THE SPEECH OF Nicholas Heath, Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Precedent of Wales, Bishop of Worcestor, And afterward Archbishop of YORK, and Ambassador into Germany, delivered in the Upper House of Parliament, in the Year 1555. On occasion of the Supremacy.  
Proofs from Scripture, That Christ left a True Church, and that there is no Salvation but in the Catholic and Apostolic Church.  
Proofs from the Fathers, That there is no Salvation to be expected out of the True Catholic and Apostolic Church.  
Certain Principles of the first Authors of the Reformation, not so well known to many of their followers.  
The Principles of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Testimony of the Father's touching the Real Presence.  
LONDON, Printed for the Author, 1688.   

TO THE READER.  
I Cannot but admire to see most Protestant's so negligenn in their search of Truth, so seemingly secure, and so indifferent in the buying and reading Controversial Books, (which abound now a days more than ever) when yet in their Hearts they know they may be in Error, for even by their own Principles they dare not so much as affirm they are Certainly in the right. The swarms of Books about Religion, that have these two last years filled the Press, render it impossile to say any thing New on this Occasion, and therefore farther endeavours to write Controversy, may seem vain and unnecessary; and indeed, if all the Catholic Books that have been lately Published, were read by the Protestants, with the same Spirit of Humility with which they were wrote, all prejudice, passion, and interest, laid aside, there would be abundantly enough to open the eyes of the people, and satisfy all discerning Men that Popery is not that Antichristian Monster which it has for so many years been painted in England, but that it is indeed the true Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Faith, which our Saviour delivered and taught his Apostles, and which has continued since, and been believed in the Church, in all succeeding Ages. But since we find too many stop their ears against all the charms of Truth, since we find still such mighty numbers of Men continue in entertaining their old barbarous conceits of the Catholic Religion, and either through malice or negligence, very slow in Reading what might Inform their judgements, and settle their Consciences, it cannot be esteemed improper for every honest Man to contribute his Mite, and endeavour what he may, to rouse up some by a third or fourth call, who have refused the first and second; and for as much as many are discouraged by the length, and some by the dearness of the Book: I have resolved to remove these two Impediments, an hours reading, with the expense of two pence, is all the time and the charge that needs be spent upon this Pamphlet.  
It must not be expected I should launch out into those prolix Disputes that have almost at this day tired the Pens of Schoolmen; I intent only to establish two or three most important Truths on which the Catholic Faith does more immediately depend. What I may beside insist on, shall only be in general, so as to give the Reader an occasion of seeking elsewhere more particular Information, and that with as much brevity as Y can, or the nature of the thing will admit.  
I shall take the liberty to suppose (in as much as many Protestants own as much) that there has been in all Ages since our Saviour Christ planted the Gospel, a true Church on Earth, or to express myself more in the Protestant Phrase, that there has been in every Age since Christ, a company of Men who have retained that Orthodox Faith delivered in the Gospel: I dare not think there is a Protestant living will deny this, because he would by so doing first maintain there was an Age since Christ, where in all the Articles of the Creed were not true; viz. that there was no Holy Catholic Church, seconly, he would make Christ a false Prophet, who has declared he would never departed from his Church, but that he would be with her even unto the end of the World, and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against her. Matt. 16.18.  
I will in the second place make bold to suppose, that his true Church or this company of Orthodox Men has been visible in all Ages: If there be a Protestant in the World, so weak, as to imagine the true Church was not visible in all Ages, I desire him to consider, that so much is employed in the very nature and essence of a Church, as to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, (which even in his own notion are Visible Signs) without which a Church can no more subsist than a Man without a Head, or a House without a Foundatian: And Secondly, seeing Preaching the Gospel and Administering the Sacraments are Actiors, Visible and Conspicuous, the Church that does these things, must by necessary consequence be Visible and Conspicuous likewise; there is no Sophistry in this, but what any one that pleases may reduce to a plain and easy Syllogism: And indeed, is there any thing in Nature more absurd and contradictory, than to affirm the true Church was at all times, and yet not at all times Visible? What the Church daily does, and what she must of necessity do, to deserve that name, are things as manifest and evident to humane sense as teaching a School, or the Rule of a Commonwealth; and will any man affirm that a School can be Taught, or a State Governed in an invisible Manner? Surely no; neither then may any Protestant be so absurd, as to believe the Church of Christ was at any time Invisible, and not rather Visibly Apparent in her Rites and Sacraments, as well as in her Assemblies on those occasions.  
Taking it then for granted, that there has been a true Church at all times since Christ; and that this Church has been at all times visible, it follows by an easy Consequence, which every body can infer, that what ever Church is not able to prove her Being since Christ, and her being visible all that time, cannot be the True Church: But neither the Church of England, nor that of Luther or Calvin, nor any Protestant Reform Church, have been Visible in all Ages since Christ, therefore, neither the Church of England, nor any other Protestant Church is the True Church. I would fain see to this a plain and positive answer given; 'tis what has not yet been given by any defender of the Protestant Cause, nor, I suppose, will ever be to the end of the World. How ridiculous is it, and how unbecoming any reasonable Creature what Protestants urge in this matter, that their Principles were taught and believed in the Primitive Church, till she fell into Idolatry and Superstition, where she lay buried for above 1000 years, till God raised up Luther and Calvin, and the other Reformers, to remove the Errors, and raise up a new Glorious Orthodox Church. I have often admired how such palpable Nonsense, and such gross Contradictions came to be proposed, but much more how they ever came to be received in the World! For what can be more ignorantly Blasphemous than to say God raised up Men to restore his Church, who yet could by no means Agree among themselves in matters of Faith (as hereafter will appear) and whose Followers do at this day pursue each other with Excommunications and anathemas? If Calvin was the Messenger of God, then was Luther a Sacrilegious Impostor; if the Church of England be Orthodox, than were Luther and Calvin both Impostors; and if any other of the Reformers were in the right, the Church of England is in the wrong. Which then of the Dissenting Protestants Doctrine shall we say was the belief of the Primitive Church? Were all these at once the Primitive Faith. or was some one Denomination of Protestants, the primitive Believers, and those of all other Denominations in the wrong It being impossible, as I have proved, that the True Faith should ever be Invisble at any time; if therefore Protestancy had ever been professed, it could never have been totally extinguished.  
Though most certain it is, that no footsteps of any of the Reformers Principles were known for almost 1500 years in the Christian World, except in some Heresies condemned in several Ages of the Church, which do indeed much resemble the Innovations of our Modern Reformers, as their Doctrine of the Sacrament, in the Heresy of Berengarius; of Invocation of Saints, in the Heresy of Vigilantius; of Prayer for the Dead in Aerius; of Images, in Xenias and the Iconaclasts; of Confession, in the Novatianus; their practice of no mingled Chalice, in the Heresy of the Armenians; and of Priests Marriages, in Jovinian; as Luther's Marrying a Nun, borrowed from Martions corrupting a Virgin, and to add no more; their Famous Naggshead Consecration copied from Novatus that was made a Bishop in a Tavern, and deposed by Cornelius.  
And now for the Church of England, she must ever stand, or fall on her own Bottom, having so notoriously condemned all other parts of the Reformation: That the Lutherans are condemned by the Church of England, every body knows, and that the Calvinists are so too, I will in one word plainly show. A Protestant Parson that comes from France, from Holland or Geneva, to be Beneficed in England, cannot be admitted to Preach, nor Administer the Sacraments after the Rites of the English Church, till he has renounced that Mission he had before, and taken new Orders according to the form of the Church of England, which to all Men of sense implies, that the Church of England does assuredly believe the Calvinist Teachers are false Impostors, that they have no Mission, no Authority, no Ordination, and by consequence no Sacraments, being in their conceits purely Laymen: From hence I take the liberty to ask the Doctors of the English Church, how they can in honour and conscience call them their Brethren (as they do) of the Reformation, from whom they have separated at so great a distance, as to reject all their Ordinations at once as null and void, and how they can suffer the French and Dutch Hugonots to have Churches, and free exercise of their Religion here, and some of them also the Church of England's Liturgy; at the same time, as they believe them neither to have Priesthood nor Sacraments, and by consequence no such thing as a Church at all? Seeing then the Church of England look on themselves as the only Church of the Refonmation; it follows, that she must accordingly prove herself the true Church, and show how that Sum of Christian Doctrine which she now holds, has been constantly held in all past Ages of the Church, which I am sure all the English Doctors in the World will not make out; nay, I think they do not so much as pretend to: For to end all Controversies, let them show but one Service-Book, in all the 1500 years before Luther, in any one vulgar Tongue, which agreeth with their Service Book, and for that one Book sake, we will submit the cause; no, they say contrariwise, that for about 1000 years Popish Superstition was the only Religion known in the World: Which Superstition as they call it) I shall now endeavour to prove to be that true Religion which has been from our Saviour's time, and which must Infallibly last to the end of the World.  
The Arguments by which I have briefly, and I hope evidently shown that the Protestant Church neither single nor aggregate, can be the true Church, do at the same time as evidently prove the Church of Rome to be so. For as the Protestant Churches want of Antiquity, their not having been from the beginning of Christianity; nor Visible till within 200 years, proves them not to be the Catholic Church, so the Antiquity of the Church of Rome, her having been from the beginning, and continuing still Visible by propagating the Gospel, and Administering the Sacraments in all Ages since Christ, does as plainly evince her to be the only true Church, the spouse of Christ and Pillar of Truth. I demand, has not this Church in all Ages had a visible Succession of Bishops, a settled Government, with a visible Head, from St. Peter to this very day? Has not this been the only Church that has duly planted the Faith, and as duly suppressed Heresy and Schism? Is not this the Church that has held all General Councils, and has not the Bishop of Rome Presided in the four First, seemingly allowed of by the Church of England? Is not this the only Church that has sent Apostles and Missionaries out to plant the Gospel in all the Infidel corners of the Earth, and from whence England first received the Christian Faith? Is there any other Church that can pretend to have been assisted by God Almighty in the working of Miracles, and in the Conversion of Nations? What other Church can show an Army of Martyrs and Confessors, a number of Men that lead most Holy and Austere Lives, forsaking the World to follow Christ? What other Church in the World can pretend either to Unity or Universality to be every where the same, and to have all her Children at perfect Agreement in matters of Faith and Doctrine? (for the disputes of Catholics are about matters not defined, and so controvertable, but never about a Doctrine that has been once determined in a General Council) These are the Marks and essential ones of the true Church, but these agree to no other Church but that of Rome; the Church of Rome is therefore the only Church. Whatever the Grecian or the Abyssine Churches have to say in answer to this, (which does not much concern us) sure I am the Church of England has nothing plausible to excuse her Schism and Rebellion against her Mother Church, and under whose subjection she has been bred and maintained for many Ages in the World. Every one knows, (and no Church of England Man can deny) that this National Church was in all Ages subject to, and a part of the Western Church, and that the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch, of the West is acknowledged by King James, and T. Bishop of Winchester. Now for a part to set up against the whole, for a few Bishops of one National Church, to Reform the Church of all Nations, and for a National Synod to condemn all the General Councils at once, is what all the Learning in the World can not justify; I would fain know, why b● the same reason, might not the Metropolitan of York Reform the National Church of England, if he should pretend gross intolerable errors; or the Diocesan of Carlisle Reform the Metropolitan of York on the same score, and any single Presbyter again his Diocesan of Carlisles, which indeed happened in the fundamental Reformation, when Luther first Revolved, and though but a single Presbyter, yet took up on him boldly to Reform not only his own Superior or Diocesan, but even no less than the five Proto-patriarches at once. The Church of Christ is surely an Established Government, with power sufficient to chastise her Rebellious Subjects; and certainly, our Saviour never meant that every Presbyter should be Independent, or that ever Bishop should be so, or that every Province should be so, nor that any Rational Church should be independent of the Whole. For our Saviour expresses himself clearly, that all his Sheep should be fed by one visible Head, that all the Christians in the whole world should be subject to one Law, and he gave sufficient Authority for the putting of it in execution. If any private Gentleman here in England should declare he found gross intolerable Errors in the Government, that he absolutely disliked Monarchy, and should stir up a Party in the Nation to a Rebellion against the King. Suppose a Peer should do so, or suppose a Province, as for Instance, that of Kent, should pretend to discover these Errors; and Revoult from their Sovereign, what think you? would not that Gentleman, that Peer, or that Province, deservedly fall under the punishment of the Law, and be thought by all the World guilty of Treason? The Application is obvious, and I defy any Man living to show the disparity, for the National Church of England was at least as much, and as avoidable subject to the Western Patriach Church, as any one Province of England, to the Laws of the whole Kingdom: I never yet saw this objection answered, nor any plausible reason given for the Grounds and Motives of the English Reformation: And indeed the Schism is so obvious, the Defection so apparently inexcusable, and the Motives that induced Henry the VIII. and those that prevailed with Edward thee VI and Q. Eliz. so notoriously scandalous, as Blood, Divorce, Perjury, Sacrilege, the maintenance of an Usurped Title, that it seemeth to me little less than a Miracle, how considering Men, who have regard to their Eternal welfare, should be able to persuade themselves into a Belief, that they may safely venture in the Communion of a Church, sprung out of the Ruins of Churches and Religious Houses, begun with the Divorce of Queen Catherine, reveled with the Blood of Mary Queen of Scots, made an Engine of state to support the Precatious Title of an Usurper, and which has continued ever since in force by virtue of Sanguinary Penal Laws. This subject has given occasion and vent to many Volumes, and I might easily have extended it to a far greater length, but I hope the Brevity will recommend it to the Perusal of all those who will not lose themselves, and the Question in reading prolix Discourses. I hope the old way of Answering will be no more taken up by Protestants to confute this or any Paper of the same Nature: For when they can find no Reasons nor Arguments that may pass with Discerning Men to justify the defection of the English Church, or satisfy the people that the Roman is not the Catholic Church, they still fly from the point in hand into Harangues and Rhetorical Digressions, falling foul on some Doctrine of the Romish Church, which they endeavour with Tropes and figures to paint out in the colours of Idolatry and Superstition. Thus, when hard pressed with the Sin of Schism, and not able to justify their Separation, they fall a railing at Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. I would caution every Man that searches after Truth not to be put of with this Sophistry; If the English Church can not show Persuasive Arguments for her deserting her Mother the Church of Rome, she fails in what is expected from her; 'Tis enough to fall foul on particular Doctrines, she ought to show that no subjection was due from her to the Western Patriarchal Church. In treating of particular Controversies, as Purgatory, etc. the Roman Church is very well able to satisfy all reasonable and impartial Men, but she knows 'tis the trick of Protestant Writers to wheedle Men into the Labyrinth of Controversial points, and then dezle their eyes with fine words and elaborate Expressions.  
  

I will Insert a Speech, made in Parliament, against Supreme Ecclesiastical, and Spiritual Authority, granted to Queen Elizabeth. The Person that spoke it, was Nicholas Heath; who was first Bishop of Worcester, and Lord Precedent of Wales: Afterwards Archbishop of York, and Ambassador into Germany: And made Lord Chancellor of England, by Queen Marry, in the year of our Lord 1555; and continued, until he did surrender it up, in Queen Elizabeth's time, to Sir Nicholas Bacon.  
The Person, from whom I had this Speech, is yet living; who told me, That he found it in Manuscript, amongst Papers and Notes of his great Grandfather, George Parrey, who had been High Sheriff of Hereford-shire, in the second year of the said Queen.  

