PAPISMUS LUCIFUGUS, OR A faithful Copy of the Papers exchanged betwixt Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, Professor of DIVINITY in the Marischal-Colledge of ABERDENE, and Mr. Francis Dempster jesuit, otherwise Surnamed Rin or Logan,  
WHEREIN The jesuit declines to have the truth of Religion examined, either by Scripture or Antiquity, though frequently appealed thereunto.  
AS ALSO, Sundry of the chief Points of the Popish Religion are demonstrated to be repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity, yea, to the Ancient Romish-Church.  
TO ALL WHICH Is premised in the Dedication, a true Narration of a verbal Conference with the same jesuit.  Tit. 1.10.11. 
There are many unruly and vain Talkers and Deceivers,— Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy Lucre's sake.  Aug. lib. 2. de Bapt. con. Don. cap. 6. 
Non afferamus stateras delosas, ubi appendamus quod volumus & quomodo volumus pro arbitri● nostro, dicentes, hoc grave, hoc leve est: Sed afferamus divina●● stateram de Scriptures sanctis tanquam de the sauris Dominicis & in illa quid sit gravius appendamus: Immo ●on appendamus sed a Domino appensa recognoscamus.  
ABERDENE, Printed by JOHN FORBES Younger, Printer to the TOWN, Anno Dom. M.DC.LXVIII.   

 Aberdeen coat of arms BON ACCORD 
Insignia Vrbis abredoniae    

Unto the Right Honourable M R. ROBERT PATRIE of PORTLETHEN Lord Provest.  


Bailies. 

ALEXAND R. ALEXANDER  
JOHN SCOT  
JOHN DUNCAN  
JOHN SMITH     ANDREW SKENE Dean of Gilled, GILBERT BLACK Treasurer, And to the rest of the honourable COUNCIL of ABERDENE.  
RIGHT HONOURABLE,  
It was not any supposed Worth in these Papers, which moved me to consent to the publishing of them. But because our Romish Adversaries had the confidence, openly to triumph in City and Country, (though I hope without ground,) as if their Champion Master Dempster, had left, not me only, (which had been no great matter,) but also the Religion of PROTESTANTS, at a great loss and disadvantage. Who, Who am I, the meanest of the thousands of ISRAEL, that any infirmities of mine, whether supposed or real, should be charged on so GLORIOUS a CAUSE, which is the invincible Truth of the Most High GOD, & may bid a defiance to all the Goliahs and Hosts of Romish Philistines? Hath not the Reformed Religion, stood as an impregnable Rock against all the assaults both of Speculative and Pragmatic heads and bloody hands, which have been kept at work these many years, in opposition thereto by the See of Rome? Who then, that is but one remove from madness, can imagine that the insignificant scufle of this jesuit should endanger it? I freely confess, what I have said, or can say, is infinitely below the dignity of the CAUSE which I maintain, yea, and exceedingly short, of what eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches have said, and can further say in behalf of our Religion. Must it not argue either height of prejudice, or pitiful shallowness, to impute whatsoever deficiencies of such an one as Me, to Religion itself? Wherefore Reverend, Learned, Pious & judicious Persons, (with whom I did communicate all these Papers when they were exchanged,) have judged it sit, that all should be faithfully published, that the World might have a new demonstration, on how small grounds (to say no worse,) our clamorous Romanists can triumph, as if they were more than conquerors. Well may that saying of Austin, in Psalm. 32. Be accommodated to them, Non remanet iis nisi sola infirmitas animositatis, quae tanto est languidior, quanto se majores vires habere aestimat. There only support is, the infirmity of an high or overweening stomach, which is so much the more feeble, as it overvalueth its own strength.  
It hath been the usual artifice of Heretics, when they could not conquer Truth by their captious arguings, to load the assertors thereof with reproaches. Austin complained of such dealing, both from Pascentius, a champion of the Arrians, tom. 2. Epist. 174. As also from the Donatists, tom. 7. in Epist. ad Donatist. post collat. What wonder then, though Romanists who are so Heretical in their Doctrines, be Acted by the same Calumniating Genius? Learned Doctor Prideaux, lect. 9 the visib. Eccles. §. 11. Hath been at the pains to present his Reader with a multitude of instances of most impudent Calumnies, wherewith Romanists have aspersed faithful witnesses of truth. I will not rake in that dunghill. Only let me remember you, that Romish practices of this nature were long ago so known to the World, that learned Doctor Featly, before that he and Doctor Francis white, engaged in their disput with Fisher and Sweet, two jesuits, could easily presage and foretell to the pitcher of the field, that whatever were the issue of that combat, and at whatever disadvantage the jesuits should be left, yet he and his Colegue Doctor white, should be conquered in effigy, and led in triumph in many a Pageant at Douai, Brussels, Rheims, and Rome, as afterwards fell out. Yea so impudent were the Romanists, that Doctor Weston told at Saint Omers, to a Protestant Lord, who had been present at the disput, viz. to the Earl of Warwick, that the two jesuits had acquitted themselves so admirably well, and with so much advantage to the Romish interest, that two Earls, and an hundreth Auditors were gained to the Church of Rome, and of these Earls this noble Lord to whom the Doctor spoke, was affirmed to be one; who could not but smile as these ludibrious Legends. For the Earl well knew, there were not near an hunger persons present at the Conference, nor one PROTESTANT staggered thereby. Yea, the person for whose satisfaction that conference was principally intended, though before he had his own doubts, yet after the debate, professed that he was fully resolved as to the Reformed Religion. All this is testified by judicious Doctor Featly, in the Relation of that Conference. Should it then seem strange to any, that the tristing debate wherein I have been lately engaged with this jesuit, hath been so grossly misrepresented by men of these principles? Who could have expected any thing else? Do men gather grapes of Thorns, or Figs of Thistles? Yet as to my own particular interest, I could have borne all their reproaches, remembering that of the Ancient, Quisquis volens detrahit famae meae, nolens addit mercedi meae. But judicious Lovers of Truth finding Religion itself to be thrust at through my sides, laid bonds upon me to give the World a faithful account of that whole transaction; though otherwise, I could willingly have destined these poor Papers, so fare as they concerned me, to perpetual silence.  
