal Patriarch, the name of Patriarches is taken from the rest, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 36. Or he may as probably infer that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal only as it did Unpriest all others, because he says, Sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore debito sacerdotes privarentur universi: But none of them ever assumed or consented to use this Title of singularity, le●t, while a private Title be given to one, all the rest of the Priests should be deprived of the Honour that is due unto them, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 38. And can we think that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal only in this sense, as it did Unpatriarch all, and Unpriest all but one.  
His Words must be taken in this sense; it is very sad that it should be suffered patiently that my Brother and Fellow Bishop despising all others, should endeavour to be called the only Bishop of highest Power and Dignity, not admitting any other to be equal to himself; agreeable to this sense he hath several plain and positive Expressions: What wilt thou Answer (says he unto John Bishop of Constantinople) unto Christ▪ the Head of the Church at that day of Judgement, who endeavourest to subject all his Members to thyself by a Title of Universality, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32, & 38. And further he says, He strives to ascribe all unto himself; and all the Members of Christ, that are united to one head by the loftiness of a Pompous Title.  
It is evident that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop, in that sense in which it was offered to him; and his Predecessor by the Council of Chalcedon, and in which it was usurped by John Bishop of Constantinople; he writes to the Emperor Mauritius, and to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, and likewise to John Bishop of Constantinople to this purpose; Sicut enim veneranda vestra Sanctitas novit, mihi, per Sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae, cui (disponente deo) deservio, hoc Vniversitatis nomen oblatum est, sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit, etc. Your Holiness knows that this Universal Title was offered by the Council of Chalcedon to me the Bishop of the Apostolic See, which by God's providence I do serve; but none of my Predecessors did ever yield to use this Profane Title; far be it from a Christian mind, for any one to assume that Title to himself, by which he may seem in the lest measure to diminish the Honour of his Brethrens, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32, & 36, & 38. And can we think that the Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon would bestow a Title that would Unbishop themselves; or that the Bishops Assembled at Constantinople would consent unto John Bishop of Constantinople in the Usurpation of that Title, which would cast themselves down from their Office and Dignity.  
While he says that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop only as it did exclude all others from the Dignity of Bishops, observe how consistent he is with himself; in his Conclusion he vents this Expression, To bring which about he will make Pope Gregory to Vnpope himself, a shrewd displeasure I promise' you, and far more Cruel than John Bishop of Constantinople, who opposed Pope Gregory; for though he stood in contention with Pope Gregory, yet he never endeavoured to make him act this Cruelty upon himself: It is notoriously known that the ground of their contention was the Title that John usurped, and Pope Gregory rejected as Proud, Profane and Blasphemous; and this Gentleman confesses that the rejection of this Title made by Pope Gregory, and the Usurpation of it made by John did not Unpope Pope Gregory, and if it did not Unpope him, it did Unbishop him, and if it did not Unbishop him, it did not Unbishop others; and than by his own Confession Pope Gregory did not reject the Title of Universal Bishop, only as it excluded others from the Authority and Dignity of Bishops.  
Secondly, Let us see how he proves the second Member of his distinction; he quotes the 62 Epistle of the fourth Book, though there be not so many Epistles in it; if he had found such a fault to object against me, he would have made great work with it, but I shall pass it as a mistake of the Transcription: In the Epistle written to John Bishop of Syracuse the words are to be found; but as Ahimaas delivered his Message to King David, breaking of his Tale before the end, so this Gentleman quotes Pope Gregory; the words that declare his meaning are deceitfully kept from the sight of the Reader; the words of Pope Gregory are these, Nunc autem idem Primas aliquae de suo consilio loquitur, & valde dubium est utrum pure an , quia a coepiscopis suis impetitur modo talia loquatur, nam quod se dicit sedi Apostolicae subjic●, si quae culpa in Episcopis Invenitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit, c●m vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis sunt aequales: Now the same Primate speaks some things concerning his own advice, but it is very doubtful whether sincerely or certainly, because he is earnestly desired by his Fellow Bishops to▪ speak such things unto us, for in that he says that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if there ●e any fault to be found in Bishops, I know not ●y Bishop that is not subject unto it; but when a fault doth not require it, all according to the rule of Humility are equal, Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 65. ind. 2. These words instead of proving his Assertion, do directly prove the contrary; Pope Gregory doth not declare himself to be Supreme, and above all others, but acknowledgeth in others an equality to himself, if there were any fault to be found in Bishops, he says the faulty Bishops were subject unto him, but how? not as Bishops, but as criminous, to be admonished, and reprehended and censured by him; which subjection was not an Argument of any Supremacy in him; equals (if there be any faulty) are subject to be admonished and reprehended and censured by one another. The Apostle Peter was admonished, and reprehended, and censured by the Apostle Paul; but I suppose that the reflector will not conclude thence, that Paul had a Supremacy above Peter; but Pope Gregory says plainly, That if there were no fault to be found in Bishops, all were equal.  
If Pope Gregory did claim a supremacy above all, he speaks very much below himself, when he made application to the Emperor Mauritius calling him Lord and Master, and professing his humble submission to him with his cap in his hand, Vobis obedientiam prebere desidero, I desire to yield obedience to yourself, Greg. 4. ep. 32. ind. 1. 3. And he forgot himself very much when he writ unto Cyprian the deacon concerning the choice of a Bishop in the Room of Maximianus, after this manner, Si autem mea voluntas ad hanc electionem quaeritur, & si fieri potest ut eligatur, cred● quod apta valde persona inveniatur, if my opinion he required concerning the choice, and if John the  be chosen I believe a very fit person is found Greg. 4. ep. 19 ind. 13. And he a bridged his own power, and speaks very much against himself, when (writing to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria) he abhorred the word of command, Sicut jussistis, (says he) quod verbum jussionis peto a meo auditu removere, quia scio qui sim, & qui estis, loco enim fratres estis, morilus patres, non ergo jussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt indicare curavi. As you have commanded, pray let me not hear of this word of command, for I know who I am, and who you are, in place you are brethrens, in manners you are farthers, therefore I did not give any command, but only have taken care to show you what I conceived to be profitable; Greg. 7. ep. 30. ind. 1. If he had been supreme and head of the Church, doubtless he would have remembered himself, and observed the frequented stile of some of his successors, Sic volo sic jubeo, Commanding all Bishops and Kings and Emperors to observe his dictates, and to obey his Commands, as this Gentleman knows very well, he that is above all, should command all, but it is certain that Pope Gregory never soared so▪ high, nor did any Pope of Rome justly claim that high and aspiring title of supremacy.  
And while this Gentleman says, that Pope Gregory doth in the Epistle that is quoted, cite the Council of Chalcedon and the canons for the title of supremacy as due unto St. Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome, there is not one word ● Truth spoken by him; first, there is not one ●on cited by Pope Gregory to that purpose nor ●● doth he cite the counsel of Chalcedon for that ●d; his words are these, which do speak the ●●e contrary things, 〈…〉 te pro beati Petri Apostolo● principis honore per 〈…〉 o and am Chalcedonensem ●odum romano pontifici obl●tum est, sed nullus 〈…〉 am eorum hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, ●uti consensit, Truly for the honour of blessed ●eter Prince of the Apostles this title was offered ● the reverend council of Chalcedon to the Pope's ● Rome, but none of them assumed it, or con●nted to use it; he doth not say that the council ●d decree it to the Pope as his due, but only ●f●red it as a free gift, but none of the Popes of ●●me assumed it, or consented to use it, and it is ●range that the Popes of Rome would not conant to use that title, if it was a due belonging unto ●hem.  
To show farther that this Gentleman hath spoken contrary to his own knowledge, and wilfully charged Pope Gregory with that which was never owned by him, let us observe what he writes in the 32 epistle of that Book which is quoted, Pope Gregory's words are these, Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit, mihi, per Chalcedonensem synodum pontifici sedis apostolicae, cui, deo disponente, deservio, hoc universitatis nomen oblatum est, sed nullus unquam decessorm meurum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit; for your holiness knows that the title of universality was offered by the council of Chalcedon to me the Pope of the apostolic see which (by God's providence) I do serve, but none of my predecessors consented to useth is profane title He terms that title which was offered unto hi● by the council of Chalcedon a profane title, an● we may think it wondered that a profane title, should belong unto St. Peter, and tha● Pope Gregory should m 〈…〉 ain it to be his due, ● we may not admire that ●● should be claimed b● the late Popes of Rome, as a due belonging unto them.  
Secondly, The title of Supremacy was not due unto St. Peter, for the Apostolical Office was the highest that was instituted in the Church, and this Office was given to the rest of the Disciples, as well as to St. Peter; and by the Command o● Christ, Mat. 10. all the Disciples were to have an● equal care over the whole Church of God, which they practised not only by applying themselves to the Ministry of the Word, but also by a joint concurrence in appointing and ordering of Deacons, Acts 6. and our Saviour told them positively, that there should not be any inequality amongst them in respect of power and dignity, but if any one of them (out of ambition) should exalt himself above the rest, the ambitious aspirer would have so much more cause to humble himble himself, by how much his ambition transported him to act contrary to his Master's approbation, Matth. 20. 25, 26. Peter never assumed this Title, Acts 8. 14. but subjected himself to be sent to Samaria by the vote of the Apostles; and when a Controversy arose concerning Circumcision, he did not take upon him the power of determining, but it was done by the common suffrage of the Apostles and Elders, James (not Peter) pronouncing the definitive sentence, Acts ●3. Besides, Peter did not look upon Paul ●s inferior, but gave unto him the right ● of fellowship, and styled himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●ow Presbyter; Gal. 2. 9 and farther I will ●hat if Peter was head over James, it was pre●rously and injuriously done of Paul to prefer ●ention of James before that of Peter, 1 Pet. ● and if Peter was head over Paul it was pre●ptuously and rebelliously done of Paul to ●stand and censure his superior; the subject ●liged to obey or to suffer, not to resist, Gal. ● and 2. 11. that hand and foot forgets its ●y that spurns and strikes at the head; and if ● was Superior unto Paul, how could it be ● Paul should have (if not greater yet) as ●t a charge committed unto him, as was unto ●●▪ Paul's words are plain, that the Gospel of ● uncircumcision was committed to him, as Gospel of the Circumcision was committed to ●r, Gal. 2. 7. Add to this that Peter failed ●e than any of the rest of the Disciples; he sin● by curiosity, by unbelief, by prohibiting the ●on of Christ, by ambition, by a preposte●s Zeal, by denying and forswearing his Ma●; and after he had received the gifts of the ho● Spirit, he sinned by dissimulation, for which he as reprehended by the Apostle Paul, telling him at he did not walk uprightly according to the ●●h of the Gospel.  