A Speech Made in the Upper House of Parliament, against the Supemacy to be in Her Majesty; by Nicholas Heath, Lord Chancellor of England, in the first year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, above an 100 years' since.  
In the Original Copy it is styled, A Tale told in Parliament.  For Oaths the Land shall be Clothed in Mourning. 
My LORDS,  
WIth all humble submission of my whole Discourse to your Wisdoms, I purpose to speak to the Body of this Act, touching the Supremacy; that so, what this Honourable Assembly is now adoing, concerning the passing of this Act, may thereby be better weighed, and considered by your Wisdoms.  
First, When by the Virtue of this Act of Supremacy, we must forsake and fly from the See of Rome, it would be considered, what matter lies therein; and what matter of danger, or inconvenience; or else, whether there be none at all.  
Secondly, If the intent of this Act be to grant, or settle upon the Queen's Majesty a Supremacy; it would be considered of your Wisdoms, what this Supremacy is, and whether it doth consist in Spiritual Government, or Temporal?  
If in Temporal; what further Authority can this House give Her, more than what She already hath by right of Inheritance? And not by your Gift, but by the Appointment of God: Being our Sovereign Lord and Lady; our King, and Queen; our Empress, and Emperor: And if further than this, we acknowledge Her to be Head of the Church of England, we ought also to grant, that the Emperor, or any other Prince, being Catholic, and their Subjects Protestants, are to be Heads of their Church: Whereby we shall do an Act, as disagreeble to the Protestants, as this seems to Catholics.  
If you say, The Supremacy consists in Spiritual concernments.  
Then, it would be considered, what the Spiritual Government is? and in what points it doth chief consist: Which being first agreed upon, it would be further considered of your Wisdoms, whether this House may grant it to her Highness, or not? And whether her Highness be an apt Person to receive the same?  
So by through Examination of these parts, your Honours shall proceed in this matter groundedly, upon such sure knowledge, as not to be deceived by ignorance.  
Now to the First Point, wherein I promised to examine, what matter of weight, danger, or inconvenience might be incurred, by this our forsaking, and flying from the Church of Rome, if there were no further matter therein, than the with drawing our Obedience from the Pope's Person, (supposing, that he had declared himself to be a very Austeres and Severe Father to us) than the business were not of so great importance, as indeed it is, as will immediately here appear.  
For, by relinquishing and forsaking the Church, or See of Rome, we must forsake and fly from all General Councils.  
Secondly, from all Canonical and Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of Christ.  
Thirdly, From the Judgement of all other Christian Princes.  
Fourthly, and Lastly, we must forsake and fly from the Holy Unity of Christ's Church; and so by leaping out of Peter's Ship, we hazard ourselves to be overwhelmed in the waves of Schism, of Sects, and Divisions.  
First, Touching the General Councils, I shall name unto you these Four: The Nicene Council, the Constantinopolitan Council, the Ephesine, and the Chalcedon: All which are approved by all Men.  
Of these same Councils, Saint Gregory writes in this wise; Sicut enim Sancti Evangelii quatuor Libros, sic haec quatuor Concilia, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum, Ephesium, & Chalcedonense, suscipire, ac venerari me fateor: That is to say in English, I confess, I do receive, and reverence those Four General Councils, of Nice, Constantinople, etc. even as I do the Four Holy Evangelists.  
At the Nicene Council, the first of the Four, the Bishops which were there Assembled, did write there Epistles to Sylvester, than Bishop of Rome, That their decrees then made, might be confirmed by his Authority.  
At the Council kept at Constantinople, all the Bishops there, were obedient to Damasus, than Bishop of Rome: He, as chief in the Council, gave Sentence against the Heretics, Macedoneus, Sabillius, and Eunomius: Which Eunomius was both an Arrian, and the first Author of that Heresy, That only Faith doth juctifie. And here (by the way) it is much to be lamented, that we, the Inhabitants of this Realm are much more inclined to raise up the Errors and Sects of Ancient condemned Heretics, than to follow the True Approved Doctrine of the most Catholic and Learned Fathers of Christ's-Church.  
At the Ephesine Council, Nestorius the Heretic was condemned by Celestine the Bishop of Rome, he being chief Judge there.  
At the Chalcedon Council, all the Bishops there Assembled, did write their humble Submission unto Leo, than Bishop of Rome; wherein they did acknowledge him there to be their Chief Head: Six Hundred and Thirty Bishops of them.  
Therefore to deny the See Apostolic, and its Authority, were to contemn and set at nought the Authority and Decrees of those noble Councils.  
Secondly, We must forsake and fly from all Canonical and Ecclesiastical Laws of Christ his Church; whereunto we have already professed our Obedience at the Font, saying Credo Sanctum Ecclesiam Catholicam; that is I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: Which Article contains, That we must receive the Doctrine, and Sacraments of the same Church, obey her Laws, and live according to the same: Which Laws do depend wholly upon the Authority of the See Apostolic. And like as it is there openly professed by the Judges of the Realm, that the Laws agreed upon in the Higher and Lower Houses of this Honourable Parliament, be of small, or none effect, before the Royal Assent of the King, or Prince be given thereunto: Even so Ecclesiastical Laws made, cannot bind the Universal Church of Christ, without the Royal Assent, and Confirmation of the See Apostolic.  
Thirdly, We must forsake and fly from the Judgement of all other Christian Princes, whether they be Protestant or Catholic Christians, when none of them do agree with these our do: King Henry the VIII. being the first that ever took upon him the Title of Supremacy.  
And whereas it was of late, here in this House, said, by a Nobleman, That the Title of Supremacy, is of right due to a King, for that he is a King; then would it follow, That Herod being a King, should be Supreme Head of the Church at Jerusalem: And Nero the Emperor, Supreme Head of the Church of Christ at Rome; they being both Infidels, and therefore no members of Christ's Church.  
And if our Saviour Christ, at his departure from this World, should have left the Spiritual Government of his Church in the hands of Emperors, and Kings, and not to have committed the same to his Apostles, how negligently then should he have left his Church!  
It shall appear rightwell, by calling to mind, That the Emperor Constantinus Magnus was the First Christian Emperor, and was Baptised by Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, about Three hundred years after the Ascension of Christ Jesus.  
If by your Proposition, Constantine, the first Christian Emperor was the First Head, and Spiritual Governor of Christs-Church, throughout his Empire; than it follows, That our Saviour Christ, for the space of Three Hundred years, unto the coming of this Constantine, left his Church (which he had so dearly bought by effusion of his most precious Blood) without any Head at all.  
But how untrue the saying of this Nobleman was, it shall further appear by the Example of Ozia, and also of King David. For King Ozia, did take the Censor to do Incense to the Altar of God. The Priest Azarius did resist him, and expelled him out of the Temple, and said unto him. Non est Officii tui, Ozia, ut adoleas Incensum Domino; sed est Sacerdotam, & Filiorum Aaron: Ad hujusmodi enim Officium consecrati. That is to say, It is not thy Office, Ozia, to offer Incense to the Altar of God. But it is the Priest's Office, and the Sons of Aaron; for they are Consecrated, and Anointed to that Office.  
Now I shall most humbly demand this question; When the Priest Azarius said to the King, Non est Officii tui; whether he said Truth, or not? If you answer, that he spoke the Truth, than the King was not Supreme Head of the Church of the Jews. If you shall say, No: Why did God plague the King with Leprosy, and not the Priest?  
The Priest, Azarias, in resisting the King, and thrusting him out of the Temple; in so doing, did the Priest play the faithful part of a Subject, or no? if you answer No; why then did God spare the Priest, and not spare the King? If you answer, Yea; than it is most manifest, Ozia, in that he was a King, could not be Supreme Head of the Church.  
And therefore King David did go before the Ark of God with his Harp, making Melody; and placed himself amongst the Minstrels, and humbly did abase himself, (being a King) as to dance and leap before the Ark of God; like as his other Subjects did: Insomuch, as his Queen Michol, King Saul's Daughter, beholding and seeing this great Humility of King David, did disdain thereat. Whereunto King David, making answer, said Ludam, & vilior siam plùs quàm factus sûm, etc. That is, I will dance, and abase myself, more than yet I have done; and abjecting myself in mine own eyes, I shall appear more glorious with those Handmaids, that you talk of I will play here before my Lord; which hath chosen me, rather than thy Father's House. And whereas, Queen Michol was therefore plagued at God's hand, with perpetual Sterility and Barrenness, King David received a great praise for his Humility.  
Now may it please your Honours, to consider which of both these King's Examples shall be most convenient for your Wisdoms, to make the Queen's Majesty to follow; whether the Example of Proud Ozia; moving Her, by your persuasions and Councils, to take upon her spiritual Government; and thereby exposing her Soul to be plagued at the hand of God, as King Ozia was: or else to follow the Example of the good King David, which, in refusal of all Spiritual Government about the Ark of God, did humble himself, as I have declared unto you.  
Whereunto our Sovereign Lady, the Queen's Highness, of Her own nature being well inclined; we may assure ourselves, to have of Her as Humble, as Virtuous, and as Godly a Mistress to Reign over us, as ever had English People here in this Realm; if that her Highness be not by your Flattery, and Dissimulation, seduced and beguiled.  
Fourthly, and Lastly, We must forsake, and fly from the Holy Unity of Christ's-Church. Seeing that St. Cyprian, that Holy Martyr, and great Clerk, doth say, that the Unity of the Church of Christ doth depend upon Peter's Authority, and his Successors. Therefore by leaping out of Peter's Ship, we must be overwhelmed with the Waves of Schisms, of Sects and Divisions: Because the same Holy Martyr in his Third Epistle to Cornelius testifies, That all Heresies, Sects, and Schisms, do spring only from hence, that Men will not be obedient to the Head Bishop of God.  
And how true this saying of St. Cyprian is, we may see it most apparent to all Men that list to see, both by the Example of the Germans, and by us, the Inhabitants of this Realm of England.  
And by this our forsaking, and flying from the Unity of the Church of Rome, this inconveniency amongst many, we must grant the Church of Rome to be the True Church of God, where Jesus Christ is truly taught, and his Sacraments rightly Administered; how can we disburden ourselves of our forsaking, and flying from that Church, which we do confess, and acknowledge to be of God, we ought to be One, and not to admit of any Separation.  
If you Answer, the Church of Rome is not of God, but a Malignant Church; than it will follow, that we the Inhabitants of this Realm have not as yet received any Benefit of Christ; seeing we have received no Gospel, or other Doctrine, nor no other Sacrament, but that which was sent unto us from he Church of Rome.  
First, in King Lucius his days, at whose humble Epistle the Holy Martyr Elutherius, than Bishop of Rome, did send into this Realm two Holy Monks, Fugatius, and Damianus; by whose Doctrine and Preaching, we were first brought to the knowledge of the Faith of Jesus Christ, of his Holy Gospel, and his most Holy Sacraments.  
Then Secondly, Holy St. Gregory being Bishop of Rome, did send into this Realm two other Holy Monks, St. Austin, called the Apostle of England, and Milletus, to receive the very self same Faith that had been before planted here in this Realm, in the days of King Lucius.  
Thirdly, and Last of all, Paulus Tertius being Bishop of Rome, did send hither the Lord Cardinal Pool his Grace, (by Birth a Nobleman of this Land) his Legate, to restore us unto the same Faith which the Martyr, St. Elutherius and St. Gregory had Planted here many years before.  
If therefore the Church of Rome be not of God, but a false and Malignant Church, then have we been deceived all this while; seeing the Gospel, the Doctrine Faith, and Sacraments, must be of the same nature as that Church is, from whence it, and they came; and therefore in relinquishing, and forsaking that Church, the Inhabitants of this Realm shall be forced to seek further for another Gospel of Christ, other Doctrine, other Faith and Sacraments than we have hitherto received: Which will breed such a Schism, and Error in Faith, as was never in any Christian Realm. And therefore of your Wisdoms worthy of Consideration, and maturely to be pondered, and be provided for, before you pass this Act of Supremacy. Thus much touching the First chief Point.  
Now to the Second Deliberation, wherein I promised to move your Honours, to consider, What this Supremacy is, which we go about, by virtue of this Act, to give unto the Queen, and wherein it doth consist; whether in Spiritual Government, or Temporal. But if Spiritual, (as these words in the Act do import, Supreme Head of the Church of England, immediately and next unto God;) Then it would be considered, in what Points this Spiritual Government doth consist? and the Points being well known, it would be considered, Whether this House hath Authority to grant them, and her Highness' Ability to receive them.  
And as concerning the Points, wherein Spiritual Government doth consist, I have, in reading the Gospel, and the whole course of Divinity thereupon (as to my Vocation belongeth) observed these Four, as chief among many others: whereof the first is, The power to lose and bind sins. When our Saviour, in ordaining Peter to be Chief, and Head-Governour of his Church, said unto him, Tibi dabo Claves Regni Coelorum, etc. That is, To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. Now it would be considered by your Wisdoms, whether you have sufficient Authority to grant unto her Majesty this first Point of Spiritual Government; and to say unto Her, Tibi dabimus, etc. To Thee will we give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. If you say Yea, then do we require the sight of Warrant and Commission, by the Virtue of God's Word. And if you say No: than you may be well assured, and persuade yourselves, that you have not sufficient Authority to make her Highness Supreme Head of the Church of Christ here in this Realm.  
The Second Point of Spiritual Government is gathered out of these words of our Saviour Christ, spoken to St. Peter in the 20th. Chapter of St. John's Gospel, Pasce,— & Pasce— & Pasce, That is, Feed my Lambs, feed my Lambs, feed my Sheep: Now, whether your Honours have Authority by this Court of Parliament, to say unto our Sovereign Lady, Pasce, & Pasce, etc. That is to say, Feed you the flock of Christ, you must show your Warrant and Commission for it. An further it is evident, that Her Majesty, being a Woman by Birth and Nature, is not qualified by God's word, to feed the Flock of Christ, appears most plainly by St. Paul, in this wise, Taceant Mulieres in Ecclesus, sicut & lex dicit. Let Women be silent in the Church; for it is not Lawful for them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the Law saith. And it followeth in the same place. Turpe est enim, Mulieris loqui in Ecclesiâ, that is, for that it is not seemly for a Woman to speak in the Church. And in his Second Epistle to Timothy, Dominari in virum, sed esse silentes; that is to say, I allow not that a Woman be a Teacher, or to be above her Husband, but to keep herself in silence. Therefore it appears likewise, as your Honours have not Authority to give her Highness this second Point of Spiritual Government, to feed the Flock of Christ: So by St. Paul's Doctrine, her Highness may not intermeddle herself with the same. And therefore She cannot be Supreme Head of the Church, here in England.  
The Third chief Point of Spiritual Government is gathered out of those words of our Saviour Christ, spoken to St. Peter in the 22th. Chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. Ego rogavi pro To, ut non deficiat fides Tua; & Tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres Tuos. That is, I Prayed for Thee, that thy Faith shall not fail; and thou being converted, Confirm thy Brethren, and ratify them in wholesome Doctrine, and Administration of the Sacraments, which are the Holy Instruments of God so Instituted and Ordained for our Sanctification; that without them his Grace is not to be received. But to Preach, or to administer the Sacraments, a Woman may not be admitted to do; neither may she be Supreme of Christ's Church.  
The Fourth and Last chief point of Spiritual Government, which I promised to Note unto you, doth consist in Excommunication, and Spiritual Punishment of all such, as shall approve themselves, not to be the Obedient Children of Christ's Church.  
Of which Authority our Saviour Christ speaks in St. Matthew's Gospel, in the 18th. Chapter, saying, If your Brother offending will not hear your charitable admonition, whether secretly at first, or yet before one, or two Witnesses, than we must complain of him to the Church, and If he will not hear the Church, let him be taken as an Heathen or Publican.  
So the Apostle did Excommunicate the notorious Fornicator, that was amongst the Corinthians; and by the Authority of his Apostleship; unto which Apostles, Christ Ascending into Heaven, did leave the whole Spiritual Government of his Church, as it appears by those plain words of St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Chap. 4th. saying, Ipse dedit Ecclesiae suae, etc. He hath given to his Church, some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Doctors, for consummation of the Saints, to the work of the Ministry, for edifying of the Body of Christ. But a Woman in the degrees of the Church, is not called to be an Apostle, nor Evangelist; nor to be a Pastor (as much to say, a Shepherd) nor a Doctor, or a Preacher. Therefore she cannot be Supreme Head of Christ's Militant Church; nor yet of any part thereof. For this high Government, God hath appointed only to the Bishops, and Pastors of his People; as St. Paul plainly witnesseth in these words, in the 20th. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, saying, Attendite vohis, & universo gregi, etc. And thus much I have here said, right Honourable, and my very good Lords, against this Act of Supremacy, for the discharge of my poor Conscience, and for the Love, and Fear, and Dread, that I chief own unto God, to my Sovereign Lord and Lady the Queen's Majesty's Highness, and to your Honours All. Where otherwise, without mature consideration of all these Premises, your Honours shall never be able to show your faces before your enemies, in this matter; being so strange a spectacle and example in Christ's Church, as in this Realm is only to be found, and in no other Christian Realm.  
Thus humbly beseeching your Honours, to take in good part, this my rude and plain Speech, which here I have used, out of much Zeal and fervent good will: And now I shall not trouble your Honours any longer. Thus at to this Speech.  
But notwithstanding this Speech, or whatever else could be said against it, the Act passed, and this Supremacy was granted to the Queen.   

A further Prosecution of the Settlement of this Change of Religion Established by Parliament, and of the Opposition of the Catholic Clergy against this strange Innovation  
By which my dear Countrymen may see, as is proved by their own Histories, how you are seduced into Erroneous Religions, endangering thereby no less than their Salvation.  Dr. Heylyn, pag. 108. 
NOw for the better exercising, and enjoying the Jurisdiction thus acknowledged in the Crown, there was this Clause put into the Act, That it should be Lawful for the Queen to give Power, to such as she thought fit, to exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and to vist, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all kind of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, etc. With this Proviso notwithstanding, that nothing should from henceforth be accounted Heresy, but what was so adjudged the Holy Scripture, or in one of the four four General Councils, or in any other National, or Provincial Council, determining according to the word of God; or finally, which should be adjudged for the time to come, by the Court of Parliament  
This was the first Foundation of the High-Commission Court: And from hence issued that commission, by which the Queen's ministers proceeded in that visitation, in the first year of her Reign, for rectifying all such things as they found amiss.  
There also passed another Act, for recommending and imposing the Book of Common-Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, according to such Alterations, and Corrections as were made therein, by those that were appointed to review it. In performance of which service, there was great care taken to expunge out of all such passages in it, as might give an Scandal or Offence to the Papists; or be urged by them, in excuse for their not coming to Church.  
In the Litany first made and published by King Henry the Eighth, and afterwards continued in the two Liturgies of King Edward the sixth, there was a Prayer to the delivered from the Tyranny, and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome: which was thought fit to be left out, as giving matter of Scandal and dissatisfaction to all that Party.  
In the first Liturgy of King Edward, the Sacrament of our Lord's Body was delivered with this Benediction, that is to say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for the Preservation of thy Body and Soul to Life Everlasting. The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. Which being thought by Calvin, and his Disciples, to give some countenance to the Carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament (which passed by the name of Transubstantiation in the Schools of Rome) was altered into this Form into the second Liturgy; that is to say. Take and Eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith, with Thanksgiving take and drink this, etc.  
But the Revisors of the Book, joined both Forms together, lest under colour of rejecting a Carnal. they might be though also to deny a real presence, as was defended in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers. Upon which ground they expunged also a whole Rubric at the end of the Communion Service: By which it was declared, That kneeling at the Communion, was required for to other reason, than for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledgement of the Benefits of Christ, given therein unto the worthy Receiver, and to avoid that Profanation, and Disorder, which otherwise might have ensued: And not for giving any Adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received; or in regard of any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. (This Rubric is again lately inserted).  
And to come up closer to those of the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queen's Injunctions, That the Sacramental Bread (which the Book required only to be made or the sinest Flower) should be made round, in the fashion of the Waters, used in t●e time of Queen Mary.  
She also Ordered, that the Lord's Table should be placed where the Altar stood; and that the accustomed Reverence should be made at the Name of Jesus: Music retained in the Church, and all the other Festivals observed with their several Eves.  
By which compliances, and the expunging of the passages before mentioned, the Book was made more plausible: And that it might pass the better in both Houses, when it came to the Vote, it was thought requisite, That a Disputation should be held about some Points, which were most likely to be keked at.  
Two speeches were made against this Book in the House of Peers by Scot and Feckenham; and one against the Queen's Supremacy, by the Archbishop of York: But they prevailed little in both Points by the Power of their Eloquence.  
In the Convocation, which accompanied this present Parliament, there was little done; because they despaired of doing any good to Themselves or their Cause.  
The chief thing they did, was a Declaration of their Judgements in some certain Points: Which at that time were conceived fit to be commended to the sight of the Parliament; that is to say,  
First, That the Sacrament of the Altar, by virtue of Christ's Assistance, after the words of Consecration are duly pronounced by the Priest, the Natural Body of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, is really present under the species of Bread and Wine. As also his Natural Blood.  
Secondly, That after the Consecration, there remains not the Substance of Bread and Wine; nor any Substance, but the Substance of God and Man.  
Thirdly, That the true Body of Christ, and his Blood, is offered for a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick, and Dead.  
Fourthly, That the Supreme Power of Feeding, and Governing the Militant Church of Christ, and of Confirming their Brethren, is given to Peter the Apostle, and to his lawful Successors in the See Apostolic, as unto the Vicar of Christ.  
Fifthly, That the Authority to handle and define such things, as belong to Faith, the Sacraments, and Ecclesiastical Discipline, hath hitherto ever belonged, and only ought to belong unto the Pastors of the Church, whom the Holy Spirit hath placed in the Church; and not unto Laymen.  
These Articles they caused to be Engrossed; and so commended them to the Care and Consideration of the Higher House; presented by Boner, to the Hands of the Lord Keeper Bacon; by whom they were candidly received.  
But they prevailed no further with the Queen, or House of Peers, when imparted to them, than that (possibly) they might help forwards the aforementioned Disputation.  
It was on the four and twentieth of June, that the Public Liturgy was to be officiated in all the Churches of the Kingdom. In the performance of which service, the Bishops giving no encouragement, and many of the Clergy being backward in it, it was thought fit to put them to a Final Jest; and either to bring them to Conformity, or to bestow their Places and Preferments, on more tractable Persons.  
The Bishops at that time, were reduced into a narrow number, than at any other time before; there being no more than fifteen of that sacred Order left.  
These, being called by certain of the Lords of the Council, were required to take the Oath of Supremacy. Kitchen, of Landaff, only takes it: Who having formerly submitted to every Change, resolved to show himself no Changeling, in not conforming to the pleasures of the Higher Powers.  
By all the rest it was refused  
Whereupon they were deprived of their Bishoprics. The Bishops being thus put out, the Oath is tendered next to the Deans, and Chapters; and lastly to the rural Clergy, Thus Dr. Heylyn.  
It is here to be noted, That during the  Convocation, there came from both the Universities, a Writing signed by a public Notary; by which they both signified their concurrence to the aforesaid Articles, only with a little alteration of the last.  
But these Declarations, and Protestations of the whole Representative Clergy, and Universities, were not like to signify much, since a Change of Religion was absolutely resolved on.   

An account of the Years, in which these Changes in Religion were made.  
IN her First year, she being resolved upon an Alteration of Religion (as knowing well, that her Legitimation, and the Pope's Supremacy, could not stand together) called a Parliament, which totally complied with her Designs, in order to such a Change. But the Convocation of the Clergy, which accompanied this Parliament, totally opposed it: And thereupon were deprived of their Ecclesiastical Benefices; a company of Ignorant and Illiterate Men, being Substituted in their places: Which gave occasion to the Calvinists, or Presbyterians, to obtain great Ecclesiastical Preferments here: By which they have continually laboured to supplant and undermine the Church of England.  
It was the Second year of her Reign, before any Protestant Bishops were elected. The main cause, for keeping the Episcopal Sees so long vacant, was, that in the mean time, the best Flowers might be culled out of them. Aid this year was sent to assist the Rebels in Scotland against their Lawful Queen. The Presbyterians, seeing Episcopal Government settled, begin to play their Game.  
The Bishops being thus settled, begin the next year, to make Laws and to compose Articles of Religion, and to exact a Conformity to them: Upon which they find great opposition from the Presbyterians.  
In her fourth year, she was solicited by Pope Pius, to send her Orators, to the Council of Trent; which she refused to do. The Emperor also writ to her to desist from these Alterations of Religion, and to return to the Ancient Catholic Faith of her Predecessors.  
In her fifth year, the Articles of Religion were agreed on in the Convocation.  
In her sixth year, she would have Married the Earl of Leicester to the Queen of Scots. Calvin dies this year, and Cartwright the great promoter of Presbytery, retires out of England, upon a discontent to Geneva.  
In her seventh year, the Calvinists began first to be called Puritan.  
Dr. Heylyn.  
In her eighth year, the Government of the Church, by Archbishops, and Bishops, was Confirmed. And for this we are beholding to Boner, the late Bishop of London: Who being called up to take the Oath of Supremacy, by Horn of Winton, refused to take the Oath, upon this account, because Horns Consecration was not good and valid by the Laws of the Land.  
Which the insisted upon, because the Ordinal, Established in the Reign of King Edward the VI (by which both Horn, and all the rest of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops, received Consecration) had been Repealed by Queen Mary, and not restored by any Act of Parliament, in the present Reign: (which being first declared, by Parliament in the Eighth of this Queen, to be Casus Omissus; or rather, that the Ordinal was looked upon as a part of the Liturgy, confirmed in the First year of this Queen:) They next Enacted, and Ordained, That all such Bishops, as were Consecrated by it, in time to come, should be reputed to be lawfully Consecrated.  
Baker.  
In her Eleventh year, there arose a Sect, openly condemning the received Discipline of the Church of England, together with the Church Liturgy, and the very Calling of Bishops.  
This Sect so mightily increased; that in the Sixteenth year of her Reign, the Queen, and Kingdom, was extremely troubled with them.  
In the same Sixteenth year, were taken at Mass, in their several Houses, the Lord Morley's Lady, and her Children; the Lady Gilford, and the Lady Brown: Who being thereof Indicted, and Convicted, suffered the Penalties of the Laws.  
In her Twentieth year, the severe Laws against Roman Catholics, were Enacted.  
In her Twenty third year, a Proclamation was set forth, That whosoever had any Children beyond Sea, should by a certain day, call them home; and that no Person should harbour any Seminary Priest, or Jesuit. At this time also there arose up in Holland a certain Sect, naming themselves, The Family of Love.  
In a Parliament held the 26th. year of her Reign, the Puritan Party laboured to have Laws made, in order to the destroying of the Church of England, and the setting up of their own Sect.  
In her Twenty eighth year, the Queen gave a special Charge to Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, to settle an Uniformity in the Ecclesiastical Discipline, which lay now almost a gasping. And at this time, the Sect of Brownists (derived from one Robert Brown) did much oppose the Church of England.  
In her One and Thirtieth year, the Puritan-Flames broke forth again.  
In her Thirty sixth year, the Severity of the Laws were Executed upon Henry Barrow, and the Sectaries, for condemning, the Church of England, as no Christian Church. Thus Sir Rich. Baker.  
Here is an End of this Work. Wherein, I hope, there is full satisfaction given, concerning the Alterations of Religion, which have been made by Public Authority, in the Reigns of these Kings and Queens: With a sufficient discovery of the Actings of the Presbyterians in this Nation, and the ground of multiplying other Sects.  
Here ends of Historical Collections.   

Gentlemen of the Reformation, this following Discourse I assure you, is not intended to make any Reflection upon your Tenets; but merely out of zeal to your good, and desiring the Almighty to give you his Grace, not to be deluded by the Principles of the first promoters of the Reformation: For it may well be, that every one of you does not, know the Principles of those first Authors of the Reformation; therefore out of Charity and zeal to you, and the good of your Souls I declare them here.  