Since therefore, Very Honourable, this scufle with Mr. Dempster fell out under the intuition of your Authority, I judged it incumbent to me, to present you with this brief ensuing account thereof. As you in your Civil Capacity, and we your Ministers in our Ecclesiastic Line, traveled to suppress Error and Vngodlynesse in this CITY, We had frequent opportunity to deal with Persons of a Popish persuasion. When we did demonstrate to them that the present Romish Religion was False, Impious, Idolatrous yea, and (notwithstanding all its high pretences to Catholicism,) grossly Schismatical. These poor straying Souls, being nuzzled up in ignorance by their Romish Guides, under a pretence of the Implicit Collier Faith, could make little other Reply, then that, though they could not answer us, yet there Priests and Learned Men could argue the matter to the full. We often in compassion to these misled Persons told them, that not the Priest only but the People also should be ready to render a reason of the hope which is in them with meekness and fear. 1. Pet. 3.15. That though the seduceing Priest shall receive a larger measure of Damnation, yet misled Souls who wilfully persist in their Error, when truth is convincingly proposed, will also Die in their sins. Ezech. 3.18. Matt. 15.14. And therefore, that it highly concerned them to examine the proposals of their Priests. We did add likewise, and I hope without vanity, that had we opportunity of speaking with these Learned Men, of whom they talked so bigly, we should be ready to give a rational account of the Truth which we profess, and of the Falsehood of Popery. Hereupon (as we have since been credibly informed,) after many Consultations betwixt the chief persons of the Romish profession in this Place, and traffiquing Missionaries, Mr. Dempster was chosen as the Champion who should encounter the Ministers of ABERDENE, whom they concluded to assault by a supprizall.  
When the Popish Party are about this secret contrivance, it fell out, that as I was preaching upon the Doctrine of Repentance, from Acts 17.30.31. I gave this transient advertisement to my hearers, That the Popish Doctors had not only corrupted the dogmaticalls of Christianity, (as we had frequently demonstrated,) but many of the practicals also. I did instance from the Subject matter which I was handling, that many of their great Doctors do teach, That when a man hath sinned heinous, he is not bound to repent presently, in so much, that their great Cardinal de Lugo, tract. de paenit. disp. 7. sect. 11. § 1. num 169. speaking of this Doctrine, says, that it is Sententia verior & communis jam omnibus Theologis uno vel altero recentiore excepto. That this Doctrine is now received by all their Divines, except one or two Neoterieks. Nay, great Doctors among them, as their famous Vasquez, tom. 4. in 3. part. quaest. 86. dub. 6. Maintain, That the precept of Repentance binds only, per se, in articulo mortis, In the article of Death. I shall not here mention other of their absurd Positions in that matter, whereof I have given some account in my Reply to the jesuits eight Paper, page 158. 159. etc. The discovery of this their Doctrine concerning Repentance, which hath so direct a tendency to ungodliness, seemed to have such a reflection on their Popish Religion, that a Gentleman of that Profession (whom I do very greatly honour, and whose Conversion I sincerely wish,) judged himself concerned to send a challenge to Me by a friend: Showing That he wondered why I should thus wrong their Doctors; yea, he was so confident of my mistake, that the Messenger said, that he promised to turn. PROTESTANT if I would make good what I had asserted. I told the Messenger that I was sure of a Convert, if the Gentleman would stand to his word, and if he would be pleased to come to my Study, his own eyes should be judges, whether I had wronged their Authors.  
Within a few days hereafter, when the Secret contrivance (as seems,) was rip, and Master Dempster with much study had put his Syllogism into its goodly frame, and committed it to writing, (only the misery was, that he forgot to study the Confirmation of either of the Propositions thereof,) the Gentleman of whom I was lately speaking, accompanied by another of that Profession, was pleased on the 18. of april 1666: to make Me a visit, my Reverend & Learned Colegue, Mr. GEORGE MELDRUM being then with Me. He did bespeak us both to this purpose. You may remember, (said he,) that you have said in conference with persons of our Profession, that you would not shun to argue the Controversies of Religion with any of our Learned Men, and now you may have opportunity of a free communing with a Catholic Scholar (so the jesuit was designed,) at my Lodging, if you be pleased to go along with Me. We answered, that we were not unmindful of what we said, and should be as ready through the help of GOD to perform, whensoever occasion did offer. But I behoved first to answer another challenge sent by him to Me; some days , as if I had wronged Popish Authors concerning the Doctrine of Repentance. And therefore, I offered presently to make good what I had affirmed as to that thing, by producing their own Authors. But he would not so much as speak to that particular: Only he insisted upon the other Proposition. Whereupon we told that we should never decline a communing, either upon that particular, or any other Question of Religion with any person whatsoever. But because such Conferences might be exceedingly misrepresented, it were ●●ed●ul that Circumstances were cautiously ordered. It was therefore agreed upon by mutual consent, that there should be none present but six of either side, and all to be silent except the Disputants. Yea, the six which should be of the Popish side, were by name expressed. The day being now fare spent, and the advertiseing of our Friends requiring a time; it was also condescended, that our meeting should be to morrow in the afternoon, at this Gentleman's Lodging. When we had given notice to some discreet Persons of Our Religion, concerning this challenge, they looked upon the place as unfit, upon many accounts. Wherefore I wrote a letter, desiring the meeting might be at some other place, especially, where books might be at hand, if any testimony which we cited should be denied. But when we were so far from obtaining this, that our desire was interpreted, as if we were declining the Conference, and distrusting our CAUSE. We resolved to go to the Gentleman's house upon whatsoever disadvantage, takeing along with us no more than the definite number of Persons eondescended upon. When we came into the Lodging, we found (contrary to promise,) a great multitude of both Sexes.  