The Commission of teaching all Nations, and ●rgiving of sins was given to the rest of the Apo●les, as well as to St. Peter; Go (says our Saviour to his Disciples) and teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and whosoever's s●● remit, they are remitted, and whoever's sins he slain, they are retained, John 20. 23. and tho● our Saviour spoke these words, Feed my Sh● and feed my Lambs, directly unto Peter, yet th● did not invest him with any new or greater d●nity than he had before, but only restored h● to his former station, which he had deserved forfeited by forswearing his Master; and th● words were spoken likewise intentionally to ● rest of the Disciples, or else we must say that teach his people is not to feed his Sheep, to feed ● Lambs; St. Augustin says, Cum Petro dicitur ● omnes dicitur, amas me? pasce oves meas; When ● was said unto Peter it was said unto all, Lovest th● me, feed my Sheep, Aug. de Agon. Chr. c. 3▪ and what though our Saviour did say unto ●ter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I w● build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall ● prevail against it. Our Saviour did not say th● Peter was this Rock, nor doth the Metaphor signify any thing of Dominion, Monarchy, or Supremacy; but Duration, Solidity, Constancy, a● such like; which could not be derived from St. Peter; he being a frail mortal man, could not be t● stability and strength of the Church, by reason ● which the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it, it is well known that the Gates of Hel● did prevail against him, to draw him to an A●juration of his Master; and being that he could not secure himself, how could he secure the Church of God; besides, the Church that was to be built, was to be presented a glorious Church, not having Spot or Wrinkle, or any such thing, ●o be holy and without blemish; which holy ●ing could not be raised upon a crazy and ●● Foundation.  
moreover, If Peter was the Head and the ●●, by virtue of that expression, how could ● that the Apostles afterwards should quar● about precedency, not knowing that their ●ter had before passed his promise thereof unto ● Peter? and than there was two visible Heads ● Rocks actually in being together, and ● Church should have been termed after●ds the Body and Spouse of Peter, and the ●ostle Paul should have planted the Churches ●● St. Peter; than there should have been ●e medium, by which the Church was to ● joined unto Peter, and he should have term● himself the living Stone, upon which the ●ly Stones are built up unto a Spiritual ●ouse; but the Church was never a Monster ● two Heads, nor was it ever termed the bo● or Spouse of Peter but of Christ; nor did ●ul plant the Churches upon Peter but upon ●rist; nor was there any medium by which ●e Church was to be joined unto Peter, by ●ith we stand, says the Apostle Paul, by Faith ●e Church is joined to the Head and Rock, ●t Peter is not an object of Faith; nor did Peter term himself the living Stone, but says ●at Christ is the living Stone, upon which ●he lively Stones are built up unto a Spiritual House.  
The words were spoken upon that Confession, which was made by the Apostle Peter, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God; Matth. cap. 16. vers. 15. and vers. 20. whi● was not Peter's Confession only, but also t● Confession of all the rest of the Disciples; o● Saviour propounded this question unto all, Wh● say ye that I am, and Peter Answered for al● all knew him as well as Peter did, and all were invested with the same Power, which was giv● Peter upon this Confession, Whatsoever ye sh● bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, a● whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth shall be loosed ● Heaven, Matth. c. 18. v. 18. Joh. c. 20. v. 2▪ Wherhfore it must be concluded, that though the Name of Peter only was mentioned when th● words were spoken, yet all the Disciples we● concerned in the words that were spoken; as Peter made a Confession in the behalf of all, ● our Saviour upon that Confession spoke tha● which pertained unto all, and than by tho● words Peter was not more privileged to be ● Rock than the rest of the Disciples were; agreeable to this is the Expression of the Apostle Pau● And are built (says he) upon the foundation of th● Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being ● chief corner Stone, Eph. c. 2. v. 20. which is likewise the Opinion of Origen, Petra est (says▪ he quicunque est Discipulus Christi, etc. He is the 〈◊〉 whosoever is the Disciple of Christ, and upon such ● Rock all Ecclesiastical Learning is built, Orig. ● Math. Tract. If thou thinkest that the wh●● Church is built only upon St. Peter, what th● wilt thou say of John the Son of Thunder, and ● every of the Apostles, shall we dare to say, th● the gates of Hell shall not prevail only against Peter, or are the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given only unto Peter: And St. Augu 〈…〉 ●, Petrus pro omnibus dixit, & cum omnibus ●epit, Peter spoke for all the rest, and received ●h all the rest, August. in Joh. Tract. 11. & ●.  
This Gentleman certainly will not have the ●e to reject his sometime extolled founda●n, that is, Pope Gregory, but rely upon his ●erpretation for the sense of those words that ●re spoken to St. Peter, he tells us, that Christ ●mself was the Rock, of which he spoke, and ●oves it by the Testimony of the Apostle Paul, ●ope Gregory's words are these, Hinc namque Apo●●s dicit fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere ●●er id quod positum est, quod est Jesus Christus, hinc ●e dei & hominum Mediator ad Apostolorum prin●em ait, tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram aedi●bo Ecclesiam meam, ipse enim est petra a qua pe●s nomen accepit, & super quam se aedificaturum ●cclesiam dixit: Hence the Apostle says, any other mundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, ●hich is Jesus Christ; hence the Mediator between God ●d man said unto the prince of the Apostles, thou art ●eter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, ● he is the Rock from which Peter took his Name, ●d upon which he said he would build his Church, ●●eg. in 5. Psal. pen. 1 Cor. c. 3. v. 11. And ●urther Pope Gregory says, Nam quod in hac vita ●llis adversitatibus frangenda sit, nullis persecu●onibus superanda, ipse super quem aedificata est ●identer ostendit, cum ait portae inferi non prae●lebunt adversus eam: For that the Church in this life is not to he broken with any Adversities, ●r overcome with any persecutions, he upon whom the Church is built doth plainly show, when he says, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; the interpretation that is made by other ancient Fathers agrees unto this; Gregory Nissenus says Tu●es Petrus, etc. Thou art Peter, and upon th● Rock will I build my Church, he meaneth th● confession of Christ, for he had said before, tho● art Christ the Son of the ever living God, Greg● Niss. in Test. Delect. ex vet. Test. So saith St. Hillary, Haec est una foelix fidei petra quam Petrus ore suo confessus est; This is the only blessed Rock of Faith that Peter confessed with hi● mouth, Hill. de Twin. l. 2. so likewise Chrysostom, Super hanc petram, id est in hac fide & confession aedisicabo ecclesiam meam; Upon this Rock, that is to say, upon this Faith, and this confession I will build my Church, Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 55. And likewise St. Augustine, Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus est Petrus: Christ was the Rock upon which foundation also Peter himself was built, Aug. in Matth. Serm. 13.  
These Titles that were given to the Apostle Peter by Pope Gregory terming him the Prince of the Apostles, and ascribing unto him a Principality over the whole Church, cannot prove any Superiority in Peter over the rest of the Apostles; for First, Our Saviour did never invest him with those Titles. And Secondly, It is evident that Pope Gregory ascribed as high Titles unto the Apostle Paul, calling him the Head of the Nations, and attributing to him a principality over the whole Church, Greg. in 1. Reg. l. 4. c. 5. chrysostom terms Paul, The Master of the World; and Paulo (says he) tribuitur Cura omnium Ecclesiarum, non unius vel duarum vel trium sed omnium quae sunt in toto orbe; unto Paul the charge of all the Churches is committed, not of one, or two, or three Churches, but of all the Churches that be in the World, Chrys. in Gen. Hom. 7. & Hom. 11. & in Joh. Hom. 11. If chrysostom spoke truth, and Gregory did not contradict himself, the Apostle Paul was as much Head, and had as great a Principality over the whole Church, as the Apostle Peter had; agreeable to which, is the Judgement of St. Cyprian: Hoc (says he) erant alii quod Petrus, pari confortio praediti & honoris & potestatis; the rest of the disciples, were even the same that Peter was, endued with the like Fellowship both of honour, and also of power, Cyp. de simp. Prel. And this was the Opinion of St. Ambrose; Inter Petrum & Paulum quis ●ui praeponatur incertum est; between Peter and Paul, whether aught to be preferred before other is uncertain. Amb. Serm. 66.  
Thirdly, How can the Popes of Rome be said to be Peter's Successors? It is uncertain whether ever Peter was at Rome; his Charge and Commission was to go and teach all Nations, not to seat or settle himself in any particular City; and he was specially appointed to be the Apostle of the Circumcision, to preach unto the Jews, as Paul was specially appointed to be the Apostle of the Uncircumcision, to preach unto the Gentiles: To this purpose there was a Covenant made between James, Cephas, John, Paul, and Barnabas: When (says the Apostle Paul) James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be Pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave me the right hand of Fellowship, that we should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision, Gal. 2. v. 9 The Fourth year after the Death of Christ, the Apostle Peter was at Jerusalem; about thirteen years after the Apostle Paul conferred with him there, and afterwards he was at the Synod, when the controversy about Circumcision was determined; he preached the Gospel in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, he lived and preached in Babylon; all this while we do not read that ever he was at Rome; that Paul was there, is evident from the Holy Scripture, but to prove Peter's being there, there is not one syllable in Holy Scripture to be found.  
If Peter was at Rome, it is strange that in all those Epistles that Paul writ from Rome; and in that Epistle which he writ to Rome, wherein he makes mention of several Friends and Servants of God, there is no mention made of the name of Peter: where was Peter when Paul made mention of Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, and says of them, that they only were his Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God? Col. 4. v. 11. Paul was at Rome than, but certainly Peter was not there, otherwise without doubt Paul would have reckoned him in the number of his fellow-workers: And where was Peter, when Paul said that at his first appearance before Nero, no man stood with him, but all men forsook him? 2 Tim. 4. v. 16. Must we say that Peter was fled from Rome? certainly, had Peter been there, he would have stood with Paul These things cannot consist with that Relation which is made by Hieronimus, that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and sat there five and twenty years; nor also with that other story, that both Peter and Paul suffered Martyrdom in the same place, at the same time, and under the same persecuting Emperor: against these Reports, we shall oppose the Testimony of that ancient Father, Irenaeus, that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and after him succeeded Anacletus, and in the third place the Succession fell to Clemens, not mentioning Peter's being there, and denying that he was the first Bishop that was seated there.  
But however, if Peter was at Rome, and the first Bishop that sat there, this cannot make all the Popes of Rome to be his true and lawful Successors: I ask the Romanists, in what all the Popes of Rome succeeded him? It was not in his Apostolical Office; none of the Popes of Rome were immediately called by Christ, or extraordinarily gifted; none of them were endowed with the power of working Miracles, or ever went into all the Earth to Preach the Gospel unto every Creature. It was not in purity of Faith and Doctrine: Peter never was a Schismatic, or Heretic; Zepherinus was a Montanist, Marcellinus an Idolater, Liberius an Arrian, Vigilius an Eutychian, Honorius was condemned for an Heretic by the sixth Council of Constantinople; Peter never maintained the Doctrines of Pennances, Indulgences, Purgatory, Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, private Mass, ●al●e Communion, etc. It was not in Holiness of Life; Joh● the VIII. was a Woman Pope, and brought forth a spurious Issue as she was going in public Procession through Rome; Sylvester the II. Benedict the IX. John the XX. Gregory the VII. were manife● Conjurers, and had their Familiars: It was not in Humility, in executing of his Ministry: We read in Scripture, that Peter journied from J●pa to Caesaria (probably on Foot, for I do not think that any of the Apostles were Horsemen) to preach the Gospel; and forbade Cornelius to Worship him, and suffered patiently the reproof of his Brethrens, and exhorted all to be subject unto the Ordinances of Man, for the Lords sake▪ to the King as Supreme, and unto Governors▪ as scent for the punishment of Evil-doers: an● he exhorted Servants to be obedient unto the●● Masters; but we do not read that ever he dispensed with the Laws of God, or denied to subject himself unto the reproofs of Men, saying; nemine reprehendi aut judicari debet, nec aliquis di●re potest quid facis; That he was not to be reprehended, or judged, or contradicted by any. We do n● read that ever he wore the Imperial Robes, ● was carried in Pomp and State upon men's shoulders, or that he Excommunicated and Depose● Emperors, or that he trod upon the Necks ● King's, or had Princes to hold his Stirrup, ● lead his Horse, to kiss his Feet; or that he di● dispose of Crowns, or absolve Subjects from their ●aths of Allegiance, or stirred them up to Re●el and Destroy their liege Lords; all which the ●e Popes of Rome have done.  