The Preface to the Children of the Reformation.  
BE not concerned to know whose Hand it is which holds the Link, but follow the Light it gives; directing you to a view of the Principles upon which the Reformation supports itself, asserting a Holy Liberty to each Person; and to act as he pleases, with a safe Conscience, according to the Principles of our Reformation; to grant any humane Power can oblige our Consciences against our Judgements in matters of Religion, is but an imaginary Remedy for a real Evil. Our common Reformation is cemented, and was first raised upon this Holy Liberty, that every one should read Scripture, Interpret it for himself; and believe what he though was the true Sense of it, without any compulsion or constraint, and not to believe either Church, State, University, or Doctors, if he did not judge by Scripture his Doctrine was true. Considering the Infancy of the Reformation; our blessed Reformers taking to themselves, and giving to others this Holy Liberty for to Teach and Believe whatever they judged to be the Doctrine and true Sense of Scripture; though it should be against the received Opinion of the Councils, Church, Universities and Doctors? Look into the Reign of Edward the VI then did our Reformation flourish in England; and was miraculously propogated by the Liberty of Martin, Bucer, Cranmer, Ochinus, Peter Martyr, and others in teaching Calvinism, Lutheranism, Zuinglianism by Scripture, as every one understood it: Descend to the Reign of Queen Mary, than the light of the Gospel was eclipsed, (in the sense of the Reformers) because the flock was again Popishly compelled to believe, not what every one judged by Scripture to be true; but what the Church judged was such: Come down a step lower to Queen Elizabeth's time, than the flock recovering their holy Liberty to believe what each one though was the Doctrine of Scripture, the Reformation gained ground, and our Protestancy was established the Religion of the Land, which others were not totally suppressed Step down a degree lower to King James his time; the Reformation held its course, because their Consciences were not oppressed. Look down a step lower to King Charles the I's Reign; His Majesty carried with a Godly Zeal of restraining the diversity of Opinions, would by new Laws and Ordinances force the flock to an Uniformity of Doctrine, than those of the Reformation pleaded for the Evangelical Liberty, to believe nothing, nor use any Rites or Ceremonies, but as each one judged by Scripture to be convenient; they Covenanted against Bishops. Lastly, look upon our Realm as it is at present, the symptoms of dissatisfactions, which you may read and hear in Coffeehouses, in public and private Conversations; the sparkles of Jealousies, which appear in the Kingdom; the Cabals against our Government; the animosity of divided Parties, the murmur and complaints of all; what's all this but the smoke of that hidden fire of Zeal, wherewith Protestants would force Presbyterians by Penal Laws, to profess their Tenets; which each Opinion endeavour to oppress the other; do but duly consider each Sect, and they will all appear Tyrants over our Conscience: For no one Sect among us, but would root out all the rest, none fearing that danger whereof St. Paul Gal. 5.15. warns us, If we by't and devour one another, let's take heed, we be not consumed one of another; Giving us likewise a wholesome advice in the same place, how to prevent this Evil, etc.  
When this Kingdom professed the Popish Religion, to prevent this Evil of variety of Opinions, their Rule of Faith, was Interpreted by the Church; and was kept from the hands of the flock. No man permitted to give any other Interpretation or Sense of it, but what the Church did approve. Then the Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zuinghus, Beza, and others, who freed from this slavery laid it down for their Rule of Faith; That any man of sound Judgement may believe whatever he takes to be the sense of Scripture; these are the Principles from which the Reformation proceeded: No man is to be constrained to believe any Doctrine against his Judgement and Conscience, and therefore it is quite contrary to the Spirit of the Reformation to force us by Acts of Parliament, Decrees of Synods, Invectives, and Persecutions of Indiscreet Brethren, to drive us to this or that Religion: No, every one ought to be Permitted to believe what he pleases; as for instance, If he thinks Bigamy, or Self-Murder to be the Doctrine of Scripture, to have freely liberty to profess and practise the same.  
In the first place, let my Reader consider, that the Pure and Orthodox Dostrine of the Reformation, I purpose in this Treatise to describe in its native Colours.  
It's the Doctrine of the Reformation that we may with a safe Conscience be to day Protestants, to morrow Lutherans, in France Hugonots, in Hungary Trinitarians, in Poland Socinarians; and in London of any Religion but Popery; they allow to be Lawful to change Religion as Time and Occasion require; this is the practice of the first Reformers. This Truth requires not much to justify it; be pleased only to consider, how you came to Change the Ancient Religion professed in the Kingdom for 1500 years together  
It's uncontestedly true that the Rule of Faith in common to the whole Reformation is Scripture, as the humble of Heart, assisted with the Spirit of the Lord, understand it; for Lutherans will never admit their Rule of Faith to be Scripture, as Interpreted by the Church of England, but as Interpreted by themselves; nor will England admit Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, as it is Interpreted by the Presbyterians, but as Interpreted by the Church of England: So that the Doctrine of each Congregation is but Scripture, as interpreted by them, and whereas all these Congregation jointly compose the whole Body of the Reformation, and each Congregation is truly a Member of the Reformation, the Doctrine of the Reformation comes to be Scripture, as each Congregation, and Person of sound Judgement among them, Interprets it. This being an uncontrolled truth, what Man of ever so sound Judgement, but may read to day. Scripture, as Interpreted by the Lutheran Church, and judging in his Conscience that Interpretation and Doctrine to be true; consequently he may with a safe Conscience profess that Religion: Soon after he may meet Calvin's Books, and charmed with the admirable strength of his reasons and glosses upon Scripture, he may judge in his Conscience, he is to be preferred before Luther, and so may lawfully forsake Lutheranism for Calvinism; then again he hits upon Scripture as Interpreted by the Church of England, whose Doctrine ravishes him with that decency of Ceremonies, that Majesty of her Liturgy, that Harmony of her Hierarchy, he is convinced its better than Calvinism, and embraces it: Then again he reads the Works of Arrius, and convinced by the energy of his Arguments and Texts of Scripture, may alter his judgement, and become an Arian.  
Wherein can you say does this Man transgress the Doctrine or Principles of the Reformation? Does he forsake the Reformation, because he forsakes Lutheranism for Calvinism? No sure; for Calvinism is as much the Reformation as the other: Is not Protestancy as much the Doctrine of the Reformation as Presbytery? though he changes therefore one for the other, he still holds the Doctrine of the Reformation: Is not the Doctrine of the Reformation Scripture, and that not as Protestants only or Presbyterians interpret it, but as any Congregation, or Man of sound judgement holds it? It is therefore evident, that according to the Doctrine and Principles of the Reformation, he may with a safe Conscience change Religions, and be to day of one, to morrow of another, until he run over All. Point me out any Congregation (the obstinate Papists excepted,) that will dare say I cannot live with a safe Conscience in any other Congregation but in itself, all other Congregations will laugh at it: Why then may not I lawfully forsake any Congregation, and pass to another; and be in England a Protestant, in Germany a Lutheran, in Hungary a Trinitarian or Socinian.  
It is against the grain of Man's reason, that we can with a safe Conscience change Religion; If you be a Protestant, and you judge it to be the true Religion, you are bound to stick to it, and never to change it.  
If I discourse with a Papist, I would not wonder he should say it's against the grain of Man's reason to believe it lawful; but I admire that a Child of the Reformation, be he of what Congregation he will, should be so ignorant of his principles, as to say a Man cannot change Religions when he pleases: Nor do I undertake to prove against the Papist, that this is lawful, but I undertake to prove it lawful against any Reformed Child, or force him to deny the Principles of the Reformation.  
Is it against reason, that a Man may read to day Scripture, and the Lutherans Interpretation upon it, and like it very well; and that he should in this case embrace that Religion? Is it against the grain of Man's reason that this same Man should next Year afterwards hit upon Calvin's works upon Scripture, and after better consideration, think his Doctrine to surpass that of Luther; and could not he then (being obliged to choose the best,) forsake Lutheranism and stick to Calvinism? And is it against Man's reason that he after this may meet other Books of Arians, Socinians, etc. and do the like? Have not we many examples of this in our best and most renowned Reformers? Did not Ochinus that great Light (says B. Bale) in whose presence England was happy, reading Scripture, judge the Reformation to be better than Popery, and of a Capuchin Friar became one of the Reformed, after some Years reading Scripture, he, judged Judaisme to be better than the Reformation, and became a Jew: Did not Martin Bucer, one of our first Reformers of England, reading Scripture judge Lutheranism to be better than Popery, and of a Dominican Friar, became a Lutherian? Soon after reading Scripture, he judged Zuinglianism to be better than Lutheranism, and become a Zuinglian; not long after he became a Lutheran again as he Confesses, 
Epist. ad Noremb. & in Comment. in 70.6. & 16. Mat. Theol. Calvin. l. 2. fol. 70.  and forsook Lutheranism the second time, and returned again to Zuinglanism, as Skluser says. Did not Cranmer one of our sirst Reformers here in England, and Composers of the 39 Articles, a Wise and religious Man profess Popery in Henry the Vill's. time, and Compose a Book in defence of Real Presence; then in Edward the VI's. time, upon better Consideration he professed Zuinglianism, and writ a Book against the Real Presence; then again in Queen Mary's Reign, being Sentenced to Death, he declared for Popery, but seeing his Recantation would not preserve his Life, he renounced Popery and died a Zuinglian. I could tyre your Patience in reading, and Mind in relating the number of our Prime and most renowned, as well first Reformers, as Learned Doctors, who without any scruple, changed several times their Religions; nor in the Principles of our Reformation ought they to be blamed: For whereas our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as with the assistance of God's Spirit we understand it, who doubts but we may to day judge sincerely Luther's sense of it to be true, to morrow we may read with more attention and judge Arius his sense to be true; next day that of Calvin, and so of the rest: I do not think but that we have in England many Abettors of this Doctrine: Alas! how many Bishops, Deans, and rich Parsons do we know, and have we known who are zealous Presbyterians, and declared Enemies of Protestancy in our Gracious Sovereign's Exile; and no sooner was he restored, and had Bishoprics and Ecclesiastical Dignities to be given, but they become stiff Protestants.  
Observe the difference betwixt the Papists and us, if of a Papist you become of any other Congregation, the Popish Church Excommunicate you, thou art looked upon as an Heretic, and Apostate, a strayed Sheep; they will not admit you to their Communion or Liturgy; nay, could they well avoid you, they would never admit you to their Company; and why? because they are fond persuaded their own is only true Religion, and all others to be Synagogues of Satan; and if any of us will become a Papist, he must sirst abjure his former profession: But if of a Protestant, you should become a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, Quaker, or of any other of our Societies, you are never looked upon to be a jot the worse for it; we are not a whit scandalised at such changes, which we daily see; and it is an unspeakable blessing, with what Accord, Unity, and Charity, you may see at our Liturgy and Communion, the Protestant, Presbyterian Anabaptist, Socinian and Huguenot, all praising the Lord in One Congregation in our Church none bid out of the Church, none Excommunicated, no previous abjuration required of their former Tenets; and there's nothing more frequent among us than to go to the Protestant Liturgy in the Morning, in the Evening to the Presbyterian, especially if our Interest or Convenience requires it. Can there be a more convincing Proof that we esteem it all alike what Religion and Tenets we profess? Let a Lutheran go to France; Alas! he will never stick to go to the Hugonots meeting and Service; let a Protestant go to Germany, he will go as cheerfully to the Lutheran Church, as in England to the Protestant: Let a Huguenot or Presbyterian go to Hungary, or Poland, he is welcome to the Trinitarians, and Socinians; and when any of them returns home he will be as before.  
Is this Doctrine by the Testimony of any of our Synods? Did any teach that we may with a safe Conscience change our Religion.  
Yes, I can produce one: The Synod of Charent on in France; held about the Year 1634. expressly says, That for our Salvation it's all alike whether you be a Calvinist, Lutheran, or of any other Congregation of the Reformed; because, says this venerable Synod, they all agree in Fundamental Points, and the Lutherans have nothing of Superstition or Idolatry in their manner of Divine Worship. Change then as often as you list; be a Lutheran, be a Presbyterian, be an Anabaptist; by the mouth of this Synod you are assured you'll never miss to hitright. And I pray can any Synod of our times have more Authority in point of Doctrine than Luther our first Reformer, a man extraordinarily raised by God, (says the Synod of Charrenton,) and replenished with his spirit to repair the ruins of his Church, 
In parva Confess. Germ. fol 55. & in Col. log fol 100  He Teaches the Elevation of the Sacrament is Idolatry, that he did practise it, and commanded it should be practised in the Church of Wittenberg to spite the Devil Carolostadius: Giving you to understand, that for just reasons, you may teach now our Religion, than another. Zuinglius also, whose virtue and learning is known to the World, says, 
To. 2. fol. 202.  That God inspired him to Preach what Doctrine was suitable to the times; which as it often changes, you may often change your Doctrine: And consider you if it be not therefore that Christ our Lord says his Yoke is easy, and his burden light, (that is Religion) because we can withdraw our Necks from it, as time and just reason requires.  
What greater Authority has a Synod of England, to prove a Doctrine to be of the Reformation, than a Synod of France which I have produced? or than Luther and Zuinlius our first Reformers, inspired by God, to teach us the purity of the Gospel? Was it not from Luther and Zuinglius, that England received the Reformation? and if England can be so bold as to say they reed in this, what assurance can we have, that they erred not in the rest? But since nothing will please you but a Synod of England, you shall have not one, but many. Can there be any Synod of England of so great Authority as our wise and prudent Parliament? Read our Chronicles and you'll sinned that in a few years' time, they changed and established different Religions by public Acts of Parliament: In Henry the VIIIs. Reign they Voted for Popery, and made Acts and Statutes against the Reformation; in Edward the VI's. time they banished Popery and voted for Zuinglianism; in Queen Mary's they pulled down this, and set up Popery again; in Queen Elizabeth's, they decried this, and set up not Zuinglianism, but Protestancy; in the midst of her Reign, they polished this, and added some new perfections to it; In King James, and succeeding Kings times, Protestancy was of a different stamp from that of Queen Elizabeth's: Hear Dove in his Exhort. to the English Recusants, An. 1603. Page. 31, Edward the VI had his Liturgy, which was very good, but condemned it, and brought in another Composed by Peter Martyr: In Elizabeth' s time, that was condemned, and another approved; and in the middle of her Reign, her Liturgy was also misliked, and a new one introduced; we are so wanton that nothing will content us but Novelties.  
Dove does not commend this Doctrine, for he calls that frequent exchange of Religion, Wantonness, and Love of Novelties.  
It's no great matter what he says of it; my drift is but to convince you that this is the Doctrine, and practice of the best Member of our Reformation, even of England; and if you be convinced it's the Doctrine of Reformation, you cannot deny but that it is good Doctrine, through Dove calls it Wantonness.  
Some of the Reformed says, We are bound to have Faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the World. This is the substance of Christian Religion, be an Arian, be a Presbyterian, a Socinian, or what you please, be also plunged up to the ears in wickedness of Life and Manners, so you have Faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Redeemer of the World, and live in Charity, you will be a Member of the true Church, and be saved. Do not imagine this is any new Doctrine invented by me; search the vulgar sort of our Reformed Brethren, you shall get thousands of this Opinion in our Realm; search the Books of our Learned Doctors, you shall find it in them also. Doctor Morton in his much applauded Book, Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, for which he deserved a Bishopric, says, The Arian Church is to be esteemed a true Church, 
The Kingdom of Esra. pag. 9  because they hold the true substance of Chiristian Religion, which is Faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Redeemer of the World: And again in the same place. Sect. 4. whose Title is, Heretics are Members of the Church. Therefore John Fox, Dr. Field, and Illiricus, 
Acts & mon. pag. 36. lib. 3. c. 5. g. Catal. testium. p. 976. & 978.  say the Greek Church, notwithstanding their error in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost, from the Son, are holy Members of the true Church, because they have Faith in Jesus Christ.  
For what is the Doctrine of the Reformation, but as we have said in our Principles, Scripture as Interpreted by any Man of sound judgement in the Church? and were not Doctor Morton, Fox, Field, and Illiricus, Men of sound judgement, eminent for Learning and Godliness? If therefore this be Scripture, as Interpreted by them, how can you deny it to be the Doctrine of the Reformation,  
And what Jesus Christ are we obliged to believe in? For Jesus Christ, as believed by the Arrians, Socinians, Luther and Calvin, is far different from Jesus Christ, as commonly believed by the Protestants, and Popish Church; we believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, of one and the same substance and nature with the Father; they believe in a Jesus Christ Son of God, but of a distinct and different nature.  
Pish! That's but a Nicety; believe what you please, and what you understand by Scripture to be true, and have Charity.  
Let us ask the Reformers what Rule of Faith we must observe.  
Protestants will say, that Scripture and Apostolical Tradition; but Protestants say of Papists, and Presbyterians, and Anabaptists say of Protestants, that many humane Inventions are obtruded upon us as Apostolical Traditions; that we have no way to discern the one from the other, and consequently Tradition, as being an unknown thing unto us, cannot be our Rule; others will say, that Scripture, and the indubitable consequence of it, is our Rule, all will grant this; but then enters the controversy, if the consequences of Lutherans be such, and if the consequences of Presbyterans be indubitable consequences out of Scripture, and each Congregation will say, that their peculiar Tenets are indubitable consequences out of Scripture, and the rest must allow it to be of the Reformation; Others will say that Scripture, and the four first Councils with the Apostles, and Athanasius' Creed are our Rule of Faith; but most of the Assembly will no more admit the four first, than the subsequent Councils, nor Athanasius' Creed, more than that of Trent, nor will the Quakers, Socinians, and others value the Apostles Creed.  
But there is none of all the Assembly, who will not admit Scripture, to be a sacred and full Rule of Faith, because it's replenished with divine Light, and all Heavenly instruction necessary for our salvation: And such as add, as a part of our Rule of Faith, the Apostles or Athanasius Creed, or the four first general Councils, will confess that all they contain, is expressed in Gods written Word, and are but a plainer, or more distinct expression or declaration of the Contents of Scripture.  
I have been often present at several discourses of Protestants with Papists, and never could I hear a Protestant make, Councils, Tradition, or any thing else, the Test of their discourse, but only Scripture; not but that I could hear them say and pretend in their discourses, that Apostolical Tradition, and the four first Councils were for them against Popery; but still their main strength and ultimate refuge was Scripture; for whenever they harp upon that string of Tradition and Councils; the Papists are visibly to hard for them, and then they run to Scripture, than which there is no plus ultra. I have been also often at several discourses betwixt Protestants, Presbyterians, and our Brethren of other Congregations, I have observed that the Protestant, for to defend his Liturgy, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and her Episcopacy against the others could never defend himself by Scripture alone, but placed his main strength in Tradition, Primitive Councils, and ancient Fathers, all which the other rejected and reproached the Protestants with Popery.  
For it's certain, Lutherans will not admit Scripture as Interpreted by Protestants, but as Interpreted by themselves; and so of each other Congregation.  
Nor was it only Luther and Calvin spoke thus, but all our blessed Reformers; and why? because our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as interpreted by the Church of England, (France will not admit it,) nor as Interpreted by the Quaker, (the Anabaptists, and Independents, will not hear it) nor as interpreted by Luther, (Calvin rejects it) nor as interpreted by Calvin, (Thorndike and Bramhall will not yield to it,) nor will Stillingfleet stand to their Interpretation; nor others to that of Stillingfleet. Finally our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as interpreted by any, but as each Congregation, Synod, particular Doctor, or Man of sound judgement interprets it, and consequently what ever Doctrine any man of sound judgement Interprets it, judges to be of Scripture, is to be esteemed the Doctrine of the Reformation; and you may safely believe it, if you like it, and remain still as truly a Reformed Child, as the proudest Protestant of England.  
The Rule of Faith is Scripture, as any particular Doctor of person of sound Judgement understands it?  
Behold how convincingly; first we have heard Luther quoted, but now say, We receive nothing but Scripture, but so as that we must have some Authority to Interpret it: Hear him again; 
d In Colloq. mensal. fol. 118.  The Governors and Pastors have Power to teach, but the sheep must give their judgement, 
f In Defence. Art Reliq. Protest. pag. 199.  whether they propose the Voice of Christ, or of strangers. And again, 
e To. Wittem. fol. 374.  Christ has taken from the Bishops, Councils, and Pastors, the right of Doctrine; and given it to all Christians in general; and the Rule is Scripture as each one will think fit to interpret it. And in consequent to this, we have heard him say above, I will be free and will not submit to Doctors, Councils, or Pastors, but will teach whatever I think to be true. Barlow, The Apostles have given to each particular Man, the right and power of Interpreting, and judging by his inward spirit what is true; it is needless that any Man, or Angel, Pope, or Council, should instruct you, the spirit working in the Heart and Scripture are to each particular Person most assured Interpreters. Bilson Bishop of Winchester, says the same, 
g In his true difier. par. 2. pag. 353.  The people must be discerners and judges of what is taught. Our Religion has no other rule of Faith (says our French Reformation by the mouth of Du Moulin, 
h Boucler de lay Foy.  Drelincourt, and the holy Synod of Charenton) but the written Word of God, as Interpreted by us.  
It matters not so much for you to know what I approve or condemn; but to know what the Doctrine of the Reformation is; It is this; That none can Teach, Preach, Administer Sacraments, or Exercise Ecclesiastical Functions, if he be not in Holy Orders, Bishop, Priest, or Deacon; for the Church of England teaches it, and you may believe it if you please. You may also deny it and say, any Woman or Tradesmen has as much power to Preach and administer the Sacraments, as the ablest Bishop in England: This also is the Doctrine of the Reformation as well as the former, because Quakers, Presbyterians, Brownists, Anabaptists, etc. Believe and Teach this, and they are men of as sound judgements, and as good Reformers as the Protestants; nay, the most learned of our Reformaers allow Women a right to exercise Spiritual Functions, and Administer the Sacraments, Samaise, Peter Martyr, 
In lib ad Corin c. 11. in Explan. Art 17. To. 2. de minist. Eccles. instit. fol. 369 lib. de Cap. Babil. c. de Ordin & lib. de abroganda Missa.  and Zuinlius, expressly defend the Priesthood as well of Women as Men: And Luther proves it strongly The first Office of a Priest, says he, is to Preach; this is common to all, even Women; the second to Baptise, which is also common to Women; the third is to Consecrate Bread and Wine, and this also is common to all, as well as to Men: and in the absence of a Priest, a Woman may Absolve from Sins as well as the Pope, because the words of Christ, Whatever ye shall untie on Earth shall be untied in Heaven, were sad to all Christians.  
And when so eminent Men had not said it, Reason and Scripture convinces it; Reason, because that our Rule of Faith being Scripture, as each Person of sound judgement understands it; many Women undoubtedly are of sound judgement, and why should not their Interpretation of Scripture pass for the Doctrine of the Reformation, as well as that of our Bishops and Ministers? Scripture, because we read, the Samariatan Woman was the first who preached the Messiah to the City of Samaria, and Christ commanded Mary Magdalen to go to Preach his Resurrection to his Disciples; and we know by our Chronicles, that our glorious Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory, did not only govern the state, but was a great Apostoless in Church affairs.  
To what purpose then, have we Bishops and Ministers, who enjoy so vast Revenues, if any Man or Women can Preach and Administer the Sacraments as well as they?  
You may believe Bishops and Ministers are very needful for the service of the Church; for they being commonly learned witty Men, and having Wives, they come to instruct Wives so well, that the good Women come in a short time to be as learned as their Husbands, and as nimble and quick in the Ecclesiastical Ministry, as if they were permitted to exercise it; as some Authors of Credit relate unto us, that a Gentleman of Constance, writ to his friend in a Village, (about three Leagues distant from that City,) whose Inhabitants were for the most part of our Lutheran Reformation; the good Pastor exhorted his Flock to prepare for Easter Communion, that none should presume to come to the Holy Table, but should first Confess and receive Absolution of his Sins; Easter Holy days being come, such a multitude flocked to Confession, that the Pastor could not satisfy the Devotion of so great a Crowd; he called his Wife to help him to hear Confessions, and to give them Absolution, in which Ministry the good Lady did Labour with great satisfaction of the Penitents; but neither the Pastor nor his virtuous Consort being able to dispatch so great a multitude, he called his Maid Servant, who did work in the Holy Ministry with as much expedition as her Master. For after all, the Church of Scotland, France, and all England, (Protestant's excepted,) will tell you that Bishops and Ministers are not needful, nay, that they are very prejudicial to the Reformation and State; To the Reformation, because this Hierarchy was the Bishop's Court, Surplices, Corner Caps, and other Trumperies, puts the flock in mind of Popery, whereof it's a perfect Resemblance;  
I remember a discourse started in the House of Lords, not many years ago, by his Grace the Duke of Buckingham he desired to know, what it was to be a Protestant; and wherein did Protestancy properly consist? The Bishops, who were present, looked one upon another, and whether they feared the difficulty of the Question or that for modesty's sake, each expected to hear another speak first, they stood silent for a while; at last the Ice was broken by one, others followed but hardly any two agreed; and all that the Duke could gather out of their ●…al Answers, was, That our Rule of ●aith was Scripture, as Interpreted by the Parliament and Church of England: Whereupon he concluded, We have been these hundred years very busy to settle Religion, and for aught I perceive, we are as unsettled now as at the Beginning: And truly he had great reason, if Religion and Faith be nothing else, but that sense of Scriptuure which each person of sound judgement understands; for as it is impossible we should jump and agree in one sense and meaning of the Text, so it is impossible we shall ever be settled and agree in Religion.  
Episcopacy is against the Presbyterians, some Canonical Books against the Lutherans, Supermacy against the Quakers, and Infant-Baptism against the Anabaptists; and yet you own them as your Brethren and Godly Congregations of the Reformation; or if you will deny them, they will also scorn you, and say they are more of the Reformation than you are? and will you not own the Arians, etc. for your Brethren, though you believe the Trinity against them? You say they are old condemned Heretics, and does this Language become a Child of the Reformed Church? By whom where they Condemned? Was it not by the Popish Church? That also condemns us, and says we are as much Heretics as they; and as we ought not to be so called, and judge the Pope and Councils Sentence against us, to be bold, uncharitable, and unjust; so we must say of the Arians, Pelagians, and others condemned by them. You say Protestants will never own them to be their Brethren; God forbidden the Protestant Church should be so uncharitable to her fellow Christians, and so unjust to themselves. B. Morton as learned a Man as the Church of England bred, says the Arian Church is a true Church, and will say no less of the others: But what need we the Testimony of any, for what Reason so convicingly proves? They who talk by one and the same Rule of Faith, are of one and the same Religion; therefore Lutherans, Protestants, Presbyterians and Independants, do esteem themselves to be of the same Faith and Religion, because they all have the same Rule, which is Scripture, as each Congregation understands it: Also, notwithstanding the difference and variety of Congregations in Popery, they hold all but one Faith, as they say; because they have but one Rule of their Belief, which is their Infallible Pope and Church: But it is evident, that those which you call Ancient condemned Heretics, have one and the same Rule of Faith with our Reformation; for ours is Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it, without any obligation of holding the sense of it delivered by Pope, Church, Councils, or any other; therefore our first blessed Reformers did not care what sense of it the Church or Pope did hold, when they began to Preach the purity of the Gospel, but each of them Interpreted it as he thought fit in the Lord, and so purged the Church of many Errors: This is the very selfsame Rule of Faith, which Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, and others, premptorily condemned by Rome as Heretics, did follow and walk by: Each of them Read and Interpreted Scripture, Preached and Believed what sense of it they thought to be true, though they knew it was against the Doctrine of the Church, looking on Scripture alone as their Rule of Faith, without any regard of the Pope, Church, Councils, or Fathers.  
Again he says, Epist. 2 ad Polon. in Tract. Theol. pag. 796: That Prayer, Holy Trinity, one God have mercy of us, is Barbarous, and does not please me. And adds 
f In Act. Sieveti pag. 87. 1.  The Son has his own Substance distinct from the Father. His Disciple 
g con. Cenebrard.  Danaeus, says, it is foolish insipid Prayer: And our great Apostle Luther, (who as Fox witnesseth, was the Chariot and Conductor of Israel, and a Man extraordinarily raised and replenished with God's spirit, to teach the purity of the Gospel,) caused that Prayer to be blotted out of the Litanies, 
h In Postil Major. in enarat. Evang. Domin. Trinit.  That word Trinity says he, sounds coldly; my Soul hates that word Homoousios, and the Arrian did well in not admitting at. Lastly, Ochinus that great Oracle of England, impugns this Mystery with a strong discourse: 
i Lib. 2. Dial. 2.  We are not obliged to believe, says he, more than the Saints of the Ancient Testament, otherwise our condition would be worse than theirs, but they were not obliged to believe this Mystery, therefore we are not obliged. Examine, I pray, the works of these eminent Doctors, where I quote them; consider if they be, not only Men of sound judgement, but Men extraordinarly raised by God, (says the Synod of Charenton;) the Chariots and Conductors of Israel, says Fox: Men to be reverenced after Christ, says our Doctor Powel, and Apostolical Oracles sent to teach us the purity of the Gospel, and conclude, it is an undeniable Verity, that this is the Doctrine of the Reformation, whereas its Scripture, as Interpreted by such Men: Oh! But England, France, and Scotland, believe this Mystery. Well! and what then? That proves that the Mystery is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, because whatever any man of sound judgement thinks to be Scripture, it is the Doctrine. But is England or France alone the whole Reformation? Are not Luther Calvin, Danaeus, Ochinus, as well of the Reformation, and men of as sound judgement as they? Since therefore they understand by Scripture there is no Trinity, it is the Doctrine of the Reformation also that there's none: Believer it or deny it, which you like best, and you'll be still of the Reformed Church.  
Scripture, as each person of sound judgement interprets it, is our Rule of Faith: judge you, if that be not a good Principle in our Reformed Church, whereas this is the Rule of Faith given us by all our Doctors, as I proved before, this being our Rule of Faith and Reformed Doctrine, it is evident, that whatever Doctrine is judged by any person of sound Judgement to be contained in Scripture, is the Doctrine of our Reformation; others say only Figurative Presence is taught in Scripture, this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation; some understand by Scripture; there is Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, this therefore is the Doctrine of the Reformation: others understand there is no such Mystery, this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation. so that whether you believe or deny this or any other Tenet controverted, you'll still hold the Doctrine of the Reformation.  
Calvin 
k Harm. in Evang. Mat. c. 26. vers. 39 and c. 27. vers. 46, & lib. 2. Infrit. c. 16. sect. 10. & 11.  says, Christ prayed unadvisedly the Eve of his Passion; that he uttered Words whereof he was afterward sorry: that in his passion he was so troubled of all sides, that overwhelmed with desperation, he defisted from invoking God, which was to renounce all hopes of Salvation; And says he, 
l In Luk. par 2 hom. 65. and in John hom. 54.  if you object it is absurd and scandalous to affirm Christ despaired, I answer, 
p To. 3. Wettemp. in sp. 16.  This Desperation proceeded from him as he was man, 
q In Ps. 16  not as he was God. 
r In Confess. majori de Coena Dni.  And this is not only the Doctrine of Calvin, but of Brentius, 
m In March. c. 16.  Marlot, 
n Recogn pag. 376.  Jacobus, Minister (quoted by Bilson) and of Beza. Will you say this is the Doctrine of the Reformation, or that we cannot without scruple believe it? Also Calvin says, 
o Lib 2. Infr. c. 16. fact. 10. and seq.  That Christ's corporal Death was not sufficient for to redeem us, but that after having despaired on the Cross, he suffered the death of his Soul; that's to say, that his Soul after his corporal death, suffered the pains of the damned in Hell. 
m in March. c. 16.  And says he in the same place, 
n Recogn pag. 376.  they are but ignorant, 
o Lib 2. Instit. c. 16. fact. 10. and seq.  doltish, brutish men, who will deny it. Luther also teaches the same Doctrine: 
r In Confess. majori de Coena Dni.  
p To. 3. Wettemp. in sp. 16.  As he suffered afterward the death of the Soul in Hell: Epinus 
q In Ps. 16  a learned Lutheran, says, Christ Descended into Hell for thee, 
t In Hastor. Sacram. par. 2. fol. 75.  and suffered not only corporal Death, but the death and fire of Hell. Mr. Fulk and Perkins avow this is also is the express Doctrine of Illirious, Latimer and Lossius. Also Luther most impiously affirms, that not the humane Nature of Christ died for us, but also his Divine Nature: see Luther's words quoted at large by Zuinglius, 
s To. 2. in respons. ad Confess. Luth. fol. 458.  and Hospitian. It is evident that all those Tenets are undeniably the Doctrine of the Reformation.  
He who denies them, cannot in charity check them who believes them, nor can they who believe them, check those who deny them, whereas each follow the Rule of Faith, and believe what they judge by Scripture to be true. And if you or your Church of England cry out Blasphemy, Blasphemy, against all that you judge to be false, why do not you cry Blasphemy against Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other Congregations, from whom you descent? And what difference betwixt you and the Church of Rome? The folly of this is to call Heresy and Blasphemy, all that is not her own Doctrine! And all that your Church of England mislikes, must be Fanaticism, Blasphemy, and Impiety? Must our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as the Church of England understands it, and not otherwise? Presbyterians, and Lutherans, will never allow it: If therefore our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each Person understands it; any Person of sound judgement in the Reformation, may without scruple believe what he understands to be the Doctrine of Scripture.  
Can you deny but this was the Rule of Faith, and principle of our first blessed Reformers?  
If therefore they judged, and if any other judges by that Rule and Principle, that those Tenets which you call Impious and Blasphemous, be true Doctrine, they cannot be blamed for believing them.  
Of the Reformed was as Holy, Innocent, Blameless and Pure as yours is now. And that you may be convinced of this Truth, know Calvin expressly teaches 
a Lib 3. Inst. c. 4. Sect. 28.  We believe the sins of the Faithful, (he means of the Reformation) are but venial Sins; not but that they desire Death, but because there is no damnation for the Children of Grace, in as much as their sins are not imputed to them: And again he says, We can 
b Lib. 4. c. 7. Sect. 2.  assure ourselves, we can no more be damned for any Sins, than Jesus Christ himself. 
c In locis common. class. 5. 27.  Luther is of the Opinion, As nothing but Faith does justify us, so nothing but Incredulity is a Sin. Again, 
d To. 2. Wittem. de capr. Babyl. fol. 74.  No sin is so great that it can damn a man, such as are damned, are damned only for their Incredulity Whitaker, 
e De Eccl. contr Bellarm. conf. 2. quaest. 5.  No Sin can hurt a man who has Faith. The same is taught by Wotton, Fulk, Tindal, and Beza. It is therefore the Doctrine of Scripture, as Interpreted by these persons of great and sound judgement, that Incests, Murders, Intemperance or whatever else you call a sin, (incredulity excepted,) either is no Sin at all, or Venial Sins, which do no harm, nor cannot damn the Children of the Reformation; if therefore our Brethren who lived in the beginning of the Reformation, lived according to Scripture, as Interpreted by men of sound judgement, which is the Rule of Faith and Manners, they did not ill, but very well, in following it.  
And it is not pardonable in any Reformed Child to say, such Oracles Extraordinarily raised by God to teach the purity of the Gospel, should have taught their errors in Doctrine, or dissolution of manners. They teach what in their Consciences they understood by Scripture to be true; if you will not be so irreverent as to say, that they were Knaves, who spoke and taught against their Consciences and knowledge. Therefore they taught the Doctrine of the Reformation, purely and truly: The consequence is evident: For what is the Doctrine of the Reformation, but what wise, learned men of sound judgement think and understand by Scripture to be true? Why is figurative Presence the Doctrine of the Reformation? though denied by Lutherans, (who are Reform also,) but because Wise, Learned men judge by Scripture as they understand it, it is the true Doctrine? or can you give me any other Rule of Faith by which we may know what Doctrine is of the Reformation, and what not, but Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it? Or what Rule can you give for to know what is good or evil to be done, but Scripture, as understood by such persons? If therefore Luther Calvin, and the other Doctors I quoted, judge by Scripture that Doctrine and manner of Life to be true and good, why may not we say it's the Doctrine of England or Scotland, judge that Doctrine to be false, and that manner of Life to be a dissolution and corruption of manners: Why? you are men of sound judgement, you understand Sripture so; that will be the Doctrine also of the Reformation, you may believe it: But you must not deny that Luther and Calvin's Doctrine is also of the Reformation, because they were men of as sound judgement as you.  
Our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it, and this is the same Rule which Luther and the Reformation in its first beginning had: This Holy Liberty is the best Jewel, the greatest Perfection, and most glorious Prerogative the Reformation has: If therefore now at present any man judges by Scripture, that he can Marry ten Wives at a time; that he can kill his own Son, as Abraham intended; that he may commit Incest with his own Daughter, as Lot did; that there is no Sin but Incredulity, as Luther believed; nor any Mystery of the Trinity of Persons in One Nature, as Calvin believed, with what justice can the Church of England say such a man does not believe, and live as becometh a Reformed Child, or that his Doctrine and Life is scandalous; whereas he lives and believes as he understands by Scripture, which is the Rule of Faith in common to the Reformation: The Church of England says, the Lutheran Doctrine of the Real Presence is not the Doctrine of Scripture; that the Presbyterian Doctrine against Infant-Baptism, is not of Scripture. Because they follow Scripture as they understand it and this is our Rule of Faith? And why will not you say, the Belief and Life of that other man is also of the Reformation, though it may seem absurd to you; since he believes and lives as he judges by Scripture he may? It follows therefore plainly, that this is the Doctrine of the Reformation.  
The Rule of Faith is Scriputre, as each person of sound judgement understands it.  