The Champion (whom we afterwards understood to be Mr. Dempster jesuit,) being set in a great Chair at the head of the Table, and a Popish Youth, who had been educated at the Scots College in Paris at his elbow; as a Scrivener, (who was none of the Persons communed upon,) we complained of violation of promise, in bringing us to such a public Convention, which in the end proved tumultuary, The clamours of the Excommunicated Women being louder than the jesuits Arguments. The jesuit answered, that was but a circumstance. But it was replied to him, that PROTESTANTS had too many dear bought experiences of the Perfidy of Papists. If they were not faithful in Circumstances, we had cause to jealous them much more in Substances.  
This passing. I publicly declared before all present, that I had received from such a Gentleman two Challenges, One, as if I had charged upon Popish Doctors eoncerning Repentance that which they do not maintain. The Other, to debate the Controversies of Religion with this person, who appeared as Champion for the Romish interest; Which my Reverend Colegue and I were ready to do, not against him only, but against the whole Conclave of Rome, if there present. As to the first, I repeated to the jesuit, what I had charged upon many of the chief Doctors of the Present Romish Church, concerning the Doctrine of Repentance, viz that they maintain, That when a man hath sinned heinous he is not bound to repent presently. And required him, as one whom I presumed to be acquaint with their writings, to declare, whether it was so or not? And if he would deny it, I offered instantly to prove it against him. The jesuit answered he came not either to answer Questions, or Objections against the Romish Religion; but only to impugn the PROTESTANT Religion. It was Replied to him, we were not afraid of his Impugnations, but matters behoved to be managed orderly. The Religion which we profess, being not only the Truth of GOD, but also established by the Law of the Land; We could not betray our Trust, by suffering it only, or in the first place to be impugned. But he should have all, which in Reason or justice could be desired. Let him answer us either two or six Arguments against Popery, we should answer as many propounded by him against the Religion of PROTESTANTS. And this previous question concerning Repentance, being of a matter of fact, might soon be at an end. So as not to impede the General discuss of the Truth of Religion. But the jesuit peremptorly insisted upon his Declinatur, That he would answer nothing, neither Question nor Argument, but only impugn  
Here it pleased a Grave & judicious Person, who lately before had born Principal Charge in the Magistracy of this Town, G. G. P. (whom we found in the Lodging with others at our coming,) to interpose himself thus. I am a PROTESTANT (said he,) nor have I any scruple concerning my Religion, yet I could willingly hear the controversies of Religion fairly debated. But I cannot be witness to have the PROTESTANT Religion only called in question, or in the first place. But it seems a most just and reasonable proposal which is made, that so many objections be first moved against the Popish Religion, and then as many against the Religion of PROTESTANTS. This the jesuit pertinaciously declined, still affirming that he would only impugn. Whereupon our PROTESTANT Friends thought it was fittest for us to be gone. And indeed we were once at the door removing, until these of his own Party being ashamed of his tergiversing, persuaded him at length by their importunity first to be Respondent.  
We returning, (and the jesuit shunning to debate with my Reverend and Learned Colegue Master GEORGE MELDRUM who had offered to impugn him,) the jesuit was again desired, First to Answer to the Question of fact, concerning the Doctrine of Repentance, and then Arguments of more general concernment should be propounded. But he refuseing to answer to that question, unless it were framed into an Argument against their Religion, I told that for gaining of time. I would frame it into an Argument against their Religion, though it would oblige Me to a more general accusation of their Church, as to that particular, than I had delivered in the Pulpit. Yet to extort an Answer from him I would do it, hoping afterwards to have liberty granted, to propound other Arguments against their Impious, and Idolatrous Religion. The Thesis which I undertook to prove, was, That the Popish Religion is Impious. My first Argument was framed after this manner: 
The Religion which teacheth, that when a man hath sinned heinous, he is not bound to repent presently, is Impious.  
But the Popish Religion teacheth, that when a man hath sinned heinous, he is not bound to repent presently.  
Ergo, the Popish Religion is Impious.   