If the Romanists do say, that all the Popes of 〈…〉 e are Peter's Successors in person and place: I ●swer, that a personal and local Succession is not efficient to make a true and lawful Successor; ●e Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses Chair, yet ●hey were Thiefs and Robbers, and the Apostle ●aul told the Ephesians, that after his departure ●any Wolves would enter in amongst them, ●ot sparing the whole Flock: Annas and Cai●●s succeeded Aaron, yet I hope the Romanists ●ill not say, that these were true and lawful successors: Ambrose tells us, Non habent haeredi●em Petri, qui fidem Petri non habent. They have ●t the Inheritance of Peter, that want the Faith of ●eter, l. 1. de Paen. And Gregory Naziansen speaks ●o the same purpose, Qui eandem fidem profitetur, ●jusdem quoque Throni particeps est, qui autem con●rariam fidem amplectitur, adversarius in Throno quoque censeri debet, atque hic quidem nomen, ille vero ●em ipsam, & veritatem habet Successionis: He that professeth the same Faith, partakes of the same Throne, but he that Embraceth the contrary Faith, is to be accounted an adversary to the Throne; and truly the one hath but the name, the other the thing itself, and the truth of Succession. Orat. in laud. Atha. The Canon Law says, Multi Sacerdotes, & pauci Sacerdotes, multi nomine, pauci opere; videte ergo quomodo sedeatis super Cathedram, quia non Cathedra facit Sacerdotem, sed Sacerdos Cathedram, non locus sanctificat hominem, sod homo locum; Many Priests, and few Priests; many in name, but few in deed; take heed therefore how you sit in the Chair, because it is not the Chair that makes the Priest, but it is the Priest that makes the Chair, it is not the Place that sanctifies the Man, but the Man sanctifies the place.  
Because the Romanists do build so much upon this Succession from St. Peter, and would have the Popes of Rome to be his true and lawful Successors, to conclude thence that the Pope is the Head of the Church, and do make this a chief Article of their Faith; affirming peremptorily, That to be within the compass of his Jurisdiction, to be obedient unto him, is absolutely necessary to Salvation, I would have the Romanists to tell me, which was Peter's Successor, when Vrban the VI chosen by the Italians, and Clement the VII. chosen by the French, the one sitting at Rome, the other at Avignion, thundered out their Bulls of Excommunication, the one against the other; and when tria teterrima hominum monstra, as Platina terms them, Three most wicked Monsters of Men, to wit, Benedict IX. Sylvester III. and Gregorius VI. were all Scrambling about the Triple Crown; and when the Council at Constance sat, in which three Popes, Benedict XIII. Gregory XII. and John XXIV. were deposed, and when the Roman Chair was voided, not only for some days or months, but for the space of many whole years? Surely it will be a two-handed labour to determine who, and where, Peter's true and lawful Successor was during these forementioned Revolutions; and consequently who, and where the Head of the Church was: If there was a time when the Church had more Heads than one, than it was a Monster; if there was no Head at any other time, than there was no Church, the Church was dead, for it cannot live without an Head; and than the Roma●ists wanted one prime Article of their Faith, they could not believe him to be the Head of the Church, that was not in being, and for several years whosoever died was necessitated to be damned, because there was no Papal Jurisdiction to live under, and no Pope to obey; the Romanists are forced to swallow these Positions, while they do maintain the Pope to be the Head of the Church by Succession from St. Peter.  
Fourthly, If the Popes of Rome might be said to be St. Peter's true and lawful Successors, yet the Title of Supremacy was not due unto them; if it was not due unto St. Peter, it is certain that it was not due unto them; but for a farther proof of this, if it was their due, how could the Council of Chalcedon offer it to Pope Gregory, and his immediate Predecessor, as a free-gift? Did Pope Gregory and his Predecessor want their due, until the Session of the Council of Chalcedon, or did the Council of Chalcedon offer that unto them which they had before? And how could the Council offer that as a free-gift, (as Pope Gregory terms it) which was a Due belonging unto them? And how could that be a Due belonging unto them, which is unlawful to be used? Pope Gregory tells us plainly, That the Title of Supremacy, which was the matter of contention between him and John Bishop of Constantinople, and which was offered to him and his Predecessor, by the Council of Chalcedon, was contrary to the Rules of the Gospel, and to the Decrees and Canons of the Church: Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 34. & 36. And I hope this Gentleman will grant that it was therefore unlawful to be used.  
But for a farther discovery, let us inquire into the practices of former Ages, and see whether they did yield any such thing as the Title of Supremacy to the Bishops of Rome, as a Due belonging unto them; several Popes have been Excommunicated, several deposed; Appeals unto Rome were strictly forbidden by the first Council of Nice: Con. Nic. can. 5. By the Council of Tola in Spain, Con. Tol. Can. 17. By the Council of Melevitan, Con. Mel. Can. 22. The third Council of Carthage did Decree, That the Bishop of the first See should not be called the Chief of Priests, or the Highest Priest, or by any other like Name, but only The Bishop of the first See, Con. Car. can. 26. The Council of Nice, did make this Decree, Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Egyptam, Lybiam, & Pentapolim, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quia & Vrbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est: Let the, ancient Custom be kept thoughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have the Government over all these, for the Bishop of the City of Rome hath the like order, Con. Nic. can. 26. The Council of Chalcedon, did Decree, That the Patriarch of Constantinople should have as high and as great Privileges as the Pope of Rome had, Con. Chal. Act. 6. Emperor's have exercised the Power and Authority of Summoning and Confirming General Councils, and the Pope with his Hat in his Hand and his Knee in the Dust, hath supplicated the Emperor to employ his Authority in calling of Councils: To this purpose Pope Leo writ unto the Clergy and People of Constantinople, Exposcite ut petitioni nostrae qua plenariam indici Synodum postulamus clementissimus imperator dignetur annuere: Make your request that the Emperorurs' Majesty would vouchsafe to grant my humble Petition, wherein I besought him to Summon a general Council. I could instance in several other particulars, but these may serve to let this Gentleman see that the practice of former Ages did not acknowledge any Supremacy to belong unto the Popes of Rome.  
How can this Title be derived unto them, if this Gentleman shall say, that it was settled by our Saviour upon St. Peter in order to Succession, that whosoever should be seated in his Chair, was to be immediately possessed of it, as his own undoubted inheritance lineally and legally descending upon him; First I say, that it hath been already demonstrated, that our Saviour never invested St. Peter with a greater dignity and power than he gave to the rest of his Disciples. Secondly, I ask how it came to pass, that the Primitive Ages were altogether ignorant of this Deed of Entail? Had the Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon known it, they would not have been so simple as to offer it freely unto the Pope upon this ground of Succession from St. Peter, it is folly in the abstract to pretend to bestow that as a free-gift, which is passed before as an unquestionable inheritance. Thirdly, To say this, is a Blasphemous detraction from that special providence, and tender respect, which Christ bears unto his People; several Popes have been wicked Heretics; several extremely Vicious, several Illiterate, several have climbed up into the Papal Chair by indirect and wicked means; some by Simony, some by Sedition, some by Tyranny, some by Deceit, some by Murder; of Bonniface VIII. it is said, Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut Lupus, mortuus est ut Canis: That he entered into the Popedom as a Fox, he reigned as a Wolf, and died as a Dog, Char. sum. p. 432. It is reported of Silvester the II. Pontificatum malis artibus adeptum male amisit: That he obtained and lost the Popedom by wicked means, Char. sum. p. 415. & 416. Can we think that our Saviour foreknowing these things, would make this provision for his Church, to settle the Supremacy to be possessed, and leave his Church, which he purchased with his dearest Blood, to be ruled and instructed in the great concern of Salvation, by such misshapen and filthy Creatures; experience tells us, that if the Eyes be blind, the whole body is in darkness, and if the head be diseased, the body languisheth; and Pope Gregory affirms, that one reason why the Title of Supremacy was to be rejected, was this, Si unus Episcopus vocatur universalis, universa Ecclesia corruit, si unus universus cadit, If one be called Universal Bishop, in the fall of that one, the whole Church is ruined, Greg. l. 6. Epist. 24.  
Now let us admire the Candour, and the Confidence of this Gentleman, how little the one, and how great the other is, in saying, that Pope Gregory pleads his own Right, and that the Title was due only to himself, as being chosen Head of the Church, and Successor of St. Peter, and that he complains grievously of the Injuries done unto him by John Bishop of Constantinople, in usurping the Title of Universal, and robbing the Popes of Rome of it; how could John Bishop of Constantinople rob the Popes of Rome of that which they never had? Pope Gregory tells us plainly, that none of his Predecessors ever consented to use that profane Title of Universals, and speaking to the Emperor Mauritius, he says; Nunquid specialem injuriam vindico hac in re piissime domine, nunquid propriam causam defendo, & non magis causam omnipotentis dei, & causam Vniversalis Ecclesiae? Do I defend my own Cause, or vindicate my own Injury in this thing, and not rather the cause of the Omnipotent God, and of the Universal Church? Greg. l. 4. Ep. 32. And in the same Epistle he says farther; Quia vero non causa mea, sed dei est, & quia non solus ego, sed tota turbatur Ecclesia, quia venerandae Synodi, quia ipsa domini nostri Jesu Christi mandata superbi & pompatici cujusdem Sermonis inventione turbantur: Because it is not my own Cause, but Gods, and because not only myself, but the whole Church is troubled, by reason that the wholesome Laws, the reverend Synods, and the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ, by a proud and pompous Title are violated: He says expressly, That it was not his own cause that he defended, but the cause of God, the cause of the whole Church; and than it must be the cause of all the Patriarches, and of all the Bishops, and of all the Priests, and of all the Members of the Church; because John, Bishop of Constantinople, (as Pope Gregory says) did endeavour (as all the late Popes of Rome have done) to subjugate all those unto himself, which belong only to one Head, which is Christ: Pope Gregory's words are these: Ita ut universa sibi tentet adscribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti coherent, videlicet Christo, per elationem pompatici Sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare: He strives to ascribe all unto himself; and all the Members which do agreed in one only Head, to wit, Christ, he endeavours to subject unto himself, by the elation of a pompous Title, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 36. And farther, if Pope Gregory had pleaded his own Cause, and complained of any Injury done unto himself, more than unto others; he would not, as he did, blame Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, for ascribing unto him the Title of Universal, as it was offered unto the Pope by the Council of Chalcedon, forbidding the use of it in relation to himself, or unto any other, Greg. l. 7. Epist. 30.  