f Epist. 2. 2. & 25.  Beza teaches, (and says it's also the Doctrine of Calvin, Somaize, and Geneva,) that the Lords Supper may be lawfully administered in any kind of victuals as well as in Bread and Wine, in Eggs, Flesh, Fish, etc. Where there is no Bread and Wine, says he, we may duly celebrate, if instead of them we use what we may usually eat and drink. And again in the same place, If there be no water at hand, and that Baptism cannot be with Edification deferred,: I would baptise in any other liquor.  

g To. 5. Wittem. serm. de Matrim. & in 1. ad Corin. 7.  Luther, 
h Consil. Theol. par. 1. pag. 648. & 134. In  Melanothon, 
i Epist. Paul ad Phil. & in 2. ad Tim. 3  Musoulus,, 
k lib. 2. Dial. 21  Ochinus, 
l Lib. de Repud. & Divort. p. 223.  Beza, and others, teach the lawfulness of Bigamy or Multiplicity of Wives, and prove it from the example of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: and Ochinius expounding the Text of Saint Paul, It behoveth a Bishop to be a Man of one Wife: The prohibition, says he, is not to be understood so, that a Bishop should have but one Wife at a time, for certainly he may have many; but St. Paul's meaning is, that he ought not to have too many Wives at a time, that's to say, ten or twenty.  
The Synod of Geneva, 
m Canon. Generales Geneven. 1560.  and the 
n Chap. 13. art 31.  Ecclesiastical Discipline of France, Printed at Saumure, has decreed, that a Wife, whose Husband is a long time absent may have him called by the public Crier, 
o To. 5 Wittem, serm. de Matrim.  and if within a competent time he does not appear, without any further Enquiry, the Ministers may Licence her to marry any other; or marry her himself.  
I say all Women may practise this Doctrine without scruple or shame, whereas it is Scripture as interpreted by that thrice holy Synod.  
Luther p teaches, it is lawful to a Wife, if her Husband does not please her, to call her Manservant, or her Neighbour; and he gives the like Liberty to the Husbands, if their Wives be pettish or humoursom. If the Husband, says he, cannot correct the humoursomness of his Wife, he may imagine she is dead, and may marry another, because it's not in the power of a man to live without a Woman, nor in hers to live without a man.  
This is Scripture as Interpreted by Luther, and consequently must not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Reformation; nor can any of our Reformation be justly punished or blamed for practising it, if he judges by Scripture, (as Luther did) for this is our Rule of Faith. But Luther never gave this Liberty, but upon condition, that the Husband or Wife should first make their complaint before a Magistrate, to have a redress of their Injury and discontent.  
Not only Luther, but 
q To. 5. Wittemb. serm. de Matrim.  Bucer, 
r In Scriptis Anglic. de Reg. Chr. l. 2. c. 26. & in Matth. c. 19  Melanothon 
s In Consil. Theol. par. 1 pag. 648. s. & 134.  Ochinus, 
t Dial. 200. & 204. in Epist. S. Paul ad Tim. 3.  Musculus and 
u l. 4. Inst c. 19 sect. 37. Discip. Eccl. c. 13. u Serm. de Matrim.  Calvin, do teach, that a Man who finds his Wife in Adultery may cast her off by Divorce, and Mary another; and our French Synods have ordered this Doctrine to be put in their Ecclesiastical Discipline, so that it is the Doctrine of Scripture, as interpreted by these persons of sound judgement, and consequently of the Reformation; you may therefore believe and practise it; our Sisters, particularly and our Ministers Wives, were much alarmed at this Doctrine, and say it is a damnable Heresy.  
Luther says it is impossible a u young man of 20 Years can live without a Woman; or a young maid of 18 years without a man.  
It is the Reformed Doctrine: Scripture as interpreted by a sounnd judgement,  
If a Popish Priest, or a Friar, did become of our Reformed Church, can he lawfully marry, whereas he made a Vow of Chastity?  
It's the Doctrine of the Reformation, declared by many French Synods, and recorded in their Ecclesiastical Discipline, that he must be Christened again, because the first Baptism is sufficient and valid: believe which you please. It is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that Infant- Baptism is not at all needful (nay nor Lawful say the Anabaptists) so says Calvin 
x Lib. 4● Inst. c. 15. sect. 20. & 21.  Zuinglius, Beza, and many others; it is likewise the Doctrine of our 39 Articles, 
y Act. 27.  and our holy Synod of London 
z can. 21.  that Infant-Baptism is Lawful and needful. Believe which you like best; both are of the Reformation.  
We know our great Zuinglius himself would not at all preach the Gospel unto the Swissers, until that he Presented a Petition for himself and his COmpanions (all Priests and Friars) extant yet in his 1 Tom. pag. 110. and obtained the COntents of it, which was to have Wives. Nor can we doubt this to be the best Doctrine, whereas Luther, Beza, and almost all our Reformers were Priests and Friars, and the first step they gave to the Reformation was to marry. At Luther's marriage, Erasmus his Raillery upon it is much solemnised; Luther yesterday a Monk, to day a Husband, and next day a Father, because that honest Kate Bore, his virtuous Bride, was happily delivered of a lovely Boy eight days after he Married her: But the Servant of God did not regret the action, which proves that he judged by Scripture it was very lawful.  
It is the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it was Jesus Christ the Son of God who established the Church, you may believe it therefore: It's also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it was not Jesus Christ the Son of God who established the Church; that this is the Doctrine of our Reformation is apparent, for it is Scripture as Interpreted by Ochinius a Man of sound judgement, whom all Italy could not match, says Calvin; In whose presence England was happy, and unhappy in his absence, says B. Bale: Ochinus speaks thus, 
a In Prefat Dialog.  Considering how the Church was established by Christ, and washed with his Blood; and considering again how it was utterly overthrown by the Papacy; I concluded that he who established it, could not be Christ the Son of God, because he wanted providence; and upon this reflection he renounced Christ and became a Jew. And no man can say but that he acted and behaved himself like a true Child of the Reformation in so doing, for he followed Scripture as he understood it; and as he was a true Reformed Child in forsaking Popery, because he understood by Scripture that the Reformation was better; so since he understood by reading Scripture more, that Judaisme was better than the Reformation, he acted like a good Reformer, in choosing that which he understood by Scripture to be best; this is the Reformers Rule of Faith.  
And if one choose to believe that there is a Church established of Earth by Christ, you must beware never to persuade yourself we are bound to believe her Doctrine, or live in her, if you do not judge by Scripture that she teaches the Doctrine of Christ: This is the most essential point of Popery, an obligation of submitting our judgements to the Church, and believing her Doctrine without any more examining, and in this the Church of England is much like the Popish Church, which by Acts of Parliaments and other severities would oblige all men to believe her Doctrine, Rites, and Ceremonies: No, God has given us Scripture for our Rule of Faith, as we forsook the Popish Church, because we discovered by Scripture her many errors in Doctrine; so we are not bound to believe the Doctrine of any other Church, but as we find by Scripture her Doctrine is true. Do, and speak as Luther to 1. Edit. Jen. in result. I will be free, and will not submit to the Authority of Councils, Popes, Church or University; to the contrary, I will confidently teach whatever I judge to be true; whether it be the Catholic Doctrine or Heretical; condemned or approved.  
Must I own and believe, that the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, delivered to his Apostles and the Church is true Doctrine?  
The Reformation teaches, it is, and you may safely believe it: You may as safely believe it is not after the principles of the Reformation; because it teaches the Christ erred in Doctrine and Manners: Verè Pharisaei erant viri valdè boni, says Luther; 
b Serm de 50 Artic. in summa summarum.  & Christus minimè debuit eos taxare: and Calvin says, 
c In Harm super Luc c. 8.  it's a folly to think he was not ignorant in many things; lastly, David George, 
d Epitome. Cent. 16. par. 2.  (a man of God and of a holy life, says Osiander) writes, If the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted had continued, but now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subverted it, as it is evident in the Papacy: therefore it was false and imperfect. See these words quoted in the History of David George, Printed by the Divines of Basil, at Antwerp, Anno 1668. both Doctrines are Scripture, as Interpreted by Men of sound judgement; and so a Child of the Reformation, may believe which he will,  
Zninglius, 
e Tom. 2. cont. catabapt. fol. 10.  one of the greatest Oracles of our Church says, It's a great ignorance to believe any Infallinble Authority in the Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles; Beza, not inferior to Zuinglius, blotted out of St. John the History of the Woman Adultress, judging it a Fable; Clebitius affirms, that Luke's relation of Christ's passion is not true, because it does not agree with that of Matthew and Mark, and more credit is to be given to two, than to one. 
g In cap. 2. ad Gal.  Calvin says, Peter consented to, and added to the Schism of the Church, to the overthrow of Christian liberty, and Christ's Grace. 
h de Eccles. count. Bellarm. cont. 2. q. 4.  Whitaker says, 
f Victoria verit. arg. 5.  It's evident that after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, the whole Church, even the Apostles erred; and Peter erred in Doctrine and Manners. 
i To. 5. Wettem. an. 1554. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1.  Luther, says Peter lived and taught extra Verbum Dei; and Brentius 
k In Apol Cof. c. de Concil.  his Disciples say, that Peter and Barnabas together with the Church of Jerusalem erred after receiving the Holy Ghost. If our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it, undoubtedly this must be the Doctrine of the Reformation, and may be believed by and any Reformed, since it is Scripture, interpreted by such renowned men.  
As to the true Canonical Books of Scripture.  
The Reformation teaches, and you may believe with the Church of England, that St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, those of James and Judas: the 2 of St. Peter; the 2. and 3 of St. John, are true Canonical Scripture; the Reformation also teaches they are not Canonical, because Lutherans deny them; believe which you like best.  
But if you'll live in peace, and out of strife with Protestants, Lutherans, and others, who dispute, whether that of this or that Church be Canonical Scripture; your readiest way will be, to say there's no true Canonical Scripture; Scripture is no more to be regarded than other pious Books: if you say this is not the Doctrine of the Reformation, read de expresso Verbo Dei, & lib. de Har. where he relates this to be the Doctrine of the Swinckfeldians, as good Reformers as the best of us: they say, that we are not to regard any Instruction from Man or Book, but God's immediate inspiration, which speaks secretly to our hearts; for which they allege those comfortable words of the Prophet, I will hear what my Lord my God will speak in me: for say they, the Book which we call Scripture, is a Creature, and we must not seek for light and instruction from any Creature, but from God the Father of Lights. This is Scripture as interpreted by men of sound judgement; any Child of the Reformation may believe it.  
It is the doctrine of the Reformation that you cannot, because God has forbid it, add to, and take away from his Word. It is also the doctrine of the Reformation, and the practice of our best Reformers, when the Text does not speak clear enough, that to refute Popery and establish our doctrine, we may add or diminish a word or two, which is not to change the Word of God, but to make it speak more expressly: as when Luther had a mind to preach justification by Faith alone, finding the Text said but, Man is justified by Faith, he added the word Alone and made the Text very clear against Popery, which formerly was somewhat obscure: Zuinglius being to teach the figurative presence of Christ in the Sacrament, found the Text, This is my Body, to be too pat against his doctrine, and instead of Is, put in This signifieth. The Church of England being to preach up the King's Spiritual Supremacy, could not convince the obstinate Papists by the Original Text, which said, 1 Pet. 2. submit yourselves anto every humane creature for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as excelling, or to, etc. But in King Edward's time they altered one word, and made the Text thus, submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man, whether it be to the King, as being the chief head, and the following impressions of the Bible, in the year 1557. and 79. say, To the King as Supreme. And so the true Doctrine is clearly made out from Scripture, as also the lawfulness of Priests Marriages; for the Text before the Reformation said 1 Cor. 9 Have we not power to lead about a woman or a sister; and now our Bible's say, Have we not power to lead about a Wife being our Sister: Hence it's evident according to the Doctrine and practice of our Reformation, that when you have a mind to establish a Doctrine which you judge to be true, you may change the Text and make it speak your sense and meaning, provided you judge your sense to be true.  
Does Faith alone justify us?  
It is the Doctrine of the Reformation, that without Charity it cannot, because St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 13. If I have Faith so as to move Mountains, and no Charity, I am nothing. It is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it is impious and wicked to say, Faith alone without Charity does not justify; this is Scripture as interpreted by Luther a Man of a sound judgement: 
l In cap. 2 ad Gal. & serm Aug. pag. 204.  Who say, quoth Luther that Faith alone, though perfect it be, cannot justify without Charity, say impiously and wicked, because Faith alone without any good works doth justify. Believe which Doctrine you please, both are of the Reformation.  
As to St. Paul's Doctrine, Luther answers, 
m In Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. & 2. & Tom. 5. Wittemb. an. 1554. fol. 29.  Be it, says he, that the Church, Augustine, or other Doctors, also Peter and Paul, nay, and an Angel from Heaven should teach otherwise than I teach, yet my doctrine is such, that it sets forth God's Glory; I know I teach no humane, but divine doctrine.  
It is the doctrine of the Reformation, that Faith alone, without any good Works, (notwithstanding all sins you are guilty of,) doth justify you: This is Scripture as Interpreted by Luther, who says, nothing can damn you but Incredulity, as nothing but Faith can save you; so Whitaker, Wotton, Fulk, and Beza, whose Words I related, which I believe you remember, and I need not repeat.  
It is also the doctrine of the Reformation, that Good Works are meritorious of Grace and Glory; 
n Lib. 5. de Eccl. Polit. sect. 72.  Hooker and Harmonia confess. 
o pag. 495. & 273  say it's the doctrine of Scripture; and what any person of sound judgement judges to be the doctrine of Scripture, he may believe it, for this is our Rule of Faith. It's likewise the doctrine generally of all our Church, that good Works are not at all meritorious: Tindal (called by Fox 
p Acts and Mon. pag. 514. , a man of God, and a constant Martyr) judges this to be so true, that in his Treatise de Mammona iniquitatis, he says, Christ himself did not by all his good works merit Glory: And though the Scripture says expressly he did, Calvin 
q Lib. 2. Inst. c. 17.  affirms that it is a foolish curiosity to examine, and a rash proposition to say Christ did Merit.  
It is the doctrine of the Reformation, that though good Works be not meritorious, nor have not the least influence in our Justification or Salvation, yet they are absolutely needful for both, in as much as true Faith cannot be without good Works, because they are the marks and signs of a living Faith, by which alone we are Saved; this is the judgement of the Church of England expressed in the 11 and 12 Articles of the 39, and of Melancthon in locis Commun. de Bonis operibus, and you may believe it: You may also believe, and it is the doctrine of the Reformation, that good works are so far from being needful, that they are prejudicial and hurtful to our Salvation, and the best way to be Saved, is to do no good Works at all; this is Scripture as Interpreted by Illyricus, Amarsdortius, quoted in Act. Colloq, Aldeburg. pag. 205. and 299. and Luther 
r In comment in cap. 2. ad Gal.  was deeply persuaded of this truth, though Christ said, If thou will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, keep the Commandments: Luther says, It is an obstacle to our Salvation to keep them; Where it is said, quoth he, that Faith in Christ doth indeed justify us, but that it is necessary also to keep the Commandments, there Christ is denied, and Faith abolished, because that which is proper to Faith alone is attributed to the Commandments. And again, 
f To 1 Proposit. 3.  says he, If Faith be accompanied with good Works, it is no true Faith; that it may justify it must be alone, without any good Works. This is Scripture as interpreted by such sound Men; and consequently the Doctrine of the Reformation; and who doubts but that any Doctrine of the Reformation may be believed. For our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it; and in believing those Tenets, because they judge them to be the Doctrine of Scripture they stick fast to, and follow our Rule of Faith: Why is the Figurative Presence, and the King's Supremancy, the Doctrine of the Reformation, though denied by Papists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians; but because the Protestants judge its the Doctrine of Scripture: If therefore those great Authors I quoted, and any other with them, judge those Tenets to be the Doctrine of Scripture, they may be justly called the Doctrine of the Reformation: Must Protestants be forced against their judgements to deny real Presence and Supremacy, because Lutherans say its wicked Doctrine. And why must Luther, Flaccius, Illiricus, and others be forced to deny those Tenets, though Protestants or Papists judge them to be damnable? Let each one believe what he thinks to be the Doctrine of Scripture, and he will still be a true Reformed Child.  
Does our Reformation teach that 'tis possible to all Men, assisted with God's Grace to keep the Commandments?  
This is the Doctrine of the Church of England, and consequently of the Reformation: It is also the Doctrine of the Reformation delivered out of Scripture, as Interpreted by Luther, Calvin, Willet, and several others, that it's impossible to any man assisted with what Grace soever to keep the Commandments. None has ever yet, says our great Calvin, and God has decreed none shall ever keep the Commandments. Again, 
u Harm. Evang. in Luc. c. 10. verse 26.  the Law and Commandments were given us to no other end, but that we should be damned by them; 
t Lib. 2. Instit. c. 7.5.  inasmuch, that it is impossible for Us to do what they Command. The same Doctrine is taught by Luther, in several places of his Works, by Willet 
x In Synop. Papismi pag. 564.  and by our Brethren the Gomarists of Holland, and many of our French Synods Believe which you please, both Doctrines are of the Reformation. It is also the Doctrine of Luther and Calvin, that God does not cast Men into Hell because their sins deserve it, nor save Men because they merit it, but merely because he will have it so:" He crowns those who have not deserved it; says Luther, 
y Lib. de Servo, Arbit. count. Erasm. 2. Lib. 3. Inst. c. 21. sect. 5. & 7. etc. 22. sect. 11. & cap. 13.1.  and he punishes those who have not deserved it; 'tis God's Wrath and Severity to damn the one, 'tis God's Grace and Mercy to save the other. Calvin also, z Men are damned for no other cause, but because God will have it so; he is the cause and Author of their Damnation; their Damnation is decreed by God when they are in their Mother's Womb, because he will have it so; this is also the belief of our Gomarists in Holland, of many French Churches, and of several learned Calvinists; though the Church of England denies this Doctrine, none will dare say it is not the Doctrine of the Reformation, because it is Scripture as Interpreted by such eminent men of our Church.  
The Church of England understands by Scripture, that God is not the Author nor cause of sin, that does not force us to sin; who doubts but that this is therefore the Doctrine of the Reformation? But Calvin, Brentius, Beza, and several others understand by Scripture, that God is the cause and Author which forces our Will to Sin; That Man, and the Devil, are but God's Instruments to commit it: That Murders, Incests, Blasphemies, etc. are the Works of God, that he makes us commit them: And who doubts but this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation, being Scripture, as Interpreted by such eminent and sound judgement? God says Calvin, 
a Lib. 2. Inst. c. 4. sect. 3. & lib. 1. c. 18. sect. 2. & lib. c. 23. sect. 4. Lo. 1. de deprovid. c. 6. in Synops. pag. 563. In manifest. stratag. Papist.  directs, moves, inclines and forces the Will of man to sin; insomuch that the power and efficacy of Working, is wholly in him; Man, nay, and Satan when he impells us, being only. God's Instruments which he uses to make us sin. Zuinglius, Willet, Beza, teach the same.  
The Church of England has Scripture for her Rule of Faith, and gives us the liberty to Interpret, Understand, and Believe some Text of it, as each one thinks best; and so permits Presbyterians to deny Episcopacy, Lutherans to deny Figurative Presence, etc. and confesses they are all her Brethren of the Reformation, but she will give no liberty at all to Interpret other Texts, but all must understand them as she does, or all must be Heretics and damned Men? No, that Text My Father and I are one, must be Interpreted to signify the Unity and Nature of the Father and Son, as the Church of England believes, none must interpret it otherwise: So that the difference betwixt the Popish Church and that of England, is, the first gives us no Liberty at all, the second gives us some Liberty, the first robs us of all; the second but of one half. The Rule of Faith in Popery is Scripture as Interpreted by the Pope and Councils; the Rule of Faith in the Church of England; as to some Articles is Scripture as Interpreted by the Church of England; and as to other Articles, Scripture as each person of sound judgement understands it, and thus Protestants are but half Papists, and half Reform.  
Let any unbyass'd and impartial man judge if the Church of England proceeds justly in this: For if our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it, and if as the whole Reformation believes, we are not to be constrained, to believe any Church, Council, or man's sense of Scripture, if we do not judge by the Word of God it's true, by what Authority, Rule, or Reason, can the Church of England give me Liberty to understand and believe some Texts as I please, and deny me Liberty to understand and believe others, as I judge by Scripture they ought to be understood? I pray observe well this Discourse; here are Luther, Calvin, Beza, Zuinglius, and our other first Reformers; they Interpret some Texts against the Doctrine of the Church of England. They are praised for the first, and esteemed Apostolical Reformers, because without any regard of what the Church of Rome said, they freely taught and believed what they judged by Scripture to be true; why must not they be praised and esteemed true Reformers also, for not regarding what the Church of England or any other says, but teach the impossibility of God's Commandments, the sufficiency of Faith alone, and all those other Tenets which you much mislike, since they judge by Scripture such to be true Doctrine? Are they bound to submit their judgements to the Church of England, more than to that of Rome?  