After that this Argument was several times repeated to the jesuit, he denied the Major. Whereupon I took Witness of all that were present, but especially of the Gentleman who had sent the challenge to Me, that the jesuit had admitted the Minor, viz. That the Popish Religion teacheth, that when a man hath sinned heinous, he is not bound to repent presently (Which was the only thing which I intended to have cleared by this Argument, and was more than I had affirmed in Pulpit, of that particular,) And that he only denied the Major, that it is an Impiety to teach so. Then I would have been at the propounding of a new Argument. Had not he and that Party, as seems to drive of time, and to keep Me from propounding other Arguments against their Religion, by their clamorous outcrying, constrained me to insist on that which I never intended, namely, The confirmation of the Major, which of itself, might seem evident enough to any who had any sense of Godliness. It would be too tedious in this Epistolar discourse, to rehearse to your HONOURS all that was said in Confirmation of that Major. Only I shall briefly relate to you the Result of it. The jesuit in end was reduced to say, That when a man's Soul, or Body, or his Neighbour's Soul are in extreme danger, he is not bound presently to take care of any of them. Which whether it savour of Atheism, intelligent Christians may judge? Yea some of the Hearers, who were not called by us (speaking of that business,) could make no better Apology for the Romish interest, then to say, That the jesuit behaved himself like one who resolved to betray the Romish Cause.  
Then I propounded another Argument, which indeed was the first that I designed against their Religion, (the former being only occasionally put into a Syllogistick frame to extort an answer from him, in reference to the Matter of Fact, whereof I had been challenged,) after this manner.  
The Religion which destroyeth all certainty of Faith, is Impious.  
But the Popish Religion destroyeth all certainty of Faith.  
Ergo, the Popish Religion is Impious.  
Though the jesuit would make no Answer at all to this Argument, yet I proposed a Confirmation of the Assumption, (which was the only proposition, which he could deny,) from the Tridentin and Florentin Canons, which make the efficacy of all Sacraments to depend upon the intention of the Priests who officiat. From which it followeth, that seeing they cannot have Certainty of Faith concerning the Priest's intention, all certainty of Faith must be overturned in their Religion. They cannot certainly know who is Pope, Bishop, or Priest, (Ordination with them being a Sacrament,) or who is Baptised; and consequently, they cannot know who is capable to be a Constituent member of a Council, or to celebrat the Eucharist, and so they cannot have certainty of Faith, that their Hosty is transubstantiated, even according to their own Principles, of that they have either Pope, or Council, on whose Authority to build their Faith. To this Argument, the jesuit refused absolutely to answer, desiring that he might have liberty to impugn. But it was replied to him, that my Argument was already tabled, to which if he would answer, I should answer him other two according to my first proposal. And this was so much the more reasonable, because my first Argument, as I ever declared, was only to extort a declaration from him, concerning a matter of fact. Sundry also of our PROTESTANT Friends, (without whose advice, I resolved not to move in a matter of such public concernment,) advised that I should admit of no Arguments from him, unless he would answer this Argument which I had last proposed. But still he persisted in his Refusal to answer my Argument. Whereupon it was told him, neither would I admit of any from him, until that which I had propounded were answered. Yet had he been very zealous to impugn, might he not at lest have vocally propounded his Argument? Did I not propound a second Argument against him, and hint also at the confirmation of the Proposition, which might have been questioned, though he refused to answer thereto? Can I stop his mouth, more than he could mine? All he did was to hold a Paper in his hand, (wherein it seems, he had his poor naked Syllogism,) and to call upon the Scrivener to writ. But he never told what should be written. It is generally supposed, and I believe truly, that the Paper which the jesuit had in his hand, was the First Paper which he transmitted to me the next night, and is in my Reply thereunto, I hope sufficiently examined. It resembled every way his first Paper, which I have by me, and it is more than probable that his first assault would be with that long studied Achilles, especially, seeing in all his following Papers he could never frame one Syllogism more.  
Matters being at this point, the jesuit said he would send a written Paper to me, which I told him, by the help of GOD, should be answered. Hereupon these ensuing Papers betwixt him and me were exchanged, which I shall submit to the candid censure of the unprejudiced Reader. Only the tenth and last Paper was not transmitted to him, the occasion whereof was this. Shortly after the jesuit sent to me his tenth Paper, dated May 14 1667. He got out of the Nation. A Reply to it was lying drawn by me in june 1667. And when I was intending to transmit it to him, several Persons did advertise me that he was gone over Sea; yet, as afterwards I perceived, they made the rumour to go, that he was gone, sometime before he was really gone, to make me (as seems,) lay aside thoughts of returning an answer to his Tenth Paper. I thereupon desired to be advised by judicious Friends, what was fit to be done in such an exigent; whose judgements did all harmoniously concur in this, that all the Papers should be Printed, together with a Reply to his tenth Paper, that the World might have a full account of this whole Encounter, which had been so much noised abroad. Though I had a great aversation from appearing in Print, especially, with such trifling Papers, yet in end the Importunity and Authority of Friends prevailed. And the rather because the Papists made afterwards rumours sometime to go that Mr. Dempster was dead, sometime that he was alive, so that I could not certainly know what was become of him. But whether he were living or dead, the Misrepresentations of this matter were still animated by the calumniating Genius of living Papists, for confutation whereof, their clamours laid a necessity upon me, to publish faithfully the Papers exchanged betwixt us.  
There be some two or three things in these Papers which perhaps may seem to require an Apology. As first, It may be offensive to some that there should be so much writing on so little purpose. This can be no more irksome to a Reader, than it was tedious to me in writing. But the nauseating repetitions of the Adversary constrained me either to resume the same things, or to disdain to give him any Answer. Yet whether I have not given to him a large enough field, had he had courage to adventure out of his trenches, others may cognosce. This I confess was one of my tentations to chastise him somewhat sharply. least peradventure I might afterwards be judged Socius Criminis.  