I have written more largely in Confutation of this unjust Claim, which is made by the late Popes of Rome to the Title of Supremacy, because it is (as some Romanists do affirm) the very Pinnacle of the Romish Temple, that which is cried up, and contended for, and exposed most to view, on purpose to serve (as a great ) to direct unwary and unskilful Passengers to steer their course into the Romish harbour; and as some do say, it is the foundation stone, upon which all the Romish Structure is erected: whither should the Members resort, but where the Directive Faculty resides, and that is in the Head? And why must the Saints be invocated, and Images Worshipped, and the dead be prayed for, and the rest of their Superstitious and Idolatrous Opinions be embraced and practised, but because they are dictated by the Head, and the Pope (as is affirmed by the Romanists) is that Head? which being disproved, it is evident that the Headship which is claimed, is nothing but a mere ignis fatuus, to draw the ignorant and unwary out of the way; and the foundation being shaken and destroyed, the whole building falls to the ground; the Dictates of the Pope, that are not expressed in the Holy Scripture, nor necessarily and by good consequence deduced thence, have not more Truth in them, than there is in this position, That the Pope is the Head of the Church; and there is no more Truth in that, than there is in this, That every particular Patriarch, or every particular Bishop, is the Head of the Church.  
For a Conclusion, I shall desire the Reader to take notice, what Pope it was that first usurped the Title of Supremacy, and at whose hands he received, and by what means he attained this great Dignity: It was Boniface the III. who with much labour and difficulty, and bribery, procured a Grant of it from that Tyrannical Usurper Phocas; who being a Soldier, rebelled against his Master, the Emperor Mauritius, Abb. Vsp. in Mau. and most cruelly and wickedly put him him to Death, the manner of which was this: First he commanded forth the Emperor's Sons, and caused them to be Slain, and afterwards the Empress, the Emperor all the while lamentably beholding that sad spectacle, and pouring out his Complaint unto God, saying, Lord thou art just, and just is thy Judgement. Last of all he acted the like Butchery upon the Emperor, laying him, his Wife, and Children, all together on an heap, Car. in chro. Greg. l. 11. Epist 1. jud. 6.  
During the Reign of this bloody Usurper, God seemed utterly to withdraw his Blessings from the Empire; France, Spain, Germany, Lombardy, and the greatest part of the East fell from it for ever; after he had Reigned a while, and committed sundry Murders, with many other great mischiefs, the People laid violent hands upon him, and slew him, and cast his dead Body into the Fire; lo, this was he that first advanced the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Universal Church.   

Concerning the Conclusion.  
THE Bragadoshia in Plautus, who boasted of his ●onquests obtained over half the World, in the space of three days, was not comparable to this Gentleman for Martial Exploits; here he cries out Io triumph, telling the World how invincibly he hath behaved himself, and what an undoubted Victory he hath achieved over an impotent and contemptible Enemy; his conquering Arms (as he presumes) hath dealt such fatal and destructive blows, that I must be constrained to betake myself unto a shameful flight, or else defend myself by quibbling and cavilling, which is equally shameful; and than what impartial Judge is there, that shall deny to set the Garland on his head, and to Crown him with those due praises which his great Valour hath merited by his worthy Achievement.  
But if he would not be offended, I would tell him that great Performances are visible to the Eye, therefore if there had been any such guilt in him, he would not have needed (as King Saul did) to blow the Trumpet, saying, Let the Hebrews hear; but he knows very well that saying and doing are two things, and the failing of the one (for some show of credit) must be supplied by excess in the other; being conscious of the defect of his deeds, it was very requisite to blow high with his words, to deceive his obliging Friends, and Ignorant followers into a false conceit that something is done by him, though there be nothing to be seen.  
He will say that I do quibble and cavil, if I do ask him, first, what evidence he hath produced to prove that the greatest part of the controversy between my adversary and me (excepting the testimonies of Pope Gregory) doth only concern Historical reports, and in what particular he hath touched upon the queries, which I proponed to my adversary; the Historical reports do not amount to the one half of the controversy, which is obvious to every eye; and the touch which (he says) is made upon the queries, is not where to be found, unless in his own fancy, or it may be, it was sometime existing in his appetite, the edge of which was turned and dulled with fear, he might have an earnest desire to touch upon them, but it is very visible to the reader that he durst not come near them.  
Secondly what fabric he hath erected upon that foundation, which he terms somewhat more certain, that is the testimony of Pope Gregory? Instead of building upon it, he hath razed it quite, and laid aside not only Pope Gregory's, but also all the ancient fathers, by saying (as he doth) treating upon the communion in both kinds, That unless I do produce a command or show a necessity for receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, without which it could not be entire, I shall say nothing to the purpose, though I shall produce a thousand clear and undeniable testimonies out of Pope Gregory, or any one else, witnessing that the laity had received under both kinds.  
Thirdly, what arguments he hath used to prove that my expressions concerning Augustine the Italian Monk do not hung together? May he not be supposed to be instrumental in converting of the Saxons, and notwithstanding be charged with those faults, of which Historical writers do report him to be guilty? Our Saviour says that many will pled for themselves at the last day; saying, Lord have we not Prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out Devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works, which notwithstanding will be answered with a revera nescio vos, verily I know you not; if he was a Monk of great virtue, yet questionless, he had failings as well as others; and if he was proud and ambitious and cruel, yet he might be an Instrument in the hand of the supreme agent for the conversion of Pagans'. I hope this Gentleman will not ascribe the power and efficacy of conversion to the instrument, but will acknowledge that it resides in, and Issues from the supreme agent.  
Fourthly, where are those evident proofs to be found which are taken out of St. Gregory, by which he hath cleared his opinion and proved that in the particulars mentioned, he doth agreed with the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and directly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of England? There is not one proof produced by him out of this ancient Father in relation to any particular, excepting only two concerning the Pope's supremacy, the one made with a shameful addition, the other with a deceitful mutilation.  
Fifthly, what are the names of those Protestant writers, by whose confession and testimony he hath showed that the Doctrine and belief of Pope Gregory in every one of the particulars, was agreeable to the Doctrine of the Roman Church? There is not one Protestant writer quoted by him in relation to most of the particulars, as to the canon of the Scripture, the sufficiency of the scripture, the reading of the scripture the communion in both kinds, the Pope's supremacy; and those, that are quoted by him in relation to the rest, speak not one word directly to any particular, therefore what they say (as I have showed) is nothing serviceable for the Romanists; excepting only the centurists, who speak to good works, unto which an answer hath been given.  
Sixthly, what ground he hath for those hideous conclusions which he makes against me, saying my method hath been inconclusive; my arguments weakness of reason, and my reason inconsequent; and what reason he had to charge me with open contradictions, wrested interpretations, and inexcusable falsifications, and pusling the reader with wor 〈…〉- cavils, and exceptions? And I must ask him where those numerous faults, and many errors, that he objects against me in the general, are to be found? And why they are lapped up from sight in a cloud of generals, and not any one mentioned in particular.  
I have seen two Champions marching toward the field, the one who was the challenger, filling the air with a loud Robustious noise, and loading the other with many bitter invectives, threatening to cut collops of flesh out of his body in satisfaction for the Injury, that was done, whereas by the evidence of several witnesses there was no occasion of offence given; the other passed along without making many words, only he protested that there was not any Injurious carriage used by him; but being that the challenger was so hot and heavy in his exclamations and invectives, he was content to run the hazard of a duel, to prove his own Innocency, and to try, whether the Challenger's sword was as sharp as his tongue.  
When the rampant gallant perceived that he could not by his thundering words frighten the other to a submission, he was easily persuaded to let the quarrel fall, without any farther decision, and both retreated without bloodshed. From the observation of all this, I drew these conclusions, that great brags are no certain signs of true valour, nor high words demonstrative arguments of great performances, nor confident accusations an evidence of guiltiness in the person accused: I leave the reader to determine how like this Gentleman is unto that rampant gallant; and will now perform my promise to acquaint the reader with those several letters, which passed betwixt me and Mr. H. L. the first of which (being occasioned as I have already showed) was to this following purpose.  
The first Letter witten to M. H. L.  
SIR,  
I am informed, that you have a purpose to vindicate the person concerned in my Papers, upon condition that I would mention any particular controverted point, wherein he hath not given a full satisfaction to me: I suppose his long and last silence is a  acknowledgement, that he hath failed in all his undertake, therefore you may choose what particular you please to insist on: If you can prove that I have in any particular contradicted either Scripture, Reason, or the Ancient Fathers; or that I have Coined any Historical Report, you will oblige me to rest,  
Yours Samuel Felgate.  
Mr. H. L's Answer.  
SIR,  
AT my coming to Stoniherst, I found a Letter of yours, which had laid there for some time expecting my return, wherein you tell me that you hear, I have a purpose to Vindicate the person concerned in your Papers: Truly Sir, why I should put myself upon the Vindication of one, whom I neither know in Person or in Quality, I cannot give any Rational account; for if the person concerned thought himself not at all obliged, nor it worth his labour to proceed any further in it; I hope no one in reason can expect it from me.  
The cause I am always ready to Vindicate, when in reason and discretion it is required, and to endeavour your satisfaction as much as possibly I can, if I found you desirous to receive it: But because Disputes are subject to many affected mistakes, Misinterpretations of the sense, Wordish Cavils and Quibbles, too much below a man, much lesle a Scholar, the one often times wilfully framing a quite different sense from what the other intended, by which means the thing in Controversy is industriously rendered more difficult, and obscure than before, by crowding in a number of words, so to puzzle and amuse the weaker sort of people, with petty exceptions, and mere Cavils: I would have you therefore to believe, that I am as far from seeking to concern myself in any thing that looks like unto a personal Quarrel, or hath so much of the place of an endless contest as your hath, as I was at first from desiring your Papers, otherwise than that hearing of your Challenge, and Resolution to Print them, in case I did not Answer them, I conceived myself obliged both in Civility and Charity to save you both the Labour and Charges, although I am not ignorant that new Opinions (though never so weak, and untrue) rather gain than lose repute and strength by opposition, because what they want of in Truth and Reason, they are but too apt to be supplied with by Passion. Sir, I say not this for that I conceive there is any thing in your Written Book, which hath so much as the appearance of a real difficulty, but because I have not the Itching Humour of Scribbling and entering into Disputes, where nothing but Quibbles, Animosities, Heats and Passions are likely to be the Issue in a wilderness of such Talk, and wilful affected mistakes; for I do not see what other can be expected from your method and way of proceeding by any Discreet and Impartial Considerer of your Papers, but that instead of bringing your Controversy to an end, you will tender it more confused and endless than you found it. And really Sir, should I found you so moderate and sincerely disposed, as to oblige me to a little further pains in Studying your satisfaction either in these particulars, or any else; I assure you, I should be so far from doing it to make you an Adversary, that I would not so much as think of it with any other intention, but to make you more a Friend, and to convince you likewise how much I am.  