The Veneration and use of the Sign of the Cross is flat Popery in the judgement of all our Congregations; yet any Reformed Child may laudably and piously use it; inasmuch as our Common Prayer in the Administration of Baptism, Commands the Minister to use it, saying, We sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Chrst Crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner against Sin, the World and the Devil. And in our Calendar, printed since his Majesty's Restauration, it is called the Holy Cross.  
Our Congregations generally believe, it is Popery to keep holidays (except the Sabbath-day) and Saints-day; to Fast Lent, Vigils commanded, Ember-days and Fridays; and yet all this is recommended to us in our Common-Prayer-Book, and the Minister is commanded in the Administration of the Lords Supper, to publish the holidays of the Week, and exhort us to Fast; and surely, he is not commanded to teach, or exhort us to any thing, but the Doctrine of the Reformation: It is true, the Students of our Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, are much troubled with scruples in this point: these Pauperes de Lugduno, are compelled to fast all Fridays throughout the year; and it is not hunger that makes them complain, but tenderness of Conscience, because they fear it is Popery.  
It is a Popish Error, we say to believe that Penance, or other penal Works of Fasting, Almsdeeds or corporal Austerities, can avail and help for the Remission of our Sins, and satisfying God's Justice: No, we say, Penal Works serve for nothing, all is done by Repentance; that's to say, by sorrow of Heart for having offended God. This is the Doctrine of Daneus, Willet, Junius and Calvin, who say Francis, Dominick, Bernard, Anthony, and the rest of the Popish Monks and Friars are in Hell for their Austerities and Penal Works for all that, you may very well believe; and it's the Doctrine of the Reformation, that Penance and Penal Works do avail for the Remission of our sin, and are very profitable to the Soul; for, our Common-Prayer-Book in the Commination against sinners, says thus, In the Primitive Church, there was a Godly Discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such as were notorious sinners, were put to open Penance, and punished in this World, that their Souls may be saved in the day of the Lord. And our Common-Prayer Books wishes that this Discipline were restored again; and surely it does not wish that Popery were restored; therefore it is no Popery to say that Penance, or Penal Works, do satisfy for our sins in this World, and avail to save us in the other.  
I know many much mislike our Common-Prayer Book, for these Popish-Tenets; but what do you say of the grand Errors of Popery? can a man be a true Child of the Reformation, and yet believe the Pope's Supremacy? deny the King's Supremacy; believe Transubstantiation and Communion is one kind; are these Tenets the Doctrine of the Reformation, or consistent with its principles?  
The King's Supremacy is undoubtedly the Doctrine of the Reformation, because it is judged by the Church of England to be of Scripture, yet only the Quakers, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other Congregations judge it is not of Scripture, but as Erroneous a Tenet as that of the Pope's Supremacy; Calvin 6. Amos, says, They were unadvised people, and Blasphemers, who raised King Henry the VIII. so far as to call him the head of the Church; but also that no Civil Magistrate can be the head of any particular Church, the Doctrine of the Centurists, cent. sept. pag. 11. of Cartwright, Viret, Kemnitus, and many others; who doubts then but that in the principles and Doctrine of the Reformation, you may deny the King's Supremacy, though the Church of England believes it. The Pope's Supremacy is the Doctrine of Popery, who doubts it? but it is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, for many of our eminent Doctors have judged it to be the Doctrine of Scripture, as Whitgift 
a In Defence. etc. pag. 373. 70. & 395.  who citys Calvin and Musculus for this opinion; but it is needful we relate some of their express, words, I do not deny, says Luther, 
b In Respons. tredecem.  but the Bishop of Rome, is, has been, and aught to be first of all; I believe he is above all other Bishops, it is not lawful to deny his Supremacy, premacy: Melancthon 
c In Epist. ad Card. Bellay Episc. Parsiens.  says no less, that the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church, that it is his Office to govern, 
Propos  to judge in controversies, to watch over the Priests, to keep all Nations in conformity and unity of Doctrine: Somaize, 
d In Tract. Euchar. ad. p. Sarmunm.  The Pope of Rome has been without controversy the first Metropolitan in Italy, and not only in Italy, nor only in the West, but in all the World, the other Metropolitans have been chief in their respective districts, but the Pope of Rome has been Metropolitan and Primate, not only of some particular Diocese, but of all, Grotius has expressly the same Doctrine, and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope Jure Divino. I pray consider if these Doctors be not Men of sound judgement, and eminent learning and credit in our Reformation, and if our Doctrine be Scripture as such men understand it.  
As for Transubstantiation, it contrins two difficulties; first, if the Body of Christ be really in the Sacrament; 
e In Annot. super Novum Testam. cap. 10. Matth. & saepe alibi  and this Real Presence, the Lutherans defend to be the Doctrine of Scripture, as well as the Papists, why then should it be called Popish more than Reformed Doctrine? The second is, if the substance of Bread be in the Sacrament together with Christ's Body? Lutherans say it is, Papists say it is not, but that there is a Transubstantiation, or change of the whole substance of Bread, into the Body of Christ; but hear what Luther 
f To Edit. Jonah. l. de cap. Babyl.  says of this that we call Popish Doctrine I give all Persons liberty to believe in this point, what they please, without hazard of their Salvation, either that the Bread is in the Sacrament of the Altar, or that it is not? would Luther have given this Liberty if Transubstantiation had not been the Doctrine of Reformation as well as any other.  
Communion in one kind, is the Doctrine of the Reformation, no less than Communion in both; for besides that Luther says, 
g Lib. de cap. Babyl. c. de Euchar.  They sin not against Christ who use one kind only, seeing Christ has not commanded to use both; and again, 
h Epist. ad Bahemos in declarat. Euch. & in serm. de Euch.  though it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Sacrament; and Christ has commanded nothing in this as necessary, yet it were better to follow peace and unity, than to contest about the kinds, but also Melancthon 
i in Concil. Theol. ad March. Elect. de usu utriusque speciei pag. 141.  who in the opinion of Luther surpasses all the Fathers of the Church, expressly teaches the same Doctrine; and the Church of England Statute 1. Edward VI commands, That the Sacrament be commonly administered in both kinds, if necessity does not require otherwise; mark, he says, but commonly, and that for some necessity it may be received in one; lastly, the sufficiency of one kind in the Sacrament, is plainly set down by our Reformed Church of France, in her Ecclesiastical Discipline, Printed at Saumur, Chap. 12. Art 7. The Minister must give the Bread in the Supper to them, who cannot drink the Cup, provided it be not for contempt. And the reason is because there are many who cannot endure to taste the Wine; wherefore it often happens among them, that some persons do take the Bread alone.  
Now you may admire the injustice of the Papists in condemning our Reformed Doctrine and Doctors as Heretics, whereas those Tenets are believed by many of us, as well as them; and the groundless severity of our Congregations in exclaiming against that Doctrine; it being the Doctrine of the Reformation, whereas so many eminent men of our own, judge it to be of Scripture.  
For to know certainly if a Doctrine be of the Reformation, you must try it by our Test or Rule of Faith, which is the written Word of God, and whatever any man of sound judgement, of a sincere and humble Heart judges to be contained in Scripture, or an indubitable consequence out of it; that Man may believe that Doctrine, let all others judge of it as they list, and by so believing, will be a true Child of the Reformation; wherefore, since that the Church of France, that of England in Edward the VI ' s. time, Luther, Melancthon, Grotius, and other Authors do judge Transubstantiation, Pope's Supremacy, and Communion in one kind to be the Doctrine of Scripture; we must call it the Doctrine of the Reformation; and if you judge as they did, you may believe the Doctrine and be still of the Reformation, as well as they.  
Can you show me any other Tenet of Popery, which you can call the Doctrine of the Reformation?  
You can hardly show me any Tenet of Popery, but what is its Doctrine; what Doctrine more Popish than that of Confession and Absolution from Sins? yet it is as truly the Doctrine of the Reformation, as Figurative Presence: for not only 
k In Disput. Theol. pag. 301.  Lobechius, 
l In Cocilliat. loc. Scrip. loce. 191.  Altamerus, 
m In locis Commun. To. 1 de potest. Eccl.  Saecerius, and 
n In Apol. Confess. Aug. art. 13. & lib. pag. 234.  Melancthen says, it's a Sacrament; but the Church of England in our Common Prayer Book, declares that Priests have not only the power of declaring their Sins to be forgiven to their Penitents, but also the power of forgiving them; and sets down the form of Absolution which the Minister is to use, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who left power to the Church to Absolve all Sinners which truly. Repent, of his Mercy forgive thee and thine offences; and I by his Authority committed unto me, do Abosolve thee from all thy Sins: The Ministers of the Diocese of Lincoln in their Survey of the Book of Common Prayers, checked this Doctrine as Popery, and petitioned to have it blotted out, but could not prevail; whereby we are given to understand, it's the Doctrine of the Reformation.  
It is Popery, we say to call extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Holy Order of Priesthood, Sacraments; and who can justly deny all this to be the Doctrine of the Reformation? for 
o In. p. 5. Epist. Jac. v. 4.  Calvin says, I confess, the Disciples of Christ did use Extreme Unction as a Sacrament; I am not, says he, of the opinion of those, who judge it was only a Medicine for corporal diseases: Calvin 
p Lib. 4. Inst. c. 14. Inst. c. 14. sect. 5.  also, and with him our Common Prayer Book and all our Divines say, a Sacrament is nothing else, but a Visible Sign of the invisible Grace we receive by it; and they say with 
q In modest. Examine.  Covel, 
r In Eccl. Polit. c. 5. sect. 66.  Hooker, and others, that this definition fits exactly Confirmation, wherefore the Ministers of the Diocese of Lincoln checked the Common-Prayer Book for giving the Definition of a Sacrament to Confirmation. 
s In locis Commun. tit. de Numero. Sacram.  Melancthon, 
t In perpet. Regem. pag. 109.  Bilson, 
u In Eccl polit. lib. 5. sect. 77.  Hooker, and 
x lib. 4. Inst. c. 20.  Calvin expressly teach, that the Order of Priesthood is a Sacrament. And when Men of so eminent Judgement of our Reformation teach this to be the Doctrine of Scripture, who doubts but that it is of the Reformation.  
By, this, you destroy the Doctrine of the Reformation of two Sacraments only.  
Destroy it? God forbidden: Because the Church of England says, there are but two Sacraments, I say it is the Doctrine of the Reformation, there are but two, and because so many eminent Men judge by Scripture there are more, I say it is the Doctrine of the Reformation there are more, that's to say six, Baptism, Confirmation, Euchrist, Pennance, Extreme Unction and Holy Order: and very likely our Bishops and Ministers, for their Wife's sake, will not stick to grant that Matrimony also is a Sacrament.  
But can you say, that Prayers to Saints and Images, Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory are not mere Popery, and in no wise the Doctrine of Reformation.  
Without doubt, these Tenets are Popery, but all the World knows the Lutherans use Images in their Churches, and pray before them; and the holy Synod of Charenton has declared, that the Lutherans have nothing of Superstition or Idolatry in their manner of Divine Worship; this is also the Doctrine 
y Epit, Colloq. Montisbel.  of Jacobus Andreas, 
z In Centaur. Exercit. Theol, pag. 270.  Brachmanus, a Kemnitiut, Luther and Brentius quoted by Beza, 
a Examp●…. 4. b In respond ad acta Colloq. Montisbel. par. 2. in Prefas. c In locis Commun. c. 18. & 19  and why should not a Doctrine, judged by such eminent Men to be of Scripture, be called the Doctrine of the Reformation? Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory is Popery confessedly; but alas! it is taught expressly by Vrbanius Regius, 
d Inscrip. Angl. pag. 450.  Bucer, 
c To. 1. in Eupian. Art 90. & Art 60.  Zuinglius, 
f In Apolog. Confess Aug.  Melancthon, 
g To. 1. Wittem. in resol. de  Luther, 
h Indul. concl. 15.  the common-Prayer Book in King Edward's time Printed 154.9. and many others of our Learned Doctors, and what can you call more properly the Doctrine of the Reformation, than what such Men teach to be the Doctrine of Scripture? And though our Brethren, Quakers, Anabaptist:, Presbyterians, and Protestants, judge Prayers to Angels and Saints to be nothing else but Popery; yet our Common Prayer Book has the same Collect or Prayer to Angels in St. Michael's day, that the Popish Mass-Book has, and desires that the Angels may secure and defend us on Earth; and Prayers to, and Intercession of Saints is taught by Luther, 
i Epist. ad Spal●t.  Bilney, and Latimer quoted by Fox, 
k Acts & Mon. pag. 462 & 312.  and consequently it is the Doctrine of the Reformation.  
Listen to our Apostolical and Divine Luther: 
l To. Germ. fol. 214.  If a General Council, says he, did permit Priests to Marry, it would be a a singular mark of Piety, and sign of Godliness, in that case to take Concubines, rather than to Marry in conformity to the Decree of the Council, I would in that case command Priests not to Marry under pain of Damnation. And again he says, 
m De formula Missa & To. 3. Germ.  If the Council decree Communion in both kinds; in contempt of the Council, I would take one only or none. See these words of Luther quoted by our learned Hospinian, n and Jewel o and see it is not only my Doctrine but of great Luther, 
k In Histor. Sa. part. 2. fol. 13.  that in case the Pope and Councils deny all the Tenets they now believe; 
l In replic ad Hardingum.  we may, and it will be a pious Godly action to believe them, and make as many Acts of Parliament for them, as now we have against them.  
This is an evident sequel out of that Principle, and whereas there is not one Tenet of all those which I rehearsed, whether they concern Doctrine or Manners; but was judged by the Doctors, which I cited for it, to be the Doctrine of Scripture; it follows avoidable, that there is not one Tenet of them but is the Doctrine of the Reformation: Therefore you must be forced to either of these two; either to say that our Rule of Faith, by which such Doctrines are warranted, is naught, wicked and scandalous of all those I rehearsed; you cannot deny, but that it was taught by the Author I quoted for it, and judged by him to be the Doctrine of Scripture. And if no Doctor hitherto had believed, you, or I, or some other person of sound judgement, may judge it to be the Doctrine of Scripture; either of both, than you must be constrained to grant. Or that the Doctrine of the Reformation, is not what each person of sound judgement understands to be the doctrine and sense of Scripture, which is as much as to say, that our Rule of Faith must not be Scripture as we understand it, but that we must believe against our Judgement and Conscience, what others say is the doctrine and sense of Scripture: Or you must grant that all and each of those Tenets I rehearsed, is the doctrine of the Reformation, though you, or this or that Man may judge them to be blasphemies and scandals.  
I confess our Rule of Faith in the Reformation is Scripture as each person understands it; for all our Reformed Churches do gives us this Rule of Faith.  
And in case the Church of England, France, or Germany, judge a doctrine to bo blasphemous and against Scripture, and Luther, or Calvin, or I, or another, judge it is good doctrine and conformable to Scripture, to which judgement must I stand? Must I believe what I judge in my Conscience to be Scripture, and not what others judge, if they judge the contrary? When Luther began the Reformation, did not almost all Christians and the whole Church believe Purgatory and Prayers to Saints to be the doctrine of Scripture? And did not he very commendably deny it against them all, because he judged by Scripture it was not? Will a Presbyterian believe Episcopacy, because the Church of England says it is the doctrine of Scripture? No, but deny it because himself judges It is not.  
For let a Man be ever so leared and Godly; if he gives an Interptetation of Scripture which is denied by all the Church, he must not be followed.  
Since when is it commendable to constrain Mons Judgements to believe, not what each one thinks best, but what the Church thinks may be safely believed? Was this Commenble in the beginning of our Reformation, when our blessed Reformers began to teach their private Judgements against the Church then established? If it was, than the Church of Rome is to be commended, for persecuting and Excommunicating our first Reformers; and if this was not, nor is not commendable in the Church of Rome, why is it commendable in the Church of England? This is a piece of Popery, whereof the Church of England is guilty, and for which all our Congregations are jealous of her.  
I confess other Congregations will admit no such Curb, or Bridle on their Judgements, but follow Scripture as they understood it; but the Church of England has a reverend regard for the sense and Interpretation of it given by Primitive Ages, Fathers and Councils, and that we prefer before the private Interpretations of particular Persons.  
The Sense and Interpretation of primitive Ages, Church and Fathers must be preferred before the Interpretation of any private person, or Congregation, and what think you of our whole Reformation, which allows no other Rule of Faith, but Scripture as each person of sound Judgement understands it? What say you of Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of our Reformers, who preferred their own private sense and Interpretation of Scripture, before that of the whole Church? What say you to the Presbyterians, who prefer their own sense and Interpretation of the Bible before that of the Church of England? I grant, there ought to be a respect for the judgement and Interpretation of the Text, given by the Primitive Church and Fathers; but if a Doctor or a Man of sound Judgement, replenished with God's Spirit, read Scripture with an humble Heart, and pure Intention, and judges by it that Bigamy is lawful; that there is no Mystery of three persons is one divine Nature; or that Christ despaired on the Cross, etc. Tho these doctrines be quite against the Judgements of Fathers, Church, and Councils, he may believe them, and be still a true Reformed Child, because he follows our Rule of Faith; if he must deny these Articles, because others decry them; then he must go against his own Judgement and Conscience, for to conform himself to them, and his Rule of Faith must not be Scripture as each Man of sound judgement understands it; but as the Primitive Ages, Church, and Councils understand it; and this is Popery.  
Is it not generally believed in our Reformation, and most strongly proved of late, by that incomparable Wit and Penman Doctor Stillingfleet, that Popery has as much Idolatry as Paganism: Our Land therefore had in Paganism as good a Religion as it received by Austin in Popery; does not this our noble Champion, and most of the Scribes of the Church of England teach, That Popery is a saving Religion, that we may be saved in the Church of Rome? if Popery, (notwithstanding it be Idolatry as they say) by a saving Religion, how can they deny but that Paganism is also a saving Religion, what need therefore had our Forefathers to abandon Paganism? why was it not left in the Land?  
If England had been as well informed of the merit of Paganism, when first Christianity was Preached, it had never exchanged the one Idolatry for the other.  
Dr. Stillingfleet in his Charge against the Church of Rome, pag. 40. and 41. says plainly, That the Pagans are charged with more than they are guilty of; pag, 7. says that Jupiter adored by the Pagans; was so far from being an Arch-devil, in the opinion of St. Paul, that he was the true God, Blessed for evermore: that the Pagans adored but one Supreme and Omnipotent God, which they called Jupiter, and which they did believe to be neither a Devil nor a Man, but a true, and the first and chiefest of the Gods; and that the rest of the Gods which they adored, they looked upon them as Inferior deities, and gave them no other Adoration.  
Dr. Stillingfleet, and Dr. Burnet, and other Reformed Writers prove convincingly; as to their Sentiment, that Paganism is no more Idolatry than Popery, and that Paganism having been banished out of our Land upon the false Information of our first Teachers, that it was an Adoration of Devils, or evil Spirits, and wicked debauched Men, who by counterfeit Wonders, and Cheats, gained the people's Adoration; since that Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Burnet, and other Reformed Writers will make it out, that the Pagans Adored no Devils, but One true, Omnipotent, Supreme God, blessed for ever more, which they called Jupiter, and the rest of the Gods as Inferior Deities, as Papists do their Saints, and will prove that the Pagans were charged by the first D. Doctors of Christanity, and by all our Ancestors, with more than they are guilty of; why should not Paganism be restored again to the Land, and heard to speak for itself, and Dr. Stillingfleet and his zealous companions be Licenc'd to plead for them, and for holy Jupiter, so foully misrepresented by Antiquity, as to be believed an Arch-Devil, whom Dr. Stillingfleet will prove to have been a true blessed God for evermore?  
That Paganism was so unjustly banished from our Nation, if what Dr. Stillingfleet says, be true, he is a learned, Religious, and diligent searcher into Scripture; the Ancient D. Drs. and Fathers of the Church reading Scripture, judged and taught, that Jupiter was a Devil, as well as the rest of the Gods which the Gentiles Adored; Dr. Stillingfleet and other Reformed D. Doctor's reading Scripture, judge he was no Devil, but the true God blessed for evermore; any Child of the Reformation may believe either of both, and put Jupiter into our Litanies, as well as JESUS Christ, and offer Sacrifice to him as formerly our Ancestors did; for whatever any Man of sound judgement judges to be the Doctrine of Scripture, may be safely believed, and is the Doctrine of the Reformation.    