It may Secondly be enquired, why I was not as speedy at all times in my Answers to him, as he was to me. I believe the frequent incumbency's of duty which your HONOURS know d'ye weekly return on me, in School and Pulpit, might sufficiently apologiz for me in this matter. But I have this further to add. At the first, upon expectation of some significancy from the Adversary, I concerned myself to use some diligence in returning my Papers, I believe not inferior to him, though I had more to do. But afterwards when I found nothing but frothy emptiness in his scribble, it became a Problem with me, whether to answer him at all. Hereupon I would purposely throw by his Papers for a time. But lest my utter silence should make him overvalue what he had said, I would at a spare hour, mould him an answer. When I thought of the dispatch he sometimes used, (though yet sundry of his Papers be antedated a considerable time before they were delivered to me,) it brought to my mind the story of the conceited Painter, who bringing a Picture to Apelles, to raise the esteem of his Artifice, told that he had done it in so short a time. I guessed said Apellès at your great haste by your foul work. Festinans Canis caecos parit catulos. Is it not an easy matter to dispatch quick Replies, when what is most material is answered with silent Preteritions? Others may consider, whether the jesuit have not demeaned himself as it's reported of the Dogs of Egypt, that for feat of being bitten with a Crocodyle, they dare not take a full draught of the Rryer Nilus, but satisfy themselves with transient lappings. Indeed his Papers and Quaker discourses, as some where I have told him, required no great study. He would do well the next time to mind that advyce of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
There is a Third exception, which may be taken at the acrimony which I have used in some of these Papers. I sincerely profess, I take no pleasure therein. I love rather hard Arguments then hard Words. I acknowledge the Truth of that saying of the Comic Poet, Bacchaes Bacchanti etc. But there be two things, which I hope will in great measure plead my Apology in this also. The First is, that these smart expressions had their first rise from the jesuit and not from me. In evidence whereof, let a Momus peruse my First Reply, if any uncivil expression be found in it: Yet what scurrilous and dunghill eloquence the jesuit useth in his next Paper, without any provocation is obvious to any Reader, But next, I appeal to all rational Persons, who shall peruse these Papers, whether he gives not just cause for smart Language, by his nauseating Repetitions, shameful Preteritions; and impudent Calumnies, (for what I know,) without a parallel. In so much, that sometimes he would inscribe his Papers with a splendid Calumny, affirming, that I had disowned all which I had said before. So he did in his sixth Paper. When these his Papers were disseminated among the Popish Proselyts, (without my Answers) who took all the jesuits bold Assertions for Oracles, and were ready thereupon to clamour through the Country, would not such dealing have moved the Choler of a Person of ordinary Meekness? It was the saying of a great jurist, Non irasci ob eas causas, I ob quas irasci oporteat, stultoru●● est. Yea Aristotle affirms it to be an Act of meekness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Plutarch was not afraid to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet if either Master Dempster or any for him will hereafter prosecut this Debate in a Rational and Civil way, they may be assured of as Courteous and Civil Entertainment as they shall give. But leaving these things.  
I have made bold to superscribe your HONOURS NAMES to these Papers. Your known Affection to the True Reformed RELIGION, and your zeal for promoting the welfare of this Famo●● CITY, the Happiness whereof is more wrapped up in the Interest of Religion, then in any Earthly concern, suffer me not once to doubt of your Willingness, to undertake the Patrociny of the Truths herein asserted. The Obligations are so many and so great, which lie upon me from this CITY, and from the MAGISTRATES and COUNCIL'L thereof, especially these twenty and one year's last bygone, wherein I have been, through Mercy, officiating, though weakly, in the public Ministry of the Gospel among you; beside the Personal respects which I own to yourselves, who at present do possess the Chair, that you may justly challenge a Propriety in all my performances. It is therefore become a Problem with me, whether this poor Present which I humbly tender to you, ought not more properly to be termed the Payment of a just Debt, than a SYMBOL of GRATITUDE? But under whatsoever notion you shall be pleased to accept of it, I shall surely be the more deeply addebted to you. I add no more, only the GOD of all Grace and Truth rebuke a Spirit of Error, profaneness and Idolatry, which hath Alas! fermented too too many in this Place That this City may become a City of Righteousness, a Faithful City, wherein Mercy and Truth may meet together, Righteousness and Peace may kiss each other, and the Cognizance thereof may be, JEHOVAH SH AMM AH, The LORD is there. I conclude with that Apostolical supplication, in behalf of you our Governors. The very GOD of Peace sanctify you wholly, I pray GOD, your whole Spirit, Soul and Bo●●●e preserved blameless unto the coming of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. So prayeth he, who is  
YOUR HONOUR'S In all humble observance, john Menzeis.   

To the Impartial READER.  
BEside the historical account of this affair, given in the Dedication, I have yet some few things whereof to advertise thee.  
Know therefore, that necessity and not choice, did put ●e upon this whole undertaking. I was provoked by solemn, challenges, first to a vocal debate, then to exchange of Papers, and lastly, by insolent clamours to the publishing of all. I believe no discreet Person will ascribe this appearance in Print to vanity: For I acknowledge the debate is inglorious, the Papers which I had to examine, being so very insignificant. I may indeed be blamed for wasting Oil and Pains to confute such tristes. But Mr. Dempster, and what dropped from his mouth or pen, how frivolous so ever, were so admired, (I had almost said, adored,) by our Romish Apostats, that, had I not answered him, and published both his Papers and mine, I should have been judged by many as wanting in duty to the PROTESTANT Interest. Who in such an exigence, would not rather submit to have his labour censured as unnecessary, then to be deemed unfaithful to the Truth?  