Your Cordial Wellwisher and Servant. H. L.  
S. F's Reply.  
YOu Charge my Papers, and you double your Charge, with a tendency to Confusion, and endless contests, and with a guilt of Personal Quarrelling, therefore you will not writ against them: Besides, you add this reason, because disputes are subject to affected mistakes, Misinterpretations of sense, Wordish Cavils and▪ Quibbles, and as Glorying in the strength of this reason, you make a Repetition of it with some. Addition, saying, That you have not the Itching▪ Humour of Scribbling and entering into Disputes, where nothing but Quibbles, Animosities, Heats, Passions, are likely to be the Issue in a Wilderness of such Talk, and wilful and affected mistakes: It seems this Charge is likewise brought against my Papers, otherwise there can be no Validity in your reason; for if my Papers be not stained with that Gild, you may attempt the confutation of them without the danger of those formidable Inconveniences.  
Pray Sir, let me ask you why you did not express some reason for your Charge? It may be supposed that my Antagonist and you sucked both one Milk, because you are so much alike in charging, and it is well if you prove not both alike in carrying on your Charge: After I demanded a reason of his Charge, I heard not from him since unto this day; and now I demand a reason likewise for your Charge, but do fear that I shall never hear more from you.  
And while you bring this Injurious Charge against my Writings, how much you do reflect against my person, I leave to your own Judgement to determine; Writings are Judices animi as much as any thing, I must than be a Scribbler, a Quibbler, addicted to affected Mistakes, Misinterpretation of Sense, Wordish Cavils, Personal Quarrels, confused and endless Contests, and therefore not fit to live in any Christian Society: But my comfort is that your Say are not Oracles; you Talk of Discretion and Moderation, but you do but Talk of it, I found nothing of the practice of it here.  
If Composition of your Religion be like unto an Old Ruinous Fabric, that the more you s●ir to support it, the liker it is to fall upon your Head; you are highly to be commended for your Policy in using this groundless excuse, and injurious Charge to be the reason of making an Evasion; 〈◊〉 is commonly the weak refuge of a fainting Cause, but it bespeaks contrary to your promise; the Faithfulness of my Intelligencer is not to be disinherited, who told me what I gave you to understand in my Letter.  
And being that you have taken so much liberty to represent me to myself without reason out of my Papers, be not offended, if I take some liberty to represent you to yourself out of your Letter, with reason, though I dare not presume to determine of the end you aim at in writing of it, because you seem to me Penelope's Telas texere, to do and undo: Yet I dare affirm,  
First, That you have an admirable Faculty of Division, you can separate between those things that are of so near a concern and so strictly conjoined, that it is impossible to make a separation between them; you can vindicate the Cause, and do nothing for the person maintaining that Cause, for thus you express yourself, The Cause you are ready to vindicate, though why you should vindicate the person, you can give no rational account: Truly the Person and the Cause are equally and jointly concerned in my Papers, it was the person maintaining that Cause, or the Cause maintained by that person (take whether Expression you please) against which I did writ.  
Secondly, That you are the ablest Champion for your Religion, that ever I yet heard of, if you once betake yourself unto your Weapons, you can strike, all that is said against it, dead a● one Blow, you can as easily confute all other▪ Writings, as you have confuted mine: My Writings are Scribble, Quibbling, full of Animosities, Heats, Passions, therefore not fit to be represented to the Credit of any Reader, and needs not any further confutation.  
Thirdly, Though you be an able Champion, yet you are Faint-hearted, pray pardon the Expression, and do not impute unto me contradiction, you may be Able and Faint-hearted too, but for different respects; Able for the reason expressed before, Faint-hearted because you are Frighted with a shadow; though (as you say) there be not the lest appearance of a real difficulty in confuting my Papers, yet you will not meddle with them, for fear of being Assaulted with affected Mistakes, Misinterpretation of Sense, Wordish Cavils and Quibbles.  
Fourthly, Controversies must not be ended, because the exercise of reason must not be used to end them, for what are Disputes, but a tossing of Arment against Argument, and a comparing Reason with Reason, and these conflicts must not be attempted for fear of Quibbling, Cavilling●▪ Affected Mistakes, etc. and thus siding and taking of Parties must be done likewise without the use of Reason; well were it for you, if all the World were of this Opinion, it may be they would be of your Religion, though they could show no reason for it.  
Fifthly, Whatsoever New Opinions do arise, they are like to stand as they are, because it is not fit, that they should be opposed, for fear they should gather strength by opposition, and lest Passion should overturn both Truth and Reason.  
It may be that you will say, this is Scribbling and ●ibbling, but I assure you, it is nothing but ●wing apt and fit Conclusions from premises oppressed in your Letter, and fairer dealing than ●● afforded unto me; you are not assaulted se●ly and invisibly, but have reasons given for ●ery Blow that is offered, by which you are fairly ●amed to ward and defend yourself, if you can; ●t you striking invisibly at me, you wounded ●e out of my Writings, and no body can tell ●t a reason for it.  
To say that there is a shorter and surer Tract ● walk in, for finding out the Constitution of our Religion, than by Austin the Monk, and ●e Ancient Britain's, to wit, the Doctrine of ●hrist, and his Apostles delivered in the Sacred ●riptures; and to say that there is not merit in ●y man, because God gives not this prerogative ● meriting to any mere man; and to say that ●either Angels, nor Saints are to be invocated, because God only is to be Worshipped, is not to scribble or Quibble.  
These are Positions laid down in my Papers, without the mixture of Heats, Passions, Animosities, or respect to personal Quarrels, and may be disputed without Contests, likely to be drawn out ●o● the Age of Methuselah: From which holds my Antagonist (as you say) thought not fit, nor worth the labour to attempt to drive me, if my desire be not discreet, yet it is real; be pleased to pick out the best Weapons that you have, wherewith to do that which he hath left undone; and I assure you, you shall found me more moderately disposed in defending myself, than you have been in Writing to me, and to be thus Engaged with you, will oblige me to return your Cordial wishes, and to profess my ● to be yours.  
S. F.  
Mr. H. L's Second Letter.  
SIR,  
WHat I writ to you was in a Friendly an● Civil manner (since you had concerne● me with your Papers) to inform you what ● thought of the Inconclusiveness of your method and way of proceeding in your Disputation, an● how unlikely it was to answer either the expectation of yourself or others, and not out o● any design or intention to charge you with▪ ● guilt of personal Quarrelling, nor with those other Faults you lay to your own Charge, but a● you may take liberty to say what you please o● yourself, so you have the same Privilege o● clearing yourself when you have done, provided you make me not a party.  
Indeed I said in general terms, That Disputes of that nature were subject to Heats, Mistakes, Animosities, etc. And being that enough had been said of those matters by so many of the most extolled Champions on both sides, I could not see any reason, why I should trouble myself with Answering over again, what hath been so fully Answered before; and for you to Hammer still upon the same matter, and make not further a progress, than you are likely to make, were but to trouble the World with a noise, which ●ey are already sick of, and their Ears Loathe ●en to Nauseousness.  
But if I speak before in general terms of the ●conveniencies that such like Disputes are subject ●, and expressed an unwillingness of entering in● such a fruitless and endless contest, as in all ●obability it must appear to whosoever doth ●t consider either your way of handling the ●atter, or of treating your Adversary, and therefore for a long time suspended my Resolutions: You have now by your last Letter abso●tely determined me not to meddle any further, ●●cause you have convinced me that this of ●ours will be such an one, and that rather than ●ll of a contest, you will Critically take Excep●ons against every word in a Letter; for in your answer to mine, as long as it is, there is nothing ●lse but Cavils and Exceptions, and such truly ●s are unbecoming any man; and if I found so much of this in your Letters, what measure might I have expected, if I had entered into the Lists, engaged with you in a serious and formal Disputation.  
Because I delight not in Reading, much lesle in the Rehearsal of such stuff, I'll give you only an Instance of this your dealing with me out of your own Letter, that even yourself may judge, whether I have not reason to decline all occasions of Cavilling, since I see that if I set Pen to Paper, though in a Civil Letter, they are unavoidable; for you tell me in your Letter, That I have an admirable faculty of Division, and can separate between those things, that are of so near a concern that it is impossible to separate between them, because I can maintain the Cause, and do nothing for the person concerned in ● Cause.  
What a new found impossibility is this? ● own words in my Letter to you were the● You tell me that you hear, I have a purpose to V●dicate the person concerned in your Papers: Trul● Sir, why I should put myself upon the Vindication of one, whom I neither know in Person nor in Quality, I cannot give any Rational Account; for i● the person concerned thought himself not at all obliged, nor worth his labour to proceed any further in it; I hope no one in reason can expect it from me, the Cause truly I am always ready to Vindicate, when in reason and discretion it is required, and to endeavour your satisfaction as much as possibly I can, if I found you desirous to receive it; but because Disputes are subject to Mistakes, etc. Thus far my own words, now let any one Judge from hence, if you were not disposed to Cavil, why you should be thus highly offended with this way of expressing myself, or how you can possibly gather from hence, That I have such an admirable faculty, etc. For if they be be two real Entities or things, as certainly they are, and your own words import not lesle, what great art is there required to divide between them, for if they be two according to reason, they must needs be divisible, or which is all one, capable of being divided; so as with all the art you have, you can neither clear yourself of contradiction, not from a groundless exception.  
Besides how can I in prudence undertake to vindicate a person, when I was not assured that there was any such one in being, for you possibly might have created an Antagonist in your own fancy, to have quelled him when you had done, or at lest thereby to set yourself on work, and by that means engage some body in the de●ence, and had I committed a mistake upon such a fiction, you would certainly have made very great use of it, and as you accuse me now of slowness, and faint-heartedness, because I will not put myself without necessity upon the vindication of a person, whom I know not, so in that case you would have accused me of to much forwardness in the behalf of one that had only a chimerical being in your fancy, for I see one had need of Argus his eyes.  
But supposing the reality (as I did) me thinks in reason you should rather have approved of my expression, because thereby I gave you to understand that I would neither writ in vindication of your adversary, nor in opposition to ●our self, either of which would have savoured of a personal quarrel, but only in vindication of the cause, if it might possibly contribute to your satisfaction; for if any body hereafter should found so little to do as to take where I leave, yet I am confident at lest they would be so wife as to pass by without notice all the exceptions you have made against my letter, and only concerned themselves in what is substantial, and not exceptious and cavilling, which only relates to the person, not the cause.  
The rest of your exceptions against my letter are just like unto this and would afford me abundance of matter, but I am weary of them, and therefore resolved to let them pass, that I may rest quiet, and therefore I shall desire to be excused, if you expect any farther from me, than that I subscribe myself.  
Your loving Friend H. L.  
S. F's Answer.  
SIR.  