Here follows the Sense of Scripture as Interpreted by the Church, Councils, and Fathers, in lieu of those fond fancies which the Protestant Preachers have possessed the people with, as the belief of Catholics, faithfully reported from a true zeal and affection to my Countrymen, that they may not plead Ignorance before the Tribunal of the Almighty, in so important a concern as their Salvation, to the manifest hazard of their Souls Eternity.  
THe Catholics teaches Pennance, Mortification of the Body, subjection of the Flesh to the Spirit, the sensitive part to the rational, by Praying, Fasting, Obedience, Humility, Poverty, 
To Crucify the Flesh and the Lusts thereof. Gal. 5.12.  Pardoning, Injuries, loving one another, Praying for Enemies, doing good to those that Persecute us, 
Forsake all and follow Christ. Mat. 19.22.  suffering Persecution for Conscience sake, making Vows of Chastity, 
And out of the same Chap. v. 27, 28, 29. By Vowing perpetual Chastity, St. Mat. 19.12.  leaving the World, our friends and possessions, to Consecrate ourselves by Prayer and the service of God, to keep Lent and fasting days, to observe Religious Vows, 
St. Mat. 15.15.25.  to sell all we have and give it to the Poor, 
Tobit. 12.  to take up our Cross and follow Christ, 
Tobit 1.  to leave Father, Mother, 
Isai 58.  Brothers, Sisters, and Wife, 
St. James 5.  and all things for the love of God; 
St. Matt. 18.  in fine, 
Galib. Prov. 27.  that there is no way to Heaven, 
Eccles. 5.  but by the way of Penance, Fasting, 
Rom. 15.  and Prayer and such like Mortifications and Austerities of the Body, 
St. Mark. 11. St. James 2. 26.  to make Restution of ill-gotten good, 
St. John 4.16.3. v. 14. James 5.20.  and Reparation for any Violations of another's good Name or Reputation, 
1 St. John 3.14.  to feed the Hungry, give drink to the Thirsty, Cloth the Naked, Redeem the Captives, Harbour the Harbourless, Visit the Sick, Bury the Dead, to Correct the Obdurate, Instruct the Ignorant, Reduce the Wavering, Comfort the Sorrowful, bear wrongs patiently, forgive all Injuries, and to pray for the Living and the Dead, as also, that God shuts the Gate of Heaven against the Impenitent, and that there is no Salvation without Charity, but that Charity itself covers a Multitude of Sins, that Charity gives Spiritual Life to the Soul, that in Charity we know we are Translated from Death to Life, because we love the Brethren, That the good Pastor giveth his life for his Sheep, St. John 10.12. As That Faith without Charity is dead, St. James 2.26. And that the highest act of Charity, is to give our Life for God's Honour and the Salvation of our Neighbour; these ways are not pleasing to the people, nor easy to Flesh and Blood without God's Grace. If Protestants and Reformers go to Heaven with more liberty, and with greater ease and pleasure, we must say, broad is the way, and many there be that find it. But if there be no Salvation without following the above-cited Doctrines as the Catholic Church teaches, the Catholic is much nearer that the Protestant to the straight way and narrow Gate that leads and opens to Eternal Life.  
There are no Doctrines mentioned here, but what are contained in the Catechisms of all Roman Catholics, and that which they teach all Children, and which are very wide from those Doctrines that Protestant Preachers report of them about Dispensations, with Allegiance, Oaths, and all other Ties, how solemnly sacred soever; all which are no less commonly than untruly suggested; for I shall demand of such, by what Councils received by the Catholic Church, such Dispensations have been allowed, or from what Church Tradition such pernicious Tenants have been handed, (I desire of Protestants to produce one) for if it be any point of Faith, it must have taken rise either from the Authority of some Council received in the Church, or of Universal Tradition, since whatever obliges all Roman Catholics, must of necessity enter into their belief or practice at one of these two doors. And if these Dispensations have been taught neither by Councils nor Traditions, it remains that Protestants have been gulled by their Pastors in receiving such for Catholic doctrines; which are taught no where but in Protestant Books and Pulpits: For had such Dispensations been the Doctrines or Practices of Papists, what folly had it appeared in Protestant Magistrates to require Oaths of them, who hold themselves under no obligation to them when they have taken them, and what madness had it appeared in Papists, to incur the Forfeiture heretofore of their lives, and late of their liberty and fortunes, rather than take such Oaths, with which (if they had advised with the Protestant Minister) they might have dispensed at pleasure.  
Countrymen, read your Chronicles, peruse your Statutes and Records, review many of your Ancient Customs and Observances, look upon the Windows of the Churches, reflect upon the Names and Dedications of the same churches, of divers days of the year, of divers of your Colleges, upon the Crosses every where erected; upon the Multitude of Monasteries, Abbeys, and other Religious Houses, which heretofore flourished in this Kingdom, and then suffer you selves to doubt, if you can, whether your noble Progenitors, almost for the space of a Thousand years were zealous Papists: Cast your eyes then upon their Wisdom, known by the Government, and Laws which they established: Upon their Piety; blazoned by the goodly Churches, by the stately Monasteries, by the renowned Colleges, which they Erected and Endowed; and censure them not to have been so stupid, so ungodly, that with so great zeal and costs, they would have embraced, honoured, and established Papistry; had it been so absurd, so ungrounded, so Superstitious and Idolatrous, and so dangerous to Princes and their States, as divers of your deceived or deceiving Teachers do give you to understand. Neither think your Neighbours, who live Papists amongst you, so blockish, that they would forsake the easy and flesh-pleasing Religion of Luther, Calvin, and other new Teachers, to embrace, with so great loss and hazards, the austere Profession of Papists; if the same were such, as you are made to believe.  
Let not therefore any prejudicated conceits defraud you of this fit opportunity, to free yourselves from the most dangerous mistakes, and consequently from the fruitless pangs of too late Repentance, where with every one will be fearfully afflicted, that departs this life culpably, in a wrong and false Religion; when the judging light of Christ shall lay open to him how naked he is, (through his own wilful negligence) of Divine Faith, of Heavenly Charity, and of other Celestial Virtues, absolutely necessary to Salvation.  
Because divers Protestant Teachers endeavours to make their followers believe, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church were Protestants, (which Followers know no otherwise,) but let them take notice, that those Ancient Worthies, and Lights of the Church of Christ, were either Monks, or Founders of Monastical Discipline; or at least, Approvers and Praisers of the same; St. Anthony was a Monk, and St. Athanasius his Praiser; St. Basil the Great, a Monk, and the Founder of a Monastical Institute, which in the Eastern part of the World is yet practised: St. Gregory the Divine, was a Monk; St. Chrisostom, a Monk; St. Hierom, a Monk; the Great St. Augustine, the Founder of a Monastical course of Life; St. Martin, a Monk; St. Benedict, a Monk, and Founder of the famous Order of Monks, which does yet flourish in the Western Church; St. Gregory the Great was a Monk, and by the labours of Forty Monks, did first plant Christianity amongst the English. Let any Man judge how likely, or how true it is, that these Men were Protestants.  
Secondly, take notice, that these ancient, and most Learned Fathers were great Praisers, Practisers of Austeres and Penitential Works, consisting in frequent Prayer, in much Watching, in severe Fasting, in hard Lodgings, in course and spare Diet, in wearing of Hair-Cloath, and the like; they lived single lives, many of them bestowed their Wealth upon the Poor, and other Pious Uses, and professed voluntary Poverty, following therein the Counsel of Christ, given Matth. 19.21. and they not only allowed of, but also most highly extolled the observing of perpetual Chastity, and Virginity, preferring the same far above Matrimony. Were not these men then strange Protestants.  
Thirdly, take notice, that these Ancient Worthies, even by the Confession of all Protestants, were men of acute Wits, of excellent Learning: If then they had found in the Word of God (as Protestants say they find) that only Faith does justify; that good Works are not Meritorious: That in Works of Grace men have not : That they are not able to keep the Commandments: That it is not in the power of man or woman to live perpetually Chaste; that Virginity is not more pleasing to God than Matrimony; that to give all to the Poor, to Fast, Pray, and watch much, and to undergo other Austerities, and Mortifications of the Body, doth not profit and enrich the Soul; that there is no Purgatory, no Penance to be done, no satisfaction to be made for Sin, no punishment to be inflicted upon the Faithful for them, after this Life.  
If, I say, the Ancient Fathers had found these, and the like Doctrines of Protestants in the Scriptures, (and why should they not have found them there, if there they had been, they being so wise, so learned, and so industrious searchers of the Word of God, as they were?) If there, I say, they had found these things, and had believed them as Protestants do, they would have lived as Protestants do; for why should they not?  
If these pleasing Doctrines, which are light and easy to flesh and the blood, and the sweet liberty of the new Gospel, has as feelingly pierced, and as strongly possessed the Hearts of those Ancients, as it did, and doth the Breasts and Bowels of Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Beza, and their followers, the Teachers of the Protestant Religion; they would, without all doubt, with these, have preferred Pleasures before Penance; Feasting, before Fasting; the delights of the Conjugal Life, before the continent and single; and in a word, Riches, Honours, Pleasures, before Labours and smart of a Penitential and Mortified Life; before voluntary Poverty, and the vexing Attire of Haircloth, or else they had been mad; had they believed as most Protestants do, that such exercises as these are needless, fruitless, yea, and superstitious Toys.  
But the truth is, that those ancient and shining Lamps of Wisdom and Sanctity, did not believe as Protestants do, and therefore they lived not as they do, for they were otherwise instructed in the School of Christ; they read, and learned another Lesson in his Divine Gospel, even the same that Papists now do, and therefore they instituted their Lives, as they did; and were in very deed as much Protestants, as the Pope and His Priests and Friars now are, and no more, most certainly; unless we will have them to have been Sots and madmen.  
Let not then, my noble and dear Countrymen, the misreports of some of your Teachers, so far prevail with you, as to make you believe (the better to keep and quiet you in Protestantism,) that the Fathers of the Primitive Church were Protestants. For certainly, those blessed Servants of Christ were as far from being Protestants, as the most zealous of your Teachers are from being Papists, yea, from being Monks or Friars, and from leading their Lives as those Ancients did. If then you truly prise the Learning and Sanctity of the Primitive Church and Christianity, become of that Belief which their Lives and Practices do preach unto you. If you think them saved, be not so hardy as to seek a new way to Heaven; for the safety of your Souls, is of greater moment, than so to be exposed to hazard, (being there can be but one saving Faith;) Eternal Glory is not easily to be set upon the Dice, when you may take secure way to it. Become then of the Communion of the Church, in which the Fathers lived and died, that therein seconding your belief with a virtuous Life, you may assuredly attain to Everlasting Happiness, beseeching God to prosper your Reading: Considering withal, That without Faith in Jesus Christ, no Man can be Saved. This is not only the Belief of all, that wear and deserve the Noble Title of a Christian, but certain also out of the Word of God. Act. 4.12. There is not Salvation in any other; for neither is there any other Name under Heaven given to Men, (to wit, but the Name of Jesus,) wherein we must be saved. Mark 16.16. But he that shall not believe, (namely, the Gospel and Religion of Christ,) shall be condemned. Heb. 11.6. Without Faith it is impossible to please God. Rom. 5.1. Being therefore justified by Faith, let us have Peace toward God, by our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access, through Faith, to his Grace. This Ground than is certain, and cannot be denied by any Christian.  
For my second Ground I lay: That this Faith in Jesus Christ, which by God's Ordination, is of necessity required to Salvation; is not a mere Natural Faith, or Humane Credulity; which Men may have by their own natural Forces, without the help of God's special Grace; such as is the Faith of Heathens, of Jews, and Turks; and such indeed, as is the Faith of all Heretics: But it is a Divine, and Supernatural thing, which Men acquire and attain to, by the special Aid of God, by the help of Divine Grace; and therefore this Faith is called, and truly is, The Gift of God.  
This ground is certain, first out of the Word of God, which clearly teacheth, That saving Faith is the gift of God, Phil. 1.29. To you it is given for christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him. Eph. 2.8. By Grace you are saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God: Not of Works, that no man may glory. Joh. 6.44. No man can come unto me, (that is, believe in me; for our first step toward Christ is Faith,) unless the Father that sent me draw him. And Verse 65. Therefore did I say to you, that no Man can come to me; unless it be given him of my Father. Joh 15.5. I am the Vine, you the Branches; he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth much fruit; for without me, you can do nothing. Namely, appertaining to Salvation; and therefore not believe, as is requisite to Life Everlasting, without the help of Christ, that is, of Divine Grace by Christ merited, and purchased for us. These places are clear.  
Secondly, This ground is strongly proved by Reason: For the end of Man being to enjoy Supernatural Glory, that is the clear Vision of God, in his blessed Kingdom: The means to obtain this high and divine End must be suitable to it, that is Divine, and Supernatural. For who will say, that Man of himself, and by his own forces, without the Aid and special Favour of God, is able to make himself fit, and proportionate, to be associated to the Saints, to the Angels, to Christ, to God, in Eternal Glory? Who will say, that of himself, he is able to cleanse his Soul from the stains and filth of Sin, and to put upon her a Wedding Garment, a Golden and Resplendent Vesture, suitable to the Banquet and Banqueters of Heaven? The special Operation then of Divine Grace, must Purify and Embellish the Soul of Man, and Attire her in Holy and Divine Virtues, that so she may be fit to be the Consort of God, in the Fruition of his Eternal Glory. And so Faith, which is one of these Virtues, and the very Ground and Foundation of the rest, must be Divine and Supernatural, and spring in Man, from the help of God's Grace; and be Adorned and Dignified by it, that so there may be a fit proportion betwixt the Root and the Tree, the Seed and the Fruit, the Egg and the Brid, a Christian Life, and the Glory of Heaven.  
Whosoever will deny this ground, must not only forsake the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and go against the light of Reason, but he must also fall into the Pelagian Heresy, condemned by the Church of Christ, Twelve Hundred years ago. Which held, That the Gospel of Christ, being proposed by his Preachers, men of themselves, without any further help of Divine Grace, are able to believe the same, and do all therein required to Life Everlasting. Which proud fancy of Pelagius, St. Hierom, St. Augustine, and especially the Bishops of Rome, by the invincible force of God's Word, did crush, confound, and beat to the ground.  
My third Ground is, That as God cannot be the Author of a Lie, of a false Doctrine, of a false Faith, of a false Religion: That is, of a Rligion and Doctrine of Faith, that is mixed with falsehood, and is partly true, and partly false: So he neither doth, neither can stir up, and draw Men by his special Grace, Aid, and Operation, to believe those Religions, or Doctrines of Faith, which are so mixed with Falshood. This seems to be evident, even by the light of Reason; for as it is the proper work of the Devil, to mix Religions, and to pollute them with Falsehood: So it is his continual, and studious endeavour, to stir up, and induce Men, (by proposing some pleasing and delectable thing or other,) to believe and embrace the same, that so he may deprive them of Divine Faith, which is the Gift of God, and bring them assuredly to Everlasting Damnation. Neither. let any one be so simple, as to imagine, That the Devil is only the Author of those Religions, which are wholly False.  
For scarcely is there any Religion in the World, that doth teach no Truth at all. And therefore it is sufficient, to prove a Religion to be the work of the Devil, if there be any falsehood in it at all, at St. Paul doth seem to teach, 1 Tim. 4.1. where, foretelling the rising of the Manichean Heresy, which long did pester the Church of God, he calls the Doctrine thereof, the Doctrine of Devils: Notwithstanding that those Heretics, with some falsehoods, did teach many. Truths; even as all Heretics do; who, nevertheless, are the Instruments of the Devil, to seduce and destroy Souls.  
Wherefore, whosoever do culpably Believe, and follow Religions, or Doctrines of Faith, partly true, partly false, do never believe the same with Divine Faith, which is the Gift of God; though they esteem the Religion which they follow, to be the best of all others; yea, to be the pure Light of the Gospel of Christ: But their Faith is ever a mere Humane Credulity, such as is the Faith of all Misbelievers, which can never bring them to Eternal Happiness, how laudably soever they live; because without Divine Faith, that is, the Gift of God, no Man can be saved, according to the settled Ordination, and Providence of God; as I before have clearly showed out of his Word.  
Out of this Doctrine, which is most true, doth appear, First, The Reason of the Doctrine of of Christ, delivered Matt. 7. where he declares, That false Prophets, that is, false Expounders of the Word of God, in matters of Faith, do destroy Souls, like as Wolves do destroy Sheep; and that it is as impossible, that their Followers should acquire, by their teaching, Divine Faith, and True Sanctity, as it is impossible, that Thorns should bring out Grapes, or Thisles, Figgs. The same Doctrine is taught by the Apostle; who affirms, That Heretics are subverted, Tit. 3. And Subvert the Faith of others, 2 Tim. 2.18. That they make Shipwrak about Faith, 1 Tim. 1.19. That they depart from the Faith, 1 Tim. 4.1. That they are Reprobate about Faith, 2 Tim. 3.8. and the like. Which mischief they fall into themselves, and bring upon their followers, though they Err but in one Article of Faith, as Himenaeus and Philetus did, 2 Tim. 2.18.  
But Note here, That the Apostle in the places cited, doth not mean, that Heretical Teachers, do so Subvert and Ruin the Faith of their Followers, that they leave them no Faith at all; but that they subvert their Divine Faith, which is the Gift of God, wholly overthrowing that, though they leave them store of Humane Faith; to which seduced people firmly sticking, yea, sometimes even to Fetters and Death, do reap thereby nothing at all, but Temporal Commodities, and Vain glory, purchased with the Eternal loss of their Souls.  
Secondly, Doth appear, out of the same Doctrine, the great Obligation that Christian People have, to keep themselves within the Bosom of the True and Catholic Church of Christ: Because that this Church, being continually assisted by Christ himself, Matt. 28. 20. And taught all Truth by the Holy Ghost, John 16.13. doth propose unto her followers, in her Doctrine of Faith, nothing buth Truth; whereby their Faith doth easily come to be Divine, and the Gift of God, his Heavenly Grace Co-operating with them. It doth also appear, how deeply they are obliged to take heed of, and to shun, and avoid false Prophets; false and heretical Expounders of God's Word; which run of their own accord, not being sent, authroized, or allowed of, by the Ordinary Doctors, and Pastors, of the Ever Visible and Catholic Church of Christ: And how wary they ought to be, not to have itching Ears, after new Masters, 2 Tim. 4.3. Or greedily to hearken to their Novelties in Matters of Faith; which upon the reckoning, will be found to be no better than Fables, that is, than the Fictitious and Self-inventions of men's brains: Though these busy Teachers palliate them with specious terms, and bear their Hearers in Hand, That these their new devices, are the Pure Light of the Gospel. For by forsaking the Doctrine of the Church, the Spiritual Mother and Mistress of all Nations; and as the Apostle terms her, 1 Tim. 3.15. The pillar and Ground of Truth; and following such New Teachers, they make shipwreck of their Divine Faith, and run themselves assuredly upon the Rock of Perdition.  
Thirdly, It appears how dangerously those are deceived, who think they have Faith enough to Salvation, if they believe those Points of the Christian Religion, about which Catholics and Protestants agree; esteeming themselves not obliged to believe any of those Articles; about which the Learned of these two Religions do differ and contend. As though Christian people were not obliged, under pain of Damnation, to beware of false Prophets, Matt. 7. To shun Heretical Teachers, Tit. 3. To obey their Lawful Prelates, and to be subject unto them, in matters of Faith and Religion, Heb. 13. To hear those Teachers, whom Christ doth send, Luke 10. To hear and obey the Voice of his Church, if they will not be held to be in as ill case, as Publicans and Ethnics are, Matth. 18.  
Or as though they were not bound to know the right means, by which they are to be Justified, cleansed from Sin, and Saved; to Believe rightly, and to Receive worthily, the great Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 11. Joh. 6. And as though they were not obliged, under the same Penalty, to believe and profess the True Gospel, the True Faith and Religion of Christ; and to Serve, and Worship God rightly. Seeing those which believe not his Gospel, that is, the whole Sum of Divine Doctrine, taught by his Apostles, and by their Successors, the Ordinary Doctors, and Pastors of his Church, are to be Damned. Mark. 16, As those also are, Which deny Christ before men. Matth. 10.33. Which Crime all commit, who deny themselves to be of the True Religion, as is manifest by the Example of St. Peter, who denying only, that he was a follower of Christ, and of his Company, was reputed to deny Christ; even as those will be, who culpably profess a False Religion. For such by their very Fact, deny the True, and themselves to be of the Communion thereof, and of the Company, and Society of the True Followers, Disciples and Servants of Christ, whereby, at his Judgement-seat, they will be reputed to have forsaken and denied him.  
But to open this Point a little more (because many, even of the better sort, are brought thereby into no small danger of Perdition) this their conceit is not grounded upon any clear Text of God's Word, or upon the Authority of any Vnerring Church, but merely upon a Mistake of their own; by which, out of one or two Truths, they infer a pernicious falsehood; upon which, while they trust, they trust to a broken staff, which at their last Leap, will let them fall into the deep Ditch of Perdition, if before their Death they cast it not away.  
Which presumptuous discarding of Divine Verities, revealed by Christ to his Apostles, for the direction of mankind to Eternal happiness, and by them laid up in the Treasury of the Church, as a Sacred Depositum, 1 Tim. 6.20. under the sure Custody of the Holy Ghost, is no less than High Treason against Christ our Saviour, in regard that it raises a most pernicious Rebellion in his Spiritual Kingdom, bringing part thereof again under the Tyranny of the Devil. It frustrates the full Operation of his Passion, extinguishes the true and right Worship of God, despoils Christian People of Divine Faith, and thereby of the true means of Salvation. It deprives the Saints of due Honour, defrauds the Faithful departed of necessary Relief. It robs Heaven of Souls, and inriches Hell with innumerable unwary, and most unhappy People For which respects, it is rightly styled one of the greatest Sins, and of the loudest crying Crimes that is.  
Note, That God cannot stir up, and draw men, by this his Heavenly Grace, to believe these Verities, unless they be proposed to be believed without all mixture of falsehood; for if any falsehood be packed in among them, and proposed with them for a Divine Truth, revealed by God, he cannot draw Men, by his Grace, to believe them thus mingled and preposed with Falsehood, as is manifest, because he cannot induce men to believe any Falsehood at all. And therefore, whosoever doth thrust in, among some Divine Vereties, any false Doctrine, contrary to that which God hath revealed, proposing the same to be believed as a Divine Truth, and therein stubbornly contradicting the Teaching of the Church, he debars God from co-operating with his Grace, and from drawing people to believe, with Divine Faith, the Doctrine so mixed and proposed.  
It appears how just cause all Protestants have to return with speed to the Roman Church, in which they may assuredly be saved, even by the Judgement of the most Learned among them, because it is more than probable, that the Protestant Profession is not a saving Religion, in regard, that the Doctrine of Faith, which it embraceth, is not, nor cannot be wholly true, but really and certainly is mixed with much Falsehood,  
1. Because in divers weighty Points of Faith, it directly contradicts the express Word of God, as I before have showed.  
2. Because this Doctrine of Faith, is not directed by any sure Rule of Faith, by any Infallible Interpreter of the Scriptures, by and Un-erring Judge of Controversies, nor proposed by any sure and Infallible Proposer.  
3. Because Protestants are divided into several Branches or Sects, which greatly differ, and are contrary one to another, in divers weighty Points of Faith, as I have before Noted.  
And 4. Because Protestants hold, that all Churches are subject to erring, yea, and have erred in their Doctrine of Faith. What assurance then have they, that theirs doth not err? none at all.  
The Religion of the True Messiah, is not to be introduced amongst the Nations of the Earth, or in one Year, or in one Age: But by degrees, and by the Labours and Charitable Endeavours of many Ages: Because the same is not to be brought in by Force, but by Fair Means: Not by the Soldier's Sword, but by the Teacher's Word: Not by Violent Compulsion, but by Gentle Persuasion; such as the Apostles and Apostolical Teachers have ever used. Going, (saith our sweet Saviour) Teach all Nations, Matth. 28. And therefore this must needs be a work of long continuance; the Nations of the Earth being so many as they are, so dispersed over the whole World, and disjoined one from another, by Mountains and Seas; so Barbarous, so Drenched in Sin, inur'd to Carnal and Brutish Customs: And the Religion of the Messiah, being so Holy and Profound, as God's Religion must be. Yea, this Divine Work, of notifying the Messiah, to all the Nations of the Earth, and of Converting them, or at least part of each of them to him, is to endure and last, even till the end of the World; as is manifest out of our Saviour's words, before alleged out of the 24 of Matth. See the place, and weigh it well.  
The Nations of the Earth, I say, for above these twelve hundred years, have not been Blessed in Jesus, by believing in him, for want of a True Religion, though very many of them, within the space of time, have been Converted to him, by the Roman Church, by the Labours and Industry of Papists, both in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Newfound World: Neither are they ever likely to be Blessed in Him: For if already he hath not taken order, to preserve a True, Divine, and Pure Religion among them, to bring unto them the Promised Blessing, that is, to Sanctify, and Save them: He is never likely to do it. For he is not likely to be wiser, or better, or more powerful hereafter, than he hath been heretofore: Neither is he likely to come into the World again, to found a new Church and Religion, and to establish it better, than He did his first, for the Salvation of Mankind.  
I demand of Protestants, if the Church of Christ, hath erred, as they say, in her Doctrine of Faith, from whence proceeded this her erring? Did this happen, because Christ could not keep her from erring; or because he would not? If he could not, how is he God? How is he Omnipotent? How is it True, that he had All Power given him in Heaven and Earth, Mat. 28.18. If Christ could enable his Apostles, to Preach his Religion, over the World, without danger of erring, and of deluding the Nations of the Earth; why could not he also enable their Successors, the Ordinary Doctors and Pastors of his Church, to Teach and continue the same Religion, in all succeeding Ages, without danger of erring, and of misleading his People? If God could direct men to write his Holy Scriptures, without danger of erring; why can he not direct men, to explicate the same Holy Scriptures in all Ages, without danger of erring in matters of Faith?  
Well then, Protestants must, say, that Christ could have preserved his Church, in all Ages, from danger of erring in her Doctrine of Faith; but would not. But why would he not? Did the Increase of his own Credit and Glory, move him to this neglect, or the good of Mankind? not the Increase of his own Credit. For what Credit, Honour, Glory, could accrue and rise to him, by the erring of his Church? Doth this commend his Workmanship, in Founding her? His Wisdom, Goodness, Power in Governing her? I think not. Nay, could it become the Wisdom of a Discreet man, to take so great Pains, and to suffer so Painful and Ignominious a Death, as Christ did, for the Founding of an Erring Church, which should delude and misled the World? Would any Honest Protestant, if he had the like Power, that Christ had, have Founded so miserable a Church, as they esteem Christ to have Founded? I believe not.  
Was it then, the good of Mankind, that invited Christ, to Constitute an erring Church? Truly no. For no good can come to men, by such a Church; but rather much harm; yea, infinite mischief. As endless Discord, Broils, Contentions; Bloody Encounters, uncertainty in matters of Faith happen, as amongst the Reformers, contempt of all Religion; and the ruin and destruction of Infinite Souls. For the Devil would never go about to seduce the Church, and to Pollute her Doctrine, with Errors and Superstitions, but to do Mischief, and to bring Souls to Perdition.  
Wherefore, seeing that it could not redound, either to the Glory of God, or the good of Men, that Christ should Found an Erring Church; it is very gross Error, to hold that he did. And those, who so think; do greatly mistake, and exceedingly wrong the Wisdom, and Goodness of our Saviour; as will more clearly appear in the ensuing Discourse.  
If it be true, that the Church of Christ, for so many Ages, hath Erred in her Doctrine of Faith: Embracing, as it were, with both her Arms, and instilling into her Followers, many Pernicious Errors, many gross Superstitions: Notwithstanding, that Christ her Spouse and Saviour Promised, Matth. 16. That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against her. That the Holy Ghost should Abide with her Pastors for ever, St. John cap. 14. and should Teach them all Truth, Joh. 16. That he himself would be with them All days, even till the end of the World, Mat. 28. And notwithstanding, that God Promised, that His Spirit and Word should never departed from this Church, Isaias 59 That she should Stand for ever, Daniel 2. And should Never be Corrupted, Daniel 7. Being indeed the Pillar and ground of Truth, as the Apostle affirms, 1 Tim. 3. If I say, the Doctrine of Protestant Teachers, about the Erring of the Church of Christ, being so contrary to the Word of God as it is, be true.  
I demand of Prudent and Understanding Protestants, how it can be defended, that God is truly Good, hath a fatherly care of Men, doth truly love them, and tender their Spiritual good, and hath a true desire of their Eternal Salvation: Seeing, that whereas he doth freely permit the Devil, to fill the World with false and wicked Religions, with Abominable and Detestable Worships, to bring Men assuredly to ever lasting Dammation: He himself (though he could most easily do it) doth not continue, maintain, and uphold in the World, in all Ages, so much as one True Religion, so much as one Holy and Divine Worship, to bring them to Salvation? No, not after that his Blessed Son made Man, by Infinite Humility, by Innumerable Labours undergone for his sake, by shedding his most precious Blood, had endeavoured to appease his Indignation, to mitigate his Wrath, and to gain and purchase Love and Mercy for them.  
What Christian Breast, can believe so monstrous a thing as this? Or who can Harbour so base a Thought of the Wisdom, Goodness, Sweetness and Mercy of God? Or how come Discreet and Understanding Protestants, to swallow so gross an Absurdity as this? If the Tenet of the Protestant Teachers, touching the Erring of the Church, be true; how is that true which Christ says, John. 3.16. That God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that every one that believeth in him, perish not, but may have Life everlasting. For God sent not his Son to judge (that is to damn) the World; but that the World may be Saved by him: Or that which St. Paul says, 1 Tim. 2.4. God will have all men Saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth? How I say are these Divine Assertions true, if to bring Men to Salvation, God doth not ever preserve a True Religion in the World? Doth not ever uphold the Truth of his Gospel?  
For by false Religions, no man can be Saved; in regard, that the Devil, and not God, is the Author and Suggestor of False Religions, by which he intends the Damnation of Men, and not their Salvation, as is manifest. Yea, he neither can, nor will induce men, to invent a Religion able and fit, to save men in. Mark this well, and also Note, that our Saviour, in the Sentence alleged by the word World, doth not mean that only Age, in which He and his Apostles lived, nor those men only, which then lived: But all following Ages, and all that were to live even till the day of Doom. All which, God would have to come to the knowledge of the Truth; namely, of his Divine Gospel: and to save them all, he sent his blessed Son into the World. And therefore we must of necessity grant, that he provideth the People of all Ages, of a True and Visible Church, by which they may be Saved: And that he ever preserves in all Ages, the Truth of his Gospel (of which the Apostle speaks in the Sentence alleged) that so men may come to the knowledge thereof.  
For if the true Gospel of Christ, be not extant in all Ages, how hath God a true Will and Desire, that the People of all Ages, should come to the knowledge thereof? Neither is it sufficient, that it be extant in the BIBLE, for all to come to the knowledge thereof: For all cannot read the Bible; neither can those which are skilled in Reading, thence pick out the true Gospel, without the help of a True Interpreter: But it must be ever extant in the Sums of Christian Doctrine left in the Church with the Ordinary Doctors and Pastors of the Church, whom others are bound to Hear and Obey, Luke 10. Heb. 13. And of whom they are to learn Divine Faith, which is gotten by Hearing, Rom. 10. which is clear out of Matth. 24. where Christ expressly foretells, that his True Gospel, (viz.) the same that he Taught, should be Preached to all Nations, even till the end of the World: And therefore the True Gospel must not be reserved only in the Bible, but be ever extant in the Preaching of the Church.  
Out of that which hath been spoken in thsi Discourse, who doth not see, that the Prime and Fundamental Article, of the Protestant Religion, doth not only extremely Disgrace the Wisdom, Goodness and Mercy of God, and extenuate the Merits of Christ; but doth also tend to the Denial of all Christianity: to the utter neglect of God: Yea, and to plain Atheism itself? For who will think, that the Son of God, really Died for Mankind, if he gained so little for them? Or that there is a God, that doth truly love Men, and tender their good, if he be so unmindful of them, and of their Eternal Happiness and Salvation. The tending then of the Protestant Religion, so much to the Disgrace of Christ, and of God, doth clearly show, who was the first Founder of it.  
Wherefore, as certain as it is, that there is a God, who is Infinitely Wise, Good and Merciful; and who doth truly love Mankind, and tender their Eternal Good: And as certain as it is, that Christ the Son of God, Died for us, took a most provident course, for our Salvation; and that his Merits are of inestimable worth: So certain is it that God hath ever preserved in the World, a True, and visible Church, in which Men may be Saved if they will. For Christ did rot Light up a Candle to put in under a Bushel, Mat. 5. And so certain it is, that the Protestant Religion, which is Erected upon so bad a Foundation as the Erring of the Church is, is neither good, nor sufficient to Salvation.   