't's true, on whose work had been only to state Controversies, and to argue pro and con, might have said more in a very few sheets for the satisfaction of an ingenuous lover of truth, then is said in all these Papers. But I have been constrained to follow the anomalous motion of a tautologizing jesuits, Who could never be induced to speak to any particular Controversy. Sundry times I stated Controversies, and hinted at impugnations of Romish Doctrines, but could prosecute nothing, unless I would fight with my own shadow; for the Adversary had not the confidence to speak to any particular. And besides, these Papers were not at first designed for the press, but as private missives to give a check to a petulant Caviller. Many things may pass in private missives, which are hardly tolerable in tractats, designed, at the first contrivance, for public use. So true is that saying, Aliud est uni scribere, aliud omnibus. More of my work stood in discovering the prevarications of the jesuit then in canvasing his Arguments. This readily will not have so savoury a relish with thee, yet I hope it will be judged excusable in me, when the circumstantiated case, wherein I stood is considered. However, to compense this loss, I intended by way of an Appendix to have added some Arguments against the Popish Religion. As First, from its direct Contrariety to clear Scriptures in many weighty points. 2. From its Novelty and Dissonancy from the faith of the Ancient Church, notwithstanding the vain and deceitful pretences of Romanists to Antiquity. 3. From the manifold and gross Idolatry established thereby. 4. From its Contrariety to Catholic Unity, and the Schismatical constitution of the present Romish Church, though Romanists have the confidence to glory, as if they were the only Catholics. 5. From the Impious reproaches, which Romanists and the Present Romish Religion do throw upon the Holy Scriptures. 6. Because the Popish Religion is greatly injurious to the Satisfaction and Merits of our Blessed REDEEMER the LORD JESUS CHRIST. 7. Because Popery overturnes all certainty of divine faith, or rather (to use the expression of learned Mr. Pool who hath given a blow at the root of the Romish Church,) because of the Nullity of divine faith in the Romish Religion. 8. Because many of the Principles of Popery have a manifest tendency to practical ungodliness, and particularly jesuits (who are as it were the soul of the present Court and Church of Rome, and the chief Emissaries for promoting the Romish Interest,) do mantain principles opposite to sound Christianity and Mordlity. Yea, there is scarce one Command in the Decalogue, whereof gross and impious ●olations are not justified by these Men, I whereof a considerable account is given to the World by many learned Authors both PROTESTANT and Popish. 9 Because of the sinful means whereby the Popish interest is supported and propagated. 10. Not to mention more at present, because Popish principles, at lest as improven by the jesuited party, are highly injurious to the Sovereign authority of Princes. I purposed withal, to have examined some of the most Popular Sophlsms wherewith Romish Missionaries assault unstedsast people. But finding that these Papers had swelled to such a bigness, I thought fit to wave the foresaid particulars at the time, and the rather, all these being judiciously handled by Persons of eminent Learning and Piety. Yet if I be providentially drawn to a further prosecution of this debate, I may then perhaps resume some thoughts of this nature.  
I could willingly have deleted some smart expressions, which the unhandsome dealing of the jesuit extorted from me. If I know my own genius, I take no pleasure in Altercations. I would rather contend with an Adversary in civilities. It hath often been My desire, if at any time I should be engaged in a Polemic debate, that it might be My lot, to deal with an Ingenuous person, who laying aside personal Criminations, cowardly preteritions, and Childish tautologies, would fairly and yet vigorously prosecut the debate, which would be both recreative to Disputants, and satisfying to the Reader. But when I discerned My present Antagonist to be of a contrary disposition, as to all these, it did not a little perplex me. For should I have disdained to answer him. Our Romanists would have cried out, that his papers had been unanswerable. If I did bestow an Answer upon him, it was easy to presage, that I should waste more time and paper in chaslising him for his prevarications, then in examining his Arguments. This Dise●●●a troubled me more than all the jesuits arguings. But now, had any thing been expunged in these papers, the clamorous Papists would exclaim that I had not published the papers which were exchanged betwixt us, but had substituted new papers in their place, and so I had lost my chief design, which was to give a real acount of what had passed. Wherefore these unpolished lines, must suffer the fate of going abroad in their Homely and Native dress, as they first dropped from me, currente calamo, without Alteration, Addition, or Diminution, so fare as could be attained by ordinary moral diligence. I must add this caution, lest a Litigious Adversary should object to me any petty escape, either of the press, or Amanuensis. For other alteration they have suffered none.  
I studied such faithfulness in transcribing my papers, that I have not so much as englished one sentence which was not englished in the original papers transmitted to the jesuit. Albeit the englishing of sundry testimonies, would have rendered the papers more grateful and more useful to many Reader. The like justice I have done to the jesuits papers. For what ever be the Tenet of Romanists, De fide non servanda Haereticis, yet we PROTESTANTS hold it a crime to deal unjustly with an Enemy, with an Heretic, yea, with a jesuit. There is no Alteration wittingly made upon either word or sentence of any of his papers, safe only that the PRINTER hath been at the pains to correct many of the grosser trespasses in their Orthography. He craves pardon for some few errors which have escaped him, such as page 80. line 14 GGD for GOD, and page 179. line 6. moir for mor. But for these two unwilling escapes, (and if there be any more of that kind,) he hath corrected many more than forty times two gross errors, which one would wonder how they had dropped from the pen of a professed Scholar. The PRINTER judged not himself obliged to correct all. So that sundry absurd errors do yet remain by which thou mayest guess, what papers thou should have had, if no correction had been used. I may sincerely say by this Edition, I have neither bettered my own papers, nor wronged the jesuits. Nay the jesuits have received a considerable advantage by the correction of many Orthographick trespasses.  