I have now a little leisure to bestow in perusing of your letter, and to tell you that by encountering with a daring enemy, whose strength (as it appears) ly's not in his rational deductions, but in his confident assertions, it is my misfortune to be (as sometime Jonathan the son of Saul was) cast upon a necessity of climbing up between two rocks, and my credit must suffer wreck, if I lean to the right hand or to the left; if I pass by your letter, without taking notice of it, I must pass in the world for a great caviller; if I except against any thing expressed in it, I must expect to have the same Ignominious title fastened upon me, what must I do to escape this impending destruction? If you be a second Pyhagoras, I know that you expect to have all your assertions to be taken for axioms because of an ipse dixit; if not, I appeal to the Judgement of the world to determine whether is the greater caviller, he that imputes inconclusiveness, and confusion and endless contests to my writings, and shows no reason for it; or he that excepts against your expressions, and shows a reason for every exception that is made.  
I cannot believe but you are a man subject to failings as well as others, have you any letters patents to empower you to tell another man of his faults, and to privilege you against hearing of your own, that ●●ou must not be told them? Or do you take me to be under confession, that I must acknowledge the errors that you do Injuriously lay to my charge, while I must not mention the solaecismes that are justly chargeable upon you? I do not apprehended any such duty incumbent upon me, but that I may take as much liberty to except against your letters, as you have taken to except against my writings; and which of us hath most tru●● and reason on his side will be determined, when your letters and my writings are exposed to the public view; be pleased to tell me what comparison there is between too much, and much lesle, your expression in your former letter is this, too much below a man, much lesle a scholar, which I would have told you of before, had I been addicted to cavilling, as you report me to be, and whereas you say that I concerned you with my papers, I utterly deny it, it was your great Bragg made to Mr. Waddington that wrought this concern, whereof I acquainted you in my first letter, which is discovered to be but like unto a flash of Lightning, as suddenly extinguished as it was inflamed; if you be infallible, I must acknowledge your Friendly manner of writing, and how just that measure is, which your thoughts do proportion unto me; but if not, be pleased to know, that he cannot be counted a Friend, that conceals the reasons of his thoughts; for who can tell but his reasons may be light, therefore his thoughts Injurious, and if so, instead of a real Friend he is a real enemy,  
What your design was in using those general terms (howsoever you seek to cloud it, is as clear as the light; did you writ pertinently or impertinently? If impertinently the greater shame for yourself; if pertinently, the faults mentioned are charged upon my writings; the conclusion you drew was this, you would not writ against my prayers; the medium used was this, disputes are subject to affected mistakes misinterpretation of sense, wordish cavils and exceptions▪ 〈◊〉 if you be a Logician, you will help this enthymema to be a complete syllogism, and than the dim-sighted will see clearly, that you did shoot at my writings, and in them at me.  
Wither the whole matter treated on by me, hath been hammered by the greatest Champions on both sides, I question, yet however this is but a pitiful argument to persuade you to desist from writing; by the same reason Door Pierce might have spared his pains of preaching before the King, and the English Apostate Cressy his pains of answering Doctor Pierce, and that author who confuted him his farther pains, for the matter disputed between them was hammered again and again, I know not whither so far as you express concerning my writings, that is to sickness and nauseating, unless it be unto them that have very squeasy stomaches, that are sick of, and nauseat at any thing that is written against them; if you cannot endure the iterated noise of these hammers, you must forsake the tenants that uphold your Religion, and if you standing upon those Giant's shoulders cannot see a little farther than they did, nor can afford any thing of your own for the upholding, and maintaining of your Religion, your eyes are very dim, and your head is very empty.  
To pass by your witty (if) supposing that which was really done before, and your great knowledge of that which concerns a man; methinks you are very soon and easily determined to the shame of your profession, (if you do esteem your Religion to be true) while you suffer a thing called cavilling to have this influence over you; do you not know that the greatest sufferings should not determine a Christian to fail in maintaining of the truth.  
In the next place your reason runs so low, that it was wisely done to make your confidence blow high, that the sound of your great words might be serviceable to supply the Emptiness of your Arguments, otherwise the man that never langhed before, would smile in his sleeve to hear the relation of them: Your first, argument is founded upon two real entityes; to complete it, you must either say that all two real entityes are divisible, or some two real entityes are divisible, if you say the first, you are required to prove what you say, what art have you to divide between the divinity and humanity of Christ; If you say the second, than I say, a Particularibus nihil concluditur, and I would have you to prove that the person and the cause are two of these some; they are relative entityes, and the Logician tells you that Relata sunt simul natura, What art have you to divide between such? Can you divide between the father and the son as they are relatives? Certainly if there be a paternity, there must needs be a filiation; and if there be a filiation there must needs be a paternity; and what is done for the one is done for the other; if you prove the one to be legitimate, you prove the other to be legitimate; and if you prove the one to be noble, you prove the other to be noble, thus the person and the cause being relatives, if you vindicate the cause, you will vindicate the person maintaining that cause, and if you vindicate the person maintaining that cause, you will vindicate that cause; but why do I trouble myself with that wonderful argument, it being an Antipodes to the things in question; the question is not whether the person and the cause be divisible, but whether you can divide between them, being that you undertook to answer my papers; and you may as well say that frigidity is calidity, and divisibility is Indivisibility, as take upon you to do this, open your eyes, and look upon my expression; I told you that I heard, you had a purpose to vindicate the person concerned in my papers; it is not a person divided from my papers, but a person tied to my papers, and so to the cause controver●ed between us by the knot of concern, which you will found an old found impossibility to untie, unless you will sand your discourse to rove beyond the Moon, and yet you tell me learnedly, why you should Vindicate the Person, you can give no rational account, but his cause you are ready to vindicate.  
Your Second argument grounded upon a supposition is Cousin-german▪ to the first, being as tuneable to the thing in question as an harp is to an harrow, you are not to speak of a person without any relation to the cause, but concerned in the cause, and thus much might serve to resist the fierceness of it, but yet to answer yours with other suppositions first, suppose I should say that you were very hard set for an argument when you used this, if the foundation be sandy, the superstructure falls, if your supposition be false, the argument builded upon it, of its self goes to ruin.  
Secondly, Suppose it be true that I feigned an Antagonist, do you think that in vindicating that Antagonist, you would have vindicated only a chimerical being? Will you believe your own eyes? Did you not see a real writing; and sure you will not say that a real writing did proceed from a Chimaera, a real effect must needs have a real cause, therefore this feigned Antagonist must not be a Chimaera, but a real writer, and all that you can say of him is that he was a counterfeited Friend to the cause, masked under a feigned name.  
Thirdly, Supposing the impossibility that you speak of, that a person may be vindicated without relation to any cause, this certainly is an impossibility, for there must be a cause in which to vindicate the person, otherwise the vidication will be an effect of a wonderful Artificer, that can build an house without a foundation, what assurance would you have for the reality of the person; a writing under hand is not sufficient to work this assurance, and all other assurances being to pass unto your understanding by the conveyance of the outward senses, are as liable to exception and doubtfulness as the assurance of a real writing, it remains therefore that you cannot be assured at all; truly, because you cannot vindicate a person but it must be in relation to some cause, nor a cause but you must vindicate some person, for want of that prudential assurance, which you do speak of; I believe that you will be so prudent, as not to undertake the vindication of the Cause, or the person concerned in my Papers; nor of any other person or cause whatsoever, where you are like to meet with opposition.  
Fourthly, To Answer the reason you do give, why I should rather approve of your Irrational Expression, than except against it: Suppose I should say that the Cause in Controversy is maintained by all the Papists in England, and if you do vindicate the Cause, you vindicate all those persons; why than must my Antagonist be excluded, he being a Papist, and in England? And how if I say, that in vindicating that Cause, you would oppose all the Protestants in England, how must I be excluded out of the compass of that opposition, being a Protestant?  
Because you say, That Exceptions and Cavilling relate unto the Person, not the Cause, which must not be mentioned to avoid personal Quarrelling: I shall make one Supposition more, Suppose a man (as it might be yourself) bringing Halting and decrepit Arguments to maintain the Tenants of your Religion; the Faults of his Arguments must not be mentioned, for to do this would be but Captiousness, and Cavilling and Personal Quarrelling: What than, it seems his Arguments must pass as without fault, that i● substantial; and thus your Religion must be upheld with Halting and Decrepit Arguments: When you have Besotted the World into this Opinion, and perswaded all to the practice of it, I presume you will be a Writer of Controversies: If the rest of my Letter be like unto this, against which you have directed all your Forces, you are to be commended for being weary and desiring to be at rest: Abner was weary of Fight with Joab, when he cried out, Shall the Sword devour for ever; but I suppose you know the reason of it.  
Now if you be like unto your quondam self, I expect to receive a Furious Charge of Cavillation, but am content to stand out the Storm, and (if you please to heed me) will give you the reason, why I Fight you after this manner: Truly Sir, you look so contemptibly on my Papers, that I apprehended you to be some Goliath, that Scorns to enter the Lists with Punies, and I have made use of this Sling, and this Stone, (that which you call Cavilling) to keep you at greater distance, jest coming within the compass of your mighty Spear, I mean your invincible Arguments, I had been crushed to pieces.  
But in earnest, do you think that there is any of your Writers that can Teach his Pen to Writ beyond Exceptions? Or must not Exceptions be made, when there is just Cause for it? Let me beg one Favour at your Hands, be pleased to leave Shuffling and fall to Argument, that I may see some such exact piece dropped from your Pen, and than do not doubt but your Antagonist will fairly lay down his Arms, and in Testimony of Submission to your great Judgement, will sit at your Footstool: Besides, you shall be cried up Sapientum Octavus by him who Subscribes himself,  
Your Friend, S. F.  
NOw (Christian Reader) it is not my purpose to imitate the Reflector's dealing with thee, which I may assimilate to the practice of some Fencers, who though they be foiled upon the Stage, yet afterwards do pass through the Streets with Drums Beating, and Swords Brandished, making a Glorious show as if they had won the Prize: I will not endeavour to prepossess thee with a large Harangue in Relation to that which I have written; here is presented to thy view the best Stuff that some Roman Leaders could afford towards the upholding of the Romish Temple; what it is, whether Tall Cedars, Stately Oaks, Polished Stones, and Refined Gold and Silver, or Materials of an Inferior and base mixture, Tinn, Led, Straw, and Peacock's Feathers, I leave to thy own Judgement to determine; I shall only mind thee of that great necessity that lies upon thee, to have the eyes of thy understanding Enlightened with true knowledge, that thou mayest be able to judge and discern for thyself between Good and Evil, Truth and Falsehood: He that is Blind, and therefore needs to be led by the Hand, or to follow the conduct of a String, his walking is Slow, Unsteady, and Dangerous; thou must be Saved by thy own Faith, and as Faith without Works is but a destructive presumption; so Faith without Knowledge is a groundless confidence: Thou art now in the Wilderness of Sin, and shouldest be on thy Journey towards the Land of Canaan, therefore thou art to be choice of thy way to walk in, thy guide to direct thee in that way, thy Light to follow that direction: Let Christ be thy way, his Spirit thy guide, and the Holy Scripture (which is the word of Truth) thy Light; so shalt thou pass on with Comfort and Safety, and shalt arrive at the promised possession in the end; all which that thou mayest do, I commend thee to the saving help of thy ever Blessed Saviour, concluding all in that advice to thee, and Prayer for thee; consider what hath been said, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
HAving examined the Reflections, and shown what Stuff they afford for public view; I can easily conjecture what Stormy weather I shall have, and what a blustering return will be made by the Reflector, or some other daring Champion that shall engage himself in the Quarrel.  