Testimonies of the SCRIPTURE, evidently convincing, that there can be no hope of Salvation for such as are separated from the Church, (which is the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) by Heresy or Schism.  
I Beseech you, 
St. Paul Rom. 16.17, 18.  Brethren, observe those who make Schisms and Scandals, contrary to the Doctrine which you have been taught, and avoid them. For such men serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own Belly, and by kind Speeches, and Benedictions, seduce the hearts of the simple.  
Now to manifest how much such Heretioks are to be Detested, he writes thus to Titus, (Tit. 3.10, 11.) A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid knowing, that he is such an one, is subverted, and Sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.  
To Prevent the making a Schism in this Body (the Church) he says, [1 Cor. 1.10.] I beseech you Brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say one thing, and that there be no Schisms among you, but that you be perfect in one sense, and in one knowledge.  
Again, [Eph. 4.1.] I beseech you, that you walk worthy of the Vocation in which you are called; and a little after, carefully to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; One Body and one Spirit, as you are called, in one hope of your Vocation, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.  
Your Faith (i. e. the Roman) is spoken of throughout the whole World, (i. e. is Catholic,) Romans 1.8.  
Although we, or an Angel of Heaven Preach to you any other Gospel then that which we have Preached to you, be he Anathema, (Gal. 1.8.)  
Therefore if we, or an Angel Preach any other Gospel then that, the Roman Faith is the Catholic, let him be Anathema.  
Again, Brethren, stand ye fast, and hold ye the Traditions which ye have received, whether by word, or by our Epistle. (2 Thessal. 11. 15.) Here are both Written and Unwritten Traditions given equally in Charge, and the Unwritten named first.  
Remember the Prelates who have spoken to you the Word of God; Whose Faith follow. Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them, for they watch, as being to render account for your Souls. (Heb. 13.7, 17.)  
Contend earnestly for the Faith once Delivered to the Saints. (S. Judas 3.)  
How was this Faith once Delivered to the Saints.  
Faith comes by Hearing. (Rom. 10.17.)  
Whom did the Saints hear?  
Hear the Church. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican. (S. Matth. 18.17.)  
Which is the Church, that if I neglect to hear, I am as an Heathen and a Publican?  
That which is built upon S. Peter. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (S. Matth. 16.18.)  
No Author of our side denied S. Peter's being at Rome, 
Note that  till we discerned the Consequence, That upon his Personal Being there, they grounded a Primicy in that See. See Dr. Donne Serm. in Psalm 11.3. pag. 25.  
Elsewhere thus. Pope Hyginus, who was within 150 years after CHRIST, and the Eighth Bishop of that See, after S. Peter. Dr. Donne Serm. in S. John 10.22.  
The Church. 3 Reg. 8.14. Matth. 18.17.  
The Church Unity figured by Noah's Ark. Gen. 6.14. 1 Pet. 3.20.  
By the new Jerusalem. Apocalips 21.2. See also Cantic. 4.12.6, 8. Psal. 79.9. Cantic 2.15. Isaiah 5.2. Jerem. 2.21.12.10. Matth. 20.1. Mark 12.1. Luke 5.3. Mat. 13.47.13.24.25.  
The Church the Pillar of Truth, and Infallible. Isa. 29.21. Matth. 16.18. Mac. 28.20. Luke 22.32. John 14.16.16, 13.17. 11, 20. 1 Tim. 3.15. 1. Jo. 2.27.  
The Church the Body of CHRIST. Cantic. 4.7.9, 11, 12. Ephes. 1.22.4.4.5.23. 1 Corinth. 12, 27. Jo. 14.23.2 Corinth. 6.16.  
The Church of the Faithful planted, and propagated by sound Doctrine. Jo. 1.12.3.3. Rom. 8.13.9.8. Gallat. 3.20.4.19. Ephes. 1.50. Tit. 1.1. 1 Cor. 4.15. Philem. 10. 1 Peter 1.27. 1 Jo. 3.9.5.1, 18. Jam. 1.18.  
The Church the Spouse of CHRIST. Psal. 44.11. Ezech. 16.9.2. Cor. 11.2. Ephes. 5.5.26. Apocal. 19.8.21.10.  
CHRIST the Head of the Church. Osea 2.2. 1 Cor. 12.27. Eph. 1.22.4.15.5.23. Colos. 1.18.2.10.  
The Keys of the Church, and their Power, Promised, Delivered, Exercised. Matth. 16. 18. Jo. 20.23. Matth. 18.17.  
Excommunication instituted by CHRIST. Matth. 5.29.16.19.18.8, 18. Mark 9.42. Jo. 20.23.  
In use with the Apostles. 1 Cor. 5.3.10. 2 Thess. 3.6.14. 1 Tim. 1.20 Tit. 3.10. Matth. 18.17.  
Confession of Sins. Gen. 41.9. Levit. 16.21.39.26.40 Number 5.6. Jos. 7.19. 2 Reg. 24.17. 1 Esdras 9.6. 2 Esdr. 9.2. Psal. 27.7.31.5.37.18.94.2. Proverb. 16.3.18.17.28.13. Eccl. 4.25.31.7.34.17. 27. Isa. 38.15. Daniel 9.5. Matth. 3.6. 16.19. Luke 11.4.18.13. Jo. 20.23. Jac. 5.16. 1 Jo. 1.8, 9  
Of Heretics and false Teachers. See Jud. cap. 1. 1 Cor. 11.19. 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 20. 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 18. 1 Jo. 2.18. 2 Jo. 7. Apocol. 2.15. Mat. 24.5.24 Jo. 5. 43. 1 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1.5. 2 Pet. 2. 1.3.3. Deu. 13.1. Mat. 7.15. Rom. 16.17. Tit. 3.10. 2 Thesal. 3.14. Joan. 2.10. Deut. 13.5.18.20.3. King. 18. 40.4 K. 10.25  
Heresy is a Spiritual Fornication, and Idolatry. Deut. 31.16. Judas 2.17.27.33. Isa. 1.21.57.3. Jer. 3.1. Ezeck. 6.9.19. Osea 1.2.2.4.4. Apoc. 18.3.   

Testimonies of the Fathers, showing their Affection and Zeal to Catholic Unity, and their Detestation of Schism and Divisions.  
In Psal. 54. saith St. Austin.  
1. OF the Donatists, We have each of us one Baptism, in this they were with me; we Celebrated the Feasts of the Martyrs, in This they were with me; we frequented the Solemnity of Easter, in this they were with me: But they were not in all things with me; in Schism, they were not with me; in Heresy, they were not with me; in many things they were with me, and in some few things they were not with me; but in those few things in which they were not with me, those many things do not profit them, in which they were with me.  
2. Speaking to the Donatists, [Epist. 48.] saith, You are with us in Baptism, in the Creed, and in other Sacraments of the Lord: But in the Spirit of Unity, in the Bond of Peace, and finally, in the Catholic Church, you are not with us.  
3. To the same purpose Writteth St. Cyprian, in his Book [Deunitate Ecclesia,] One Church (saith he) the Holy Ghost, in the person of our Lord, designeth, and faith, one is my Dove; This Unity of the Church, he that holdeth not, doth he think that he holdeth the Faith? he that withstandeth and resisteth the Church, he that forsaketh Peter's Chair, upon which the Church was built, doth he trust that he is in the Church? Where the blessed Apostle St. Paul also showeth this Sacrament of Unity, saying one Body, and one Spirit, [Ephes. 4.4.] which Unity, we Bishops especially, that Rule in the Church, ought ot hold fast, and maintain, that we may prove the Episcopal Function also itself, to be One, and undevided.  
4. And again, in one of his Epistles, [Epistle 40.] There is One God, and One Christ, and One Church, and One Chair, by our Lord's Voice, Founded upon Peter: Another Altar to be set up, or a New Priesthood to be made; besides one Altar, and one Priesthood, is impossible, Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, Scattereth: It is Adulterous, it is Impious, it is Sacrilegious, whatsoever is instituted by Man's fury, to the breach of God's Divine Dispensation: Get ye far from the Contagion of such Men, and fly from their Speeches as from a Canker, and Pestilence; our Lord having premonished, and warned us beforehand, saying, they are Blind leaders of the Blind. Matth. 15.14.  
5. St. Augustin says of the Donatists, [De Bapt. l. 1. cap. 8.] Those whom the Donatists heal of the wound of Idolatry, and Infidility, they themselves wound more dangerously with the wound of Schism.  
6. And again, [Super. Gest. Emerit.] Out of the Catholic Church, an Heretic may have all things, but Salvation; he may have the Sacraments, he may sing Hallelujah, he may Answer Amen, he may keep the Gospel, he may have the Faith, and preach it, only Salvation he cannot have.  
7. In like manner, St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, [as Eusebius witnesseth, hist. l. 6. c. 45.] Writing to Novatian, saith, A Man ought rather to endure all things, than to consent to the Division of the Church of God; since that Martyrdom, to which men expose themselves, to hinder the Dismembering of the Church, is no less Glorious than what a man suffers for refusing to Sacrifice to Idols; nay, in my Opinion, this seems of the two, the more Glorious Martyrdom; for in the other cause, he that suffers is a Martyr upon his own account, but in this he is a Martyr for no less than the Body of CHRIST, the Church.  
8. Also St. Cyprian [lib. Deunitat. Eccles.] Do they think (saith he) that Christ is among them when they are Assembled? I speak of those which make Assemblies out of the Church of Christ, no, although they were drawn to Torments, and Execution, for the Confession of the Name of Christ; yet this pollution is not washed away; no, not with their Blood. This inexpiable, and inexcusable crime of Schism is not purged away, even by Death itself. That a man cannot be a Martyr, that is, not in the Church.  
9 And Again, (he saith) He cannot have God for his Father, that has not the Church for his Mother.  
10. So likewise St. Pacianus, in one of his Epistles, [Epistle 2. ad Sempr.] Although that Novatian (saith he) hath been put to Death, (for Christ) yet he has not received a Crown, and why? because he was separated from the peace of the Church, from Concord, from that Mother, of whom, whosoever will be a Martyr, must be a Portion.  
To the same purpose also, these words of Lactantius are very remarkable. It is the Catholic Church only, that keeps the true Worship of God. This is the Fountain of Truth, this is the House of Faith, this is the Temple of God; into which, if a man enter not, or from which, if any man goes out, he is an Alien, and Stranger, from the hope of Everlasting Life and Salvation. No man must by obstinate Contention flatter himself, for it stands upon Life and Salvation. [St. Cyprian 55. add Cornel. Num. 3.] says, The Church never departs from that which she once hath known; and St. Irenaus, [lib. 1. cap. 3.] That the Apostles have laid up in the Church, as a rich Treasury, all Truth. It were an infinite labour to recite all that the Fathers say of this matter; all counting it a most Pernicious Absurdity, to affirm, That the Church of Christ may err in Doctrine of Faith. For example, How could God glory in the multitude of such as follow his Church, if by so doing, they should be led into Error. And yet, Isaias 2. God seems to Glory in the multitude of those who confidently resort to the Church, as to a Mistress of assured Truth, to be instructed by her saying. v. 3. Let us go up to the Mountain of our Lord, and he will teach us his ways, and we shall walk in his Paths, and he shall judge among the Nations. Behold, Christ Erecting a Court or Tribunal in his Church to judge among Nations, and decide all their Controversies which must needs suppose Obedience to be yielded to this Judgement. Yea, the same Prophet adds, Ch. 54. v. 17. That no Weapon that is form against thee shall prosper; and every Tongue resisting thee in judgement, thou shalt condemn. And the Prophet there, from the beginning, manifestly speaks of Christ's Church. Thirdly Isaiah, Ch. 60. 12. The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish. Under pain of perishing, the Church must be obeyed: Whence Fourthly, Ezek. ch. 44. v. 23. They (that is the Priest) shall teach the people, what is between a Holy thing, and a thing Polluted, and the difference between clean, and unclean. They shall show them, and when there shall be Controversy, they shall stand in Judgements. This being their Office, the people's Office must needs be, not to Judge them, but Obey them.  
Fifthly, Christ (Matth. 18.17.) commands to Obey the Church, under pain of being held here on Earth, as Publicans and Heathens, and of having this sentence ratified in Heaven.' Tell the Church, (saith he) And if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee a Heathen, and a Publican; and I say unto you, whomsoever you shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose upon Earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. Here you see obedience to be yielded, under pain of being held as a Publican, or an Heathen; and this Sentence to be ratified in Heaven. Now if the Church could Err in teaching, (for Example) that Christ is truly present in the Sacrament, and hence obliged all to Adore him therein, as much as they Adore him in Heaven, and could oblige them to this, under pain of being held as Publicans and Heathens, and held so as well in Heaven, as upon Earth; surely this cannot be an Error; for then in Heaven this Sentence would never be ratified.  
St. Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundam. c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church moved me.   