I am sensible of one disadvantage I stand at, in regard, the jesuit could never be induced to sign any of his papers, though ofter than once he was required to do it. I might justly have disdained to notice his papers, as not carrying the Name of the Author. And the rather, seeing Their Councal of Trent sess. 4. decret. 2. had prohibited the publishing or disseminating any papers on a Religious subject, quosvis libros de rebus sacris sine nomine Authoris, without the name of the Author, and that Sub paena Anathematts. But such noise was made here of the papers of this jesuit, as if some new Goliath had appeared, or a new monstrous Sphinx, for the unravelling of whose Riddles, hardly the World could afford an OEdipus. So that I was constrained to take some notice of them, under whatsoever Irregularity they did appear. Yet now, when the nakedness of their Idol is discovered to the World, perhaps Our Romanists may affirm that these are not the jesuits papers, or that they are interpolated or vitiated, and so much the rather, because they know that I have them not subscribed with the jesuits hand. This inconvenient I smelled how soon I received his First paper, and signified so much to him in the close of My Answers to his first, second, and third papers; but by no means could he be drawn to subscribe any of them: yea positively he declined it towards the end of his second and third papers. But now, should Our Romanists betake themselves to this subterfuge, they will but discover more of their disingenuity. For I sincerely profess, I have given in the faithful Copies of the jesuits papers to the Press. And in verification hereof, I can produce the Authentic copies transmitted to me by the jesuit, to which these here exhibited in Print are conform. Though the papers sent to me be unsubscribed, yet they were seen at the time of their transmission, by Eminent Persons of Our Religion, who can attest these to be the papers which I received. I believe also, they were comunicated by him to many Papists, who if they will deal ingenuously, cannot but acknowledge that these are the Faithful Copies of the jesuits papers which are here set forth.  
I am not so vain, as to desire that any Romanist should insist in this debate. I take no Complacency in Eristique debates, further than the Interest of Truth and necessity on that account do constrain me. I wish there were no Controversies about Religion in Christendom. I would reckon it a greater Mercy to be helped of GOD to contribut my poor mite, for the healing of breaches, (were it possible,) then to write as vast voleums of Controversies, as Bellarmine, Stapleton, Gretser, etc.— Pax una triumphis Innumeris potior.  
May I therefore earnestly obtest the more Moderate Romanists, (for I have no hope of prevailing with the jesuited faction, whose design, as appears, is to keep up a stated Schisine in Christendom, and to ruin by Fraud or Force all who cannot comply with their mischievous Projects,) seriously to consider, whether there be not many things in the present Popish Religion, greatly obstructive to the Peace and Unity of the Catholic Church. I shall but hint at a few things. As first, the pretended Infallibility of the Romish Church, whether Pope, or Council, or both. Will the Church of Rome admit of Reformation so long as she affirms herself to be beyond possibility of erring? Secondly, The Universal Supremacy acclaimed by the Pope over the Catholic Church. Doth not this oblige Romanists to keep up a Schism from all these Churches, which cannot enslave themselves to this Usurped power? Thirdly, The manifold Idolatry of the Romish Religion, Masse-Worship, Image-Worship, Sainct-Worship, Angel-Worship, Crosse-Worship, Relict-Worship. Know not judicious Romanists, that their Idolatry is not only offensive to many Christian Churches, but also impeditive of the conversion of jews and Infidels? Fourthly, The injuriousness of the Romish Religion to Our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the only MEDIATOR betwixt GOD and Man, by setting up a daily propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins of the Living and Dead in the Mass; by asserting that men must satisfy for a lesser kind of sins, which they call venial, either in this Life, or in Purgatory, yea, and for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins; by affirming that men do merit Heaven ex condigno, and that we must be justified by inherent Righteousness Do not Romanists in persuance of these and such like tenets, Anathematiz many christian Churches, who cannot concur with them in such like blasphemies, against our Blessed SAVIOUR? Fifthly, The going about public worship in the Latin tongue, which is not now the Vulgar language of any Nation of the World. Doth not the Apostle condemn the performing of public worship in an unknown tongue without an interpreter. 1. Cor. 14. so clearly, that your great Cardinal Cajetan, commenting on the place, sayeth, Ex hac Pauli doctrina habetur, quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici lingua communi clericis & populo, quam dici latin. Sixthly, Are not the reproaches horrid, which Romanists throw upon the Holy Scriptures of GOD, in their debates, concerning the Authority, Perspicuity, Perfection, Necessity, and Interpretation of the Scriptures? Nay, is not this one of the first Queries wherewith Missionary jesuits do assault our people, how do you know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD? As if they would rather have people turn Sceptics, or Atheists, then remain PROTESTANTS. Have not many Romanists had many convictions in their consciences, that there are corruptions in the Church of Rome, calling aloud for Reformation? in somuch that there have been many meetings at Rome of their Cardinals, and Bishops in order to this? But well did Luther, as Sleidan reports lib. 12. ad Annum 1537. compare these Assemblies, to a company of Foxes, coming to sweep a room full of dust with their tails. And in stead of sweeping out the dust, they swept it all about the house, and made a great smoke for a while, but when they were gone, the dust fell down again. How long shall Romanists through Pride, prejudice, faction and interest, stifle these convictions?  