When the Romanists are Distressed for want of Arguments, not finding any thing of weight to pled for themselves, (which is their constant and woeful fate) it is their common practice (as the Reflector hath done) to 〈◊〉 out 〈◊〉 an inundation of words, and to swell into the highest confidence of boasting, exclaiming against their Adversaries for unhandsome and Injurious dealing, charging them with Misinterpretation, False Quotations and Corruptions, and accusing them as guilty of Immodest Reviling, and Exasperating Language; and all this is done purposely to set a glittering show upon their own performances, to deceive the common people into a persuasion that they are no lesle than Conquerors.  
In this Case, the defence that I shall make for myself shall be this: First, if any Champion shall fall into the temperate, and petulant humour of boasting; he is required not to hid himself under a Cloud of Generals, but (that I may know where to found him) to set down the particular grounds and reasons, whence his vapours do arise; otherwise the Intelligent Reader will Judge his boasting to be like unto Cardinal Campegios great Flourish with his Twenty Gilded Sumpters in Henry the 8. time, which made a glorious show outwardly to the Beholders; but being by accident Overturned in Cheapside, discovered nothing within, but Old Rotten, Mouldy Shoes, and Boots, and Musty Marrow Bones.  
Secondly, My greatest Ability, and Industry not reaching to the possession of most of those Ancient Fathers, which I have Quoted, I must confess that the Quotations were taken at the second Hand, but from Approved Authors of the Protestant persuasion, and from such Romish Authors as are placed in the highest rank among the Romanists; and I am ready to justify my proceeding in this, that I have Charged nothing upon the Fathers, but what they have pressed themselves, and in that sense, for which I have quoted them.  
Thirdly, If I do not judge Partially, I think I have not given any immodest Reviling, or exasperating Language, only I have used some similitude to illustrate the Truth; and why should not that kind of Illustration be used, when nothing but Truth is spoken; if by mine own practice I should in any respect imitate a Tailor, or a Cobbler, or a Tinker, I should not suffer my Choler to Swell, for being minded of that resemblance: But were it so, that I had been guilty of some sore biting Expressions, and Reflections; I am indebted to the Romanists, more than my Ability can reach, or my will is inclined to repay: Should I dip my Pen in Vinegar, or writ Characters with Gall and Wormwood, mingled with drops of Blood, yet I should not repay in that measure, which they have meted unto me.   

Courteous Reader,  
BEcause I have spoken (in my Preface) concerning the Alienation of the Church's Revenues, to justify what I have said, be not offended, if I request thee to step aside, (if it be not too great a digression) and spare some time to Read the two following Letters, with the subsequent Observations, in which thou mayest see something that is very remarkable, (which would have passed for a wonder in the days of our Forefathers) how the office and duty of Patronage is performed by one that claims that right as an Appendance to his Inheritance: The one written by himself to justify his Title to some Church Revenues in his possession, the second written ●n Answer to the first.  
The First LETTER.  
Honoured Sir,  
WHat Mr. F. hath now said to you he hath told me an hundred times, and hath run about the Country these ten years, complaining that I detain his right, though he hath not one Syllable to say for himself, but the report of two or three Women, who tells him that they have known the Rent of ten shillings paid to Vicar R. out of this Tenement, but upon what account they know not; what Mr. W. hath said to him about it▪ he hath given three times as much to us under his Hand and Seal, contradicting every Syllable that he affirms to him; and this Mr. W. could not do out of fear, because he was possessed of the Vicarage a long time before, and he than up and we down; but to set this aside, endeavouring to satisfy Mr. F. I got Mr. H. to give him a meeting, whose Father hath been knowing in our Family above threescore years, several men in Mitton, older than those women he speaks of, and never an one of these knows, or ever heard that this Tenement belonged to any but my Ancestors; it was never found in the Bishop's Records, nor in any writings that belong to the Church, that it was given to any Vicar of our Parish, it hath no marks of the Glebe Land, for it ever paid Tithes and Taxes formerly. I suppose, these Arguments are as good as any he brings; yet nothing will satisfy him, but what is more than necessary; must a person produce his writings, because another saith he will have his Estate; let those bring something more sufficient than a bore Story; otherwise I believe you cann●t think it convenient that Persons should show their writings up on every slight demand. What if in these times some writings concerning those Lands should be lost; will not a continual and quiet poslession for fourscore years give me right of the thing, for any thing that he hath to say against it, but that I must show my Writings; let him show what is more weighty and better than our constant possession; and than I will show what as shall be more authentic than his, or otherwise submit; let him go to Suit when he pleaseth; those that are concerned in the Estate will suffer wrong; I do solemnly protest, as I am a Christian, that I never saw Line or Scroll, or Word that gave him one Grass 〈◊〉 more than he hath: and this I imagine is sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person; hoping it will do you, and than it is all I desire, and that I may be esteemed as truly I am,  
Honoured Sir.  
The Answer.  
Honoured Sir,  
I Have seen yours, sent to Mr. P. and do wonder that you would writ such stuff to a Gentleman of great esteem in his Country; I shall make this fair motion, let the Controversy between you and me be determined by your own Letter, if all that you have spoken in it be pertinent and true, I will submit; if otherwise, in reason you should yield unto me, because it is a summary of the best Arguments you can use in your own behalf, to prove your possession to be just, and ●ny claim injurious.  
That I have complained, adds nothing to your Title, nor can it be imputed to me as a faulty will you strike, and have me to be (as a Stock) not sensible of your blows. I have complained, and will complain, unless you do restore to the Church what is violently and injuriously detained from it; let me ask you this Question, Whether the Rent of seven Shillings nine pence for the Touchnoughs, and of ten Shillings per annum for Wamsleys Tenement was a right to the Church or not? if it was, why should it not belong to the Church still? if it was not, how came it to pass that the Vicars received it? as sure as you can prove your ●●me to be R. S. I can prove this, I have not only two or three women, but also all the Ancient men in the Town to Swear that the said Rent was paid to the Vicars upon this very account, because it belonged to the Church.  
But to speak more particularly to Wamsleys Tenement, how came it to pass that Vicar K. got Widow Wamsley the possession of it, when it was in Controversy between her and A. I it seems that your Grandfather had nothing to do with it than; and how came it to pass that Vicar R. received the Rent of it during his Life? It is well known, and (if need be) it will be proved by Oath, that your Grandfather never paid the Twenty Marks per annum unto Vicar R. which is due unto the Church; and would your Grandfather de●ain that was a right unto the Church, and let Vicar R. receive that which did not belong unto it?  
As to your Release, that Mr. W. was up and you down, when it was signed, it is not material; nor was he possessed of the Vicarage a long time before, he being presented in 48, and your Release was signed in 49. but to let this pass, I will tell you, that if your Title was good, you needed no Release; and being bad, his Release doth not strengthen it; this is a thing that was never heard of before, that a rich and powerful Patron should want a Release from a poor Vicar, to confirm his Title to an inheritance; surely this must be a pitiful confirmation. Mr. W. is ready to confirm his Testimony by Oath, which is ten times more forcible than your Release. Besides, to tell you upon what account the Release was given, and that he was not Vicar, when he signed it, because he wanted institution and induction; therefore it signifies no more for you, than if Tom. T. had signed it; but it speaks strongly on my side, that the Vicar had some Title to the Tenement, otherwise it would not have been required; I suppose you will not require Tom. T. to sign you a Release of your Demesne.  
If Mr. H. and Mr. C. and several men in Mitton, elder than my Witnesses will affirm that the Tenement always belonged to your Ancestors I will quit my claim; why will you writ after this manner? you your self will acknowledge that the Rent of it was paid to Vicar R. during his Life, and that none of your Ancestors had possession of it before he died.  
If your next allegation be true, you may (upon the same ground, take from me all that I have) it is not to be found in the Bishop's records, or any writings that belongs unto the Church, that any Glebe was given to any Vicar; the Glebe ●● given to the Church, and that the Touchnough's and Wamsley's Tenement was settled on it for the use of the incumbents, is as clear as the light, otherwise the Vicars could not have received the Rent; nor could the Marks of Glebe be stamped upon them, (as will be proved by oath; though you have told Mr. P. that Wamsley's Tenement never had any such marks.  
As for your argument of fourscore years' possession, it cannot pass; it is not much above threescore years since the first Lease of the Touchnough's was made to old Brook; and not much above thirty years since Vicar R. Dyed; but let us suppose it to be, as you would have it, (though we should not make suppositions contrary to the known truth) I will tell you, that without a restriction, it is but a shameful argument, A Thief had the possession of an honest man's Purse for fourscore years, therefore he had a better title to it than the owner: The Lawyers do tell you that Prescriptio temporis non tollit bonum titulum, And I am sure that prescription will not hold in the lest measure to detain from the Church that which once belonged unto it; wherefore it was necessary that you should show your deeds; and if you be what you protest yourself to be, you will do this, not only to promote this good end, the keeping of peace, and preventing of troublesome Suits, but also for the sake of your own credit; that if your deeds do give you a right to what you do possess, it may appear to the world contrary to tradition, that there has not been any wrong done unto the Church; if your deeds do not give you a title to the Glebes, your prescription is but a continuance, and therefore all aggravation of the wrong that is done, your supposition of having lost some of your deed● cannot be made, for it is not long since they were carried to York by H. K. And since that time there have been no troubles to endanger the loss of any.  
That you never saw any line, or scorle, or word, that gives me one grass chire more than I have, (I believe) is the truest expression in all your letter; but will you protest as a Christian that you have seen writings, that gives unto you, what you detain from the Church; the stress of the business lies here, whether your ancestors did buy of Borgan any thing more than the tithe; if they did purchase any Glebe lands I will sit down, and be quiet; but if none, why should you possess any.  
Sir I hope you will pardon my boldness, and tediousness; I have been speaking in my own defence, and not injuriously unto you; I will only admonish you to take heed of meddling with Church Lands; you know how it fares with Brook's offspring for his sacrilegious carriage in Joining with your Grandfather to take from the Church the Touchnoughs, not any of his line is like ever to Enjoy the Tenement again; whereas had he Continued a tenant to the Vicar, they could not have been Dispossessed, while they Paid the accustomed fine, and the ancient Rent; and it has not fared much better with the Wamsteys, thus God punishes the Iniquitys of the Fathers upon the Children; I would not have it to be so with you; my desire is that you and your Posterity may flourish, and that I might have a Friendly arbitration and Composure; that the Controversy being determined, I may be excused from a Connivance at that, which (my own Judgement tells me) is horrid Sacrilege; but if all my Importunitys and Entreatys be utterly rejected; so that to recover the Rights of the Church, there is no remedy; but I must Dash myself against the Rock of a powerful and inflexible Patron; the world shall know more than ever it knew yet (and no more than shall be Confirmed by the Oath of credible Witnesses) to determine whether you be as you Pretend to be (that is) Conscionable and Peaceable, until you condescend to my earnest entreaties, that you are so qualifyed, cannot be presumed by.  