What ways the Church has made use of, to settle men's minds in the Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Last Supper.  
TO make this appear more fully, I will give you a brief Relation of the past Proceed of the Church, in the Decision of the Disputes concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and in the Substantial Conversion of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.  
This Real Presence, and Substantial Conversion Berengarius, and some Followers of his long ago denied: Who being complained of, two Councils were called one after another, at Rome and Verseilis, Anno Domini 1050 Berengarius Summoned, and he not appearing, his Heterodox Opinions were condemned. He (according to the new Protestant Grounds) thinking his a Doctrine of great consequence, and the Decrees of the two Councils, a manifest Error; and that himself had manifest Scripture, and Demonstration against it, judged himself freed from the obedience of silence, or noncontradiction, of these Councils. And so he, and his Followers publicly justified his Tenet, desiring a reversion, by some new Council, of the former sentence against it.  
Upon this revived Disturbance of the Church, another Council, five years after, is Assembled at Tours, Anno 1055. not far distant from Angiers, where he was Archdeacon. Here himself, with others of his Party, were present, his Cause pleaded, his Demonstrations considered; and after all, his Opinion again condemned; himself also Recanting it.  
The Council dismissed, he finds yet other new Reasons, and a greater strength in his former; and falls again to the abetting, maintaining, and spreading abroad his old Doctrine. A Fourth Council upon these new Troubles of the Church, Anno 1059. Four years after the last, was called at Rome; where himself also was present. Some say, long Disputation there had, his new Plea for it was found too light, and rejected: And his Opinion, opposing Substantial Conversion, again condemned, both by himself and Council, consisting of an Hundred and Three Bishops.  
The Third time this man revolts, and publishes a Writing, (answered by Lanfrank, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury) wherein he complains, That some particular Enemies of his swayed the former Council, and had made him to swear Contradictions.  
These new Imputations occasioned a Fifth Council to be called at Rome, Anno Domini 1078. in which were new Dispute, his last Cavils censured, and the Article of a substantial Conversion further vindicated; and his Error of the Substance of Bread remaining, again condemned by this Council: And lastly condemned by himself.  
Such was the Sentence of Five General Councils of the West; and the same Arguments then refuted, yet are still urged; as will appear by the Writers of those times, (Lanfrank Guitmundus, Algerus,) to any one that pleaseth to peruse them: The same authorities out of the Fathers then pressed, as are still produced anew by the Reformed, and with the same Answers repelled. All these Councils (if some of them in the Members thereof, less numerous, yet) universally accepted by all the Western Churches; where this Controversy was only agitated: Not one single Bishop thereof (that is known) dissenting, or siding with the Berengarians. Look we for more satisfaction yet?  
When the Fervour of parties, in this matter, was much allayed, and the Church had had sufficient leisure to consider, and digest the former Conciliary Degrees, above an Hundred years after the last of the Councils , the great Laterian Council was assembled, under Innocent the Third; in which were present the Patriarch of Constantinople and Jerusalem in person, and the Substitutes of the Patriarch of Antioch; and of the Alexandrian Patriarch (lying under the Saracen yoke) Germanus, his Deacon.  
[' 'tis true indeed, that some of these Partriarches were then Latines or belonging to the Latin, or Western Church; because both Constantinople and Jerusalem, being held in Possession (the one for near 60, the other for near 100 years) by the Latins; Latin Patriarches were then Elected: As sometimes Greeks also, by the Power of the Emperors, have been Bishops of Rome. But yet they were this Lawful, and the only Patriarches of those Sees, at that time.]  
And present there were besides These, a considerable number of other Eastern Bishops; the whole Council consisting of four hundred and twelve Bishops, and Seventy Archbishops. Now this Council again, instead of reversing, declared for a Substantial Conversion. Where also first (that is, in a Council) was used the Name of Transubstantiation.  
Two Hundred years after this, again, the Council at Florence declared likewise for the same, in the Articles of Instruction for the Jacobins, and Armenians, in these Words, By force of the Words of Christ; the Substance of Bread is converted (or changed) into the Body of Christ; and the Substance of Wine into his Blood.  
Now if the Decrees of so many Councils, so often weighing the Adversaries Reasons, and Evidences, was not sufficient for settling such a Point, what can hereaffter be sufficient! Or how can we ever hope, that any Controversy shall be finally determined, or ended, by any future Council! Can there be any ground here, to question the integrity, or lawful proceed of so many Councils, at such a distance from one another? All concurring in the same judgement, for a Real Presence, and a Substantial Conversion. Or can there be any New Light in this Point, (since there are no New Revelations) attainable in these present times, which those were never capable of? Or, if there could, is not much the major part of the present Clergy, and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christianity, still swayed on the same side, against any present Evidence pretended? How then can the Reformed, reviving the former Arguments of Bertram, Scotus, Erigena, Berengarius, etc. still trouble the Church again, with urging the same Arguments, after the judgement of so many Councils already passed upon them?  
Can any desire a fairer Judicature by Councils, in any matter than there has been already in this? And is there any reason, that Protestants should refer themselves in this Point (as they do) to the judgement of a new Council? If all the Councils successively erred in this Point, so manifestly, as that they could not lawfully oblige their Subjects to obedience, the next, and the next to that, of such Councils as ever we can hope for, may Err so too, and the same Obedience be denied to them; whilst one pretended Evidence, or Demonstration, quelled, another new one starts up, and demands satisfaction.  
But if these Councils be invalid, or not sufficient for the establishing the belief of a Substantial Conversion, let us see the Proceed of the Reformation here, to repeal their Acts, and to establish the contrary to them.  
After all these Councils forenamed, and that of Trent added to them, Anno Domini 1562. a Synod is called at London, of Two Provinces only of the West, consisting of about Twenty four Bishops, and Two Metropolitans: And by These, against all the former Councils abovesaid, it is Decreed, (Articulo 28.) That the change of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and overthrows the nature of a Sacrament. Thus that Article.  
Now, in obedience to this their Decree, they tie their Subjects to subscribe, that they acknowledge it (that is, believe it) to be agreeable to the Word of God. [See their Synod 1603. Can. 63.] This is an Obedience, which themselves (though Subjects) to deny to the Decrees of all those precedent Councils; wherein the judgements of all the Bishops and Metropolitans of the Western World than concurred; and amongst the rest, Those of these Two Provinces also: And yet doth their Synod require it.  
Here let a Sober Christian judge, if Assent be held due to this London-Synod, is it not to those others much rather? To those others, I say, incomparably more numerous, accepted by the West for many Ages, and adhered to still by the greatest part thereof: Having before them the Scriptures, and the Traditive Exposition of them; weighing the Arguments, that are still on foot; meeting so often, and so concluding still in the same judgement.  
But if those other Councils are justified, by the Practice of this Englissh Synod, in their requiring Assent, and Obedience, then is the Reformation rendered unlawful; as likewise their Appeal to future Councils; which can afford us no more just satisfaction, than the forepassed.  
Here you have seen, that for the Desiding this Controversy, a General Council (that is, the most General that the Times would permit) was assembled in the West; nay, of These more than One, as has been showed: A Substantial Conversion of the Elements, and Real Presence, declared to be the sense of those Scriptures, and a reverence suitable required in this great Mystery: Not one Bishop in these Councils (for any thing we know) Dessenting; and Those of the Eastern Churches absent, consenting in the same judgement. What more can be done? Ought not Sense, Reason, and Philosophy, here, be silenced? and ought not such a Decree rather be assented to, than the contrary Decree of the forementioned Synod called at London?  
Now for a further Confirmation of This Doctrine, I will here deliver Evident Testimonies of most Eminent Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, concerning it.   

The Truth of the Eucharist, and Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, Confirmed by the Testimonies of the Fathers.  
MAny of the Holy Fathers have taught, That the Faithful partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, not with a mental mouth by Faith only, as Calvin would have it, but even with a Bodily Mouth in the way of a true and proper Eating: So St. Augustin l. 2. contra Adversarium legis & Prophetarum c. 9 We receive with a faithful heart and mouth Christ Jesus, giving us his Flesh to eat, and his Blood to drink; and St. Leo, Serm. 6. de jejunio mensis septimi, where he Writes thus, We ought so to communicate at the holy Table, as that there be no doubt of the truth of Christ's Body, for the same is taken with the Mouth, which is believed with the Heart.  
In like manner, Calvin's Error is Excluded by St. John Damascen, for he tells us, De Orthodoxa Fide l. c. 14. The Bread and Wine are no figures of the Body and Blood of Christ, far be this from us to imagine, but the very Body of Christ; our blessed Lord himself testifying this is not a sign of my Body, but my Body; nor a sign of my Blood, but my Blood: The like hath Theophylact. in S. Matth. 26. and St. Mark 14. where explaining the selfsame Words of Christ, he adds, He shows that the Host which is offered upon the Altar is the very Body of our Lord, and no Figure; for he said not, this is a Figure of my Body, but my Body; hence is it, that the Holy Fathers Teach, that by receiving the Eucharist, Christ is truly incorporated with us, and not by Faith only, or Figuratively, but united to us indeed; so speak the Holy Fathers: For thus says St. John Chrysostom, Homil. 3. on St. Matth. He incorporates himself (says he) with us, and not by Faith only, but he makes us his Body verily and indeed.  
So St. Cyril of Alexandria, in St. John l. 10. c. 13. tells us, We are not only united to Christ spiritually, by a true Faith and sincere Charity, but Christ also dwells in us Corporally, by Communication of the Flesh of Christ, and that Corporal Union of Christ with the Faithful; therein by participation of the Eucharist, he Illustrates by this Instance: Like as (says he) if one blends one piece of melted Wax with another, so as one lump seems to be made up of both the pieces; even so by Communication of the Body and Blood of Christ, he is in us, and we in him, for the corruptable Nature of a Body, cannot otherwise pass over to Life and Incorruption, unless a body of Natural Life be joined with it.  
St. Gregory Nyssen uses another instance, in Orat. Catech. cap. 37. where he speaks thus. In like manner as a little, Leaven, as the Apostle Testifies, 2 Cor. 11. Leavens the whole Lump; even so, that Life giving Body passing into our Bodies, Translates itself wholly into us, and changes us, as it renders ours like it, and immortal, in due time; for it is necessary, that our Nature, so far as may be, should admit so Efficatious a power into our Bodies, where he also teaches us, that it behoves us to believe, that like as the forbidden Fruit was corporally eaten by Adam, even so that the Body of Christ is taken of us corporally, and received in the Belly, so that it is not only mentally by Faith, or Figuratively, as Calvin would have it, so as the wholesome Medicine be in us, be not otherwise in us than the Destructive poison, which was bodily received, to Repeal the same by a contrary Action. Read that whole Chapter then, which nothing can be more clearly against the Errors of the Calvinists, maintaining the Body and Blood of Christ to be taken by us Spiritually and not Corporally. Last of all, the Holy Fathers Teach, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, for the sake of Christ's being there, is to be Adored; but Adored it ought not to be, nay, such Adoration would be Idolatry, if Christ be not truly and really there contained; for that Worship or Adoration that is called Latria, is to be given to God alone; whence it is plain, that in the opinion of the Holy Fathers, Christ is truly and really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, now that the Holy Fathers every where teach, that the Sacraments of the Eucharist is to be Adored, because of Christ's being there, appears plainly from St. Austin, Epist. 120. cap. 27. Where he tells us, That the Faithful came to the Table, they eat and Adored the same; he maintains in his Comment. 82. that place Psalm xcviii. upon Worship his Footstool, where the Footstool he explains by the Earth, and the Earth by the Flesh of Christ; Because (says he) he walked here in our Flesh, and gave his very Flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation; and no man eats that Flesh, unless he hath first Adored it. It is discovered how such a Footstool of our Lord may be Adored, and we shall not only not Sin in Adoring, but we Sin in not Adoring; and St. Ambrge de Spiritu Sancto, l. 13. c. 11. upon the same words, says thus: By the Footstool is meant the Earth, and by the Earth, the Flesh of Christ, which we daily Adore in the Mysteries; Thus St. Ambrose: The like hath St. Chrysostom in Epist. ad Eph. homil. 3. where he hath it thus; Adore this and Eat: And St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 3. Mystagog hath these words; Make thy approach to the Chalice of his Blood in the manner of Adoration. This the Church has constanty held from the beginning, and hold even to this day; as appears from the General Council of Trent, Sess. 13. Cap. 5. where it requires the Worship of Latria to be given to the Sacrament, according to the custom ever received in the Church.  
Many more Testimonies of the Holy Fathers are yet behind, which to produce were easy, if there were no pains in Transcribing them; and those already produced are sufficient for the truth of the Eucharist, and for the Real Presence of the Body of Christ there.  
Jo. 6. v. 54. Who Eats my Flesh, and Drinks my Blood, hath Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. And the Council of Nice calls the Eucharist Symbolum Resurrectionis, a token of the Resurrection; and St. Ignatius M. Epist. 14. ad Epes. terms it Pharmacum Immortalitatis; A Medicine of Immortality.  
Now if you ask the manner how it serves, as an incorruptible food for a Glorious Resurrection.  
I Answer, The Species being altered by the heat of the Stomach, the Body of Christ ceases to be here, but his Deity remains after a special manner in the Soul, (as the virtue of Wheat remains in the corrupted grain, to raise it again at Spring) feeding it with Grace, and at set times affording it new infusions of Actual Grace, Divine Lights and Heavenly Affection; and in the Resurrection raises again the Body, and unites it to the Soul.  
Reformers Object, that the same Body of Christ cannot be multiplied so often over. We answer out of Gen. 2.21. Our Lord God cast a dead sleep upon Adam, and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his Ribs, and filled up flesh for it, and our Lord God built the Rib which he took of Adam into a Woman. I ask how many times over must this Rib be multiplied, before a whole Woman (of a comely proper Stature) could be made of it: After the same manner, God can of one ordinary Brick make a Pillar of many Foot high, by Multiplying that one Brick; in the like manner, our Saviour Multiplied those five Barley Loves with which he fed above five Thousand Men. Jo. 6. For if he made new Loves, he did not feed them with those five; but with those many hundred new Loves which he made; and yet the Scripture saith v. 12.13. After they were filled, they gathered the Remnants, and filled Twelve Baskets with the fragments of the five Barley Loves; and not of any new Loves created by Christ: So that the Bread which was eaten remained still to be eaten; and it is worth our noting, that our Saviour did this Miracle, immediately before he did first declare this strange Doctrine of giving his flesh to be eaten like bread by every one; that so, when he should have no reason to disbelieve the possibility thereof: For his Disciples seeing that he had done that Prodigious Miracle: So very lately, ought not presently to have said, This is hard, and who can hear it? Neither ought they so soon to have walked apart from him, as there St. John saith, They did; but rather they ought to have said with St. Peter, We believe and know thou art the Son of God, able to make thy words good, as thou wert able so to multiply so few Loaves.   

Concerning the Exposition of these words, THIS IS MY BODY.  
WE say these words, This is my Body, prove clearly the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Host. Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense, in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries, who therefore say, they are to be taken Figuratively. Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense, I prove 〈◊〉 positively.  
Positive Proofs.  
WHen in a Speech a word is indifferent of it sellf, to be taken in the literal or figurative sense, you must look to the words that follow in the same Speech; if they express the property of a figure, the word is to be taken figuratively; if the property of the real thing, than the word is to be taken in the literal sense.  
For Example, when one tells me I have seen the King, I know not yet what he means; whether his person or picture; but when he adds, set in a frame of Gold, I know he means his Picture, because 'tis the property of a Picture to be set in a Frame. If he adds, speaking with the Chancellor, I know he means the King's Person, because 'tis the property of a person to speak with another. Just so, when Christ says, Luke 22. v. 19 This is my Body: I know not yet what he means, whether his Real Body, or only a figure of it. But when he adds, which is given for you, I know he means of his true Body, because 'tis the property of a true body to be sacrificed for us.  
2. I prove again, that these words of Christ, This is my Body, are to be taken in the literal sense, by the Protestant Principle, which is this. When two passages relate to, or speak of the same matter in Scripture, the obscurer passage is to be explained by the clearer.  
But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper, This is my Body; and, Do this in remembrance of me; This latter is the obsecurer, and that former the clearer; then this latter aught to be explained by that former, that is to say, to the sense of that former, viz. Christ having changed a piece of bread into his Body by his Almighty word, says there to his Disciples, Do ye for the food of other Souls, what ye have seen me do for the food of yours: Change ye likewise, by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end, bread into my Body: but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion.  
But the clear Proposition ought not to be explained by the obscure one, thus: This is my Body, that is to say, this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body, because he said after do this in remembrance of me; for the thing was now done, and he told them what it was in clear words, afore he said, Do this in remembrance of me; He did not say, this is a remembrance of me; no, but Do this in remembrance of me; He did not speak of the substance of the thing, but only of the manner of doing it. By these words then in remembrance of me, he only intimated, that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people, as is seen done in the Sacrifice of the Mass. If by, This, he understood a figure or remembrance, than he had said, do or make aremembrance of me in remembrance of me, or remember me to remember me, which is ridiculous.  
Now, let any indifferent and judicious man be judge, if these words do this in remembrance of me, be as clear to prove, that in the Euchrarist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Body; as these words This is my Body, are clear to prove, that the Eucharist is his true Body.  
If you instance, that as Christ said, This is my Body, so he said also I am a Vine, and consequently, as the latter Proposition must be taken figuratively, so must also the former. I answer, it doth not follow, there being a great disparity. For we all, Protestants as well as Catholics, avow that Propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense, if so taken, they imply or intimate something contrary to Faith, as this Proposition I am a Vine literally taken would do. Por Protestants as well as Catholics, believe that the Divine Word hath assumed no nature but that of Man; then he hath not assumed that of a Vine and consequently 'tis against Faith to say in the literal sense, Christ is a Vine.  
But these words This is my Body, taken in the literal sense, imply nothing against Faith; no more than he, who showing you a knife, says, This is a Knife; for the term This, and the term Knife, suppose for the same thing, and not for different natures; so in Christ's Proposition, This is my Body, This, and Body, suppose for the same thing, not This for Bread, but for The Body of Christ; as well as the word Body supposes for it; though in a different way of signifying, This obscurely, and Body clearly and distinctly.  
Here I humbly entreat the Protestant Reader to reflect, that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding, 2 Cor. 10.5. (that is to say; suspend it from asserting what it might judge, had he nothing to rely upon, but the sole relation of our senses) to obey Christ.  
God will have, as an homage due to him and his veracity, this proud faculty of man, which is earnest to judge of all, submit to his word. The assent of my understanding, by which I judge a thing to be, because I see it with my eyes, is an assent of science, which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of Faith. In the mean time, we Christians, as Christians are called, not Philosophers the Reasoners, but the Faithful. Fides est, as we say, credere quod non vides, Faith is to believe that which thou dost not see. This is the praise of Faith, saith St. Aug. tract. 29. in lo. If that, which is believed, be not seen. Blessed are they, said Christ Jo. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have believed. Faith is an argument, (or persuasion) saith St. Paul, of things not appearing. If they appear, and I assent that they are, because I see them, my Faith ceases, Science coming in with Faith's Destruction.  
If you say, I believe that the Son of God became Man, because God hath revealed it, and my senses do not control it; your Faith is lame, and not able to stand alone, and consequently is an unworthy Sacrifice of your understanding to the word of God.  
What would the King say to that Noble man, who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his Courtiers, of a thing done by his Majesty upon his Royal word; who should (I say) distrust it, because he heard it controlled by a Footboy, or some such mean person of as little credit?  
As humane Faith requires, I rely upon the sole testimony of a man, so does divine Faith require I rely upon the sole Testimony of God; shall I trust the word of a man sometimes contrary to sensible appearance, as when I trust upon the word of a Doctor or a Chirurgeon, that that which I feel hurts me, will do me good, and shall not I trust the Word of God, because my Senses seem to control it?  
But be not mistaken, neither sense nor reason controls the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. For, sense after the Consecration, finds its whole Object, Colour, Taste, etc. Just as before the Consecration unchanged, and meddles not to judge whether the Body of Christ, or the substance of Bread, be under the Accidents, as a thing belonging to the understanding, and not within the compass of its Object. And Reason tells us, that although all the accidents of a substance be present, nevertheless their substance is not there, if the Author of nature has not revealed that he hinders its presence to them; and therefore does not control our saying, that the substance of Bread is hot in the Eucharist after the Consecration, because the Author of Nature hath revealed the contrary. No more than it controls Protestants, saying, that those three, who appeared to Ahraham Genes. 18. with all the accidents of Men, were not Men but Angels, because God has revealed it was so.  
3. Christ by his Almighty Power, could change Bread into his flesh; and he tells us Matth. 26. in these words, This is my Body, that he hath done it; why shall not I believe it? O but it seems strange to our apprehension! must God then in that thing in which he will make to all men a memorial of his wonders, Psal. 110. v. 4. do nothing but what is within the reach of meaner wits, and falls under their senses? this claim is too proud therefore in humility.  
Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas. Behold with what arguments human Infirmity possessed with vanity, opposes the almighty power of God.  
FINIS.