Yet if any Romanist will needs prosecute this debate, I cannot be so base, being honoured to stand for so GLORIOUS a CAUSE, as to fear what any Mortal can say. I know there are Learned Romanists, who can say much more for their ill cause, than Mr. Dempster hath done. They want neither Learning nor Policy to support their Mystery of iniquity. So that (as Sir Edwin Sands hath judiciously observed, in his Speculum Europae, page 24.) were it not for the Natural weakness of untruth and Dishonesty, which being rotten at the heart, doth abate the force of what ever is founded thereon, there outward means were sufficient to subdue a whole World. But it concerns Romanists to notice the smart admonition which Austin gave to a Learned Heathen, Ornari a te quaerit Diabolus. How will these men render an account of their Talents one day, who emprove them to promote the Devil's interest? I should be a very great stranger to myself, if I were not conscious to my own weakness. Yet Truth hath such advantage over Error, that it doth not need Advocats of the greatest Learning or profoundest Judgement. Let me only therefore leave these Advertisements to him who will be at the pains to make a Reply, whether Mr. Dempster, who, as I hear, is alive again, or any other: First, that he hath not only the tenth and last paper to answer, but also to supply the paralipomena or emissions of all his former papers, & so in truth he hath the whole Ten to examine. 2. It will not be very handsome to catch at broken shreds here or there. But if he would do his work throughly, he must discuss all, and chief that which is most material. Is there any thing of moment in Mr. Dempsters' papers, which I have not revised? 3. I desire that he would not object to me the ordinary cavils of Romanists, unless he will be at the pains to examine what is Replied thereto by our Divines. Else he will constrain me, either to neglect what he says, or to remit him to the Authors who have canvased these Objections before, or at most to transcribe old Answers given to these old objections, which cannot but be allowable in me who am the Defendant. This I the rather have mentioned, because it is observed, that late Romish Pamphleteers do often resume old Objections without mentioning the Answers made thereto by our Divines, as if they were New Arguments, and hitherto unheard of. Thus they abuse many of the Vulgar who are not versed in great volumes, especially, in the Latin tongue, where all these Sophisms are solidly confuted. 4. He may be pleased to own what he writes, by putting his Name thereto. I cannot be obliged to fight any longer cum Larvis, with Spectres, who have not the confidence to own what they writ. 5. And lastly, I hope it would not be amiss that Personal criminations were laid aside. Mr. Dempster extorted more Recriminations from me than I had pleasure in, but if I meet with a Civil Adversary, I hope he shall have no cause to complain of Vncivility from me. But if he will needs thrust more at me then at the CAUSE, I can rejoice with Hierom to be railed upon by Heretics, and with Job, chap. 31. verse 36. Take these invectives on my shoulder and bind them to me as a Crown. It was an Heroic word of Luther, Indies magis mihi placeo, superbus fio, quod video nomen pessimum mihi crescere. He gloryed in it that he was evil spoken of for a good cause. If these rational proposals be neglected, I will not contend, in that Case, for the last word, Patience and Silence will, I hope, sufficiently then apologise for me.  
One Objection must needs be removed. It may be asked how I do charge the jesuit, as declining to have the truth of Religion either examined by Scripture or Antiquity, seeing he proffers at  to have one Controversy examined by Scripture, Viz. concerning the number of Sacraments? But let any rational person though a Romanist, if he can but dispossess his own mind of prejudice, cognosce whether my Charge be just. How disingenuous the jesuit was in that seeming proffer concerning the number of Sacraments, is sufficiently discovered in my Reply to his tenth paper, from page 236. to page 241. Now only let these few particulars be considered. And 1. When did the jesuit make this proffer? Only in his tenth or last paper, imendiatly before his getting out of the nation. Why did he it not sooner, especially, seeing we had been exchanging papers above a year before, and he had been frequently appealed to a discuss of particular Controversies? Did he not in former papers, positively decline to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity? By Scripture, because as he affirms, paper 4. pag. 37. The letter of Scripture is capable of divers, yea contrary senses, and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conform to the letter of Scripture. By Antiquity also, because (sayeth the jesuit, paper 5. page 61) This with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion. Yea, doth he not charge me as hatching a new Religion of my own, because I appealed to the Fathers of the three first Centuries, in his 9 paper page 178. Now what ingenuity or courage is manifested by such a seeming proffer, at such a time, after so many declinaturs, ingenuous Romanists may judge. But secondly, Had there not been weighty Controversies tabled before, viz. Concerning the Infallibility of Popes and Councils, the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures, Transubstantiation, Adoration of Images, Communion under one kind, Papal indulgences, Apocrypha books, the Pope's Supremacy over the whole Catholic Church, and his Jurisdiction over Princes? Yea had it not been showed, as the breviry of missives would permit, that the Church of Rome doth grossly err in all these? Yet never did he offer to Reply to any of these. Let Romanists therefore again judge, whether he who passes over in silence all Arguments, both from Scripture and Antiquity, to prove the present Romish Religion erroneous in all the foresaid particulars, and only starts a new Question about the number of Sacraments, doth show a through willingness to have the Truth of Religion tried either by Scripture or Antiquity. Thirdly, If there he any Controversy tossed betwixt Rom mists and us, where a cavilling Sophister may wrap himself up under Logomachies, is not this it which the jesuit hath pitched upon concerning the number of Sacraments? Must it