Honoured Sir Yours.  
Observe 1. THe Office and duty belonging to a Patronage (as the Notation of the Word doth tell us) is to be an Advocate, to pled in the behalf of the Church, when necessity requires; to protect and defend the Church, to provide for it, to cherish and nourish it, to take care that its Endowments be not alienated or diminished; in a word (according to the expression of the Prophet Isaiah, to be a nursing Father, and a nursing Mother unto it; if all this be not done, but the contrary acted, the Title is grossly misapplied and abused, The Fox can never be said to have a Patronage over the Pullen, nor the Wolf over the Sheep.  
2. According to this, the practice of former Generations has been conformed: that their Zeal and Piety, and Charity did Endow the Church with a Competency of Glebes, Rents, Tithes, and Revenues, is clearly demonstrated by the Records of Ordination, by the large bounds of the Parish, the several Chapels within its bowels, the largeness of the Mansion-House that was erected for the use and benefit of the incumbent; which though it be in a great part demolished, and the remaining part sits Solitary, mourning in ragged, clouted, and tattered Garments, yet there are some Ruins and Rubbish, some Patches and Pieces visible, to prove that it was sometime Handsomely, Splendidly, and Richly Attired.  
3. To prevent (if it was possible) the Rapine of future Ages, our Religious Ancestors did settle and secure the Church's Endowments with the strictest Tie and Knot that their discretion could invent, their Charters and Deeds of Dedication and Donation running in this Tenor (with dreadful Anathema's and Execrations) Let his Name not, and his memory perish from the face of the Earth; Cursed let him be in his Person, Estate and Posterity; Cursed let him be in this World, and in the World to come, that shall attempt to alienate or diminish any part of that which is dedicated and given to the Church's use.  
I do not doubt but there are many worthy Persons in the Nation, who wish well unto the Church, earnestly desiring its Prosperity, whose Zeal and Piety; and Bounty leads them to tread in, the steps of their Religious Ancestors, and therefore are so far from thinking to alienate or diminish, that they take care and contrive to augment the Church's Revenues.  
But Observe 4. How contrary to this, is the practice of that Patronage which is concerned in▪ the forementioned Letters; O tempora, O mores, times and things are changed, and some persons degenerated from former Generations; where the stately Oak did stand, comes up the unprofitable Shrub; and where the fruitful Vine did flourish, springs the Bramble and Thorn; covetous, grasping, preying persons possess the room of those that cherished and nourished the Church under their wings, and fed it abundantly with the milk of their own Breasts.  
Truth may be spoken without just occasion of offence, and nothing shall be declared, but what is confirmed by Tradition, living Testimony, and too sensible, and very woeful experience; greatness and richeses are not warranted to do evil, more than the lowest degree of poverty; and when the Church cries out for help to be vindicated and free from Rapine and Spoiling, the Tongue is not to be struck dumb with fear, sin is to be reproved though it devil in a Manor-house.  
The Church is like unto the man that Travailed from Jerusalem to Jericho; those two Fatal Enemies and Grand Robbers (Sacrilege and Simony) have stripped her, wounded her, and left her half dead, and there is none that takes pity upon her, to bind up her wounds, to pour in Oil and Wine, and to take care for her Recovery: The Mother Churches that sit under the Wings and Patronage of the Pious and Learned Bishops are (according to the Gracious Command of our Dread Sovereign) largely and competently augmented in their Revenues: But the Mother Church that lies under the pressure of a Popish Patronage, continues Mourning in its Forlorn and Languishing condition.  
To know more particularly by what sad fate and method the Church was brought thus low; observe 5. That the Patronage concerned in the Letters, is so greedy to swallow the Church's Revenues, that (having the Advowson of a considerable Benefice) it required for a presentation not lesle than two parts of three to be paid yearly during the Incumbents Life; but this kind of Trading being rejected, afterwards a Gobbet of a Thousand Pound was contracted to be paid, and had been (without stop or strain) swallowed, had not the tediousness of bartering afforded a Gentleman opportunity to step in upon another's account, and to carry the Benefice away from the Bartering Merchants: But to speak nearer to the concern of the Letters, this Patronage having purchased a great part of that large Portion which was in the possession of the Abbot and Covent (as Tithes small and great) and (as it is reported) the Easter Book, at a low, inconsiderable, and shameful rate; that Fat Morsel did not Satiate the Hungry Maw, but there was a continual Gaping and Snatching at that Portion which always belonged to the Church, so that for several turns upon a Vacancy, there was not any presentation made, but what was obtained by a previous Simoniacs Contract; one piece after another was Snipped of by consent, sometime the whole Glebe was passed of for a Presentation, sometime the yearly St●pend; one Incumbent does that, for which he repent all the days of his Life, complaining that if he stayed upon his Incumbency, he should never see the Face of God with joy; another passes away Twenty Marks per Annum; and though some of those Morsels were Vomited up, and returned to the Church again, yet there has been such Snipping and paring made, that (as appears by the Records of Ordination,) almost the one half of the Gleab is Alienated, and Devoured, and Posseson being gotten, it is kept more firmly than the Hawk doth Grasp the Captived Bird, or the Spaniard Sticks to his Usurped Possession.  
Several Addresses have been made with much importunity, begging earnestly (for peace sake) this reasonable Condescension, (the best method for deciding of Controversies) that two or four indifferent and Discreet persons might be Selected to view the Writings, hear the Pleas, and consider the Evidences on both sides, and according to the best weight to sway the balance, that if it appear to them (which is apparent unto all) that there is Injury done unto the Church, they might order a proportionable Reparation to be made; but the inflexible Patronage (confiding not in the strength of its Cause, but the weight of the Purse) hath utterly rejected all Addresses, and will harken to no proposals; only that tedious and Chargeable method of the Law (which is most in use for ending of Controversies) must be used, which the Indigent Incumbent is not a●●e to manage.  
Is it not strange that the Patronage (but that it is Romish) should thus forget its Office and Duty, to act quite contrary to the import of the word; that instead of a Nursing Mother, it should become a Cruel Stepdame, and instead of a Liberal Benefactor, an Unsatiable Devourer, practising contrary to the Law of God, and the Light of Nature, and doing that which is abhorred by such as have no other conduct but the Glimmerings of innate and naked Reason, violating the Will and Testament of the Dead, and Converting what was given by Zealous Donors for the advancement of Piety, to Secular (if not to Profane) uses: And is it not strange likewise that a purchase of large Revenues comparatively for (almost) nothing, should not satisfy the Appetite of the Patronage, but it must be so greedy as to Prey upon the Patrimony of the Church.  
And in this Case is not just that the Law of Retaliation should be put in Execution, that the Patronage might receive according to that measure which it hath meted; not only to be forced to restore the Revenues, which have been Sacrilegiously and Simoniacally alienated from the Church, and to repair the loss of the mean profits, but also to be compelled to sit down as content with an equal Alienation from its shameful purchase: Nay, because the Patronage required two parts of three for a Presentation, is it not justice and equity that it should be compelled to be content with one part of three as sufficient for its purchase, especially considering that a valuable consideration was not paid for the tenth part of the Revenues which are possessed.  
Christian Reader, I will trespass upon thy patience not longer, but begging thy Pardon for that I have put thee to the trouble of Reading this Sad (but true) Narrative, I shall conconclude all with that Pathetical expression of the Psalmist, which (I hope) may without just occasion of Offence (I am sure justly) be used: By the waters of Babylon I sat down and wept, when I remembered thee O Zion.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
EPist. p. 4. l. 24. for penny, read Penury, p. 5. l. 10. f. either side, r. every side, in the beginning of the answer to the Queries, f. you, r. more than you, p. 31. l. 28. r. mark I beseech you, p. 40. l. 20. r. if they did dispute, p. 41. l. 8. r. fore, p. 61. l. 16. r. nomerit, p. 79. l. 4. r. earthly Prince, p. 82. l. 11. r. professed silence, l. 33. r. receipt, p. 86. l. 30. r. served as well, p 88 l. 3. r. as for the Turks, l. 6. for but from the, r. and the, p. 90. l. 29. deal but on the contrary, p. 96. l. 4. r. his the same, p. 97. l. 31. r. non canonicis, p. 99 l. 11. r. till by the, p. 100 l. 22. r. and also, p. 102. l. 4. r. Ecclesiastical understanding, p. 107. l. 28. r. than as if at Easter, p. 120. l. 7. for inquire, r. enquirer, p. 125. l. ult, for dapers, r. papers, p. 127. l. 31. deal great, p. 130. l. 9 deal not, l. 18. for speak, r. speaks, p. 131. l. 4. for weakness, r. weakest, p. 133. l. 5. deal but, p. 136. l. 8. for drofesseh, r. profess●th, p. 139. l. 22. for between that, r. between the, p. 139. l. 23. for protested, r. professed, p. 140. l. ult. for travellers, r. traveller, p. 141. l. 10. for in, r. into, p. 142. l. 18 for so, r. see, p. 143. l. 20. for is by, r. is used by, l. 31. for fictious, r. fictitious, p. 144. l. 1. for prepossesseth, r. propossessed, p. 203. l. 33. r. Judicare non audeamus, l. 34. for liber, r. libere, p. 219. l. 12. for moderate, r. modern, p. 282. l. 28. for any, r. and, l. 32. for where, r. whence, p. 282. l. 28, and 29. deal sure he will not make choice of maintain, p. 296. l. 25. for except, r. expect, p. 301. l. 28. for root and use of it, r. root and rise of it, p. 302. l. 7. for benefacto, r. benefacito, l. 22. for reasons, r. reason, p. 307. l. 3. for prized r. prizeth, l. 16. deal they, l. 29. for lest, r. last, p. 308. l. 2. for the fellowship, r. in the fellowship, p. 309. l. 18. for persuasion r. perversion, p. 312. l. 16. for height, r. height, p. 315. l. 12. for unity, r. vanity, p. 323. l. 33. for Vernon, r. Veron p. 324 l. 24. for Vernon, r. Veron, p. 327. l. 3. deal and, p. 330. l. 16. for promise, r. promised, p 335. l. 9 for admonitions, r. admonitors, p. 341. l. 33. for use do, r. used to, p. 348. l. 17. for farthers, r. fathers, p. 360 l 3. for false, r. half, l. 24. r▪ a nemine, p. 366. l. 20. for passed, r. possessed, p. 381. l. 2. for composition, r. if the composition, an● l. 8 for this is r. which is, p. 383. l. 25. for drawn out of, r. drawn out to▪ p. 385. l. 3. for but if I speak, r. but if I spoke, p. 389. l. 10. for most truly, r. most truth, p. 390. l. 9 for due, r. now, p. 394. l. 32. for that in substantial, r. that is substantial, p. 397. l. 26. for prove out, r. pour out, p. 398. l. 10. for temperate, r. intemperate, l. ult. for pressed, r. expressed, p. 399. l. 10. for sore biting, r. sour biting, p. 401. l. 12. for ●●ffer wrong, r suffer we wrong, l. 14. for grass here, r. grass chire, ● 11. l. 19 for is not just, r. is it not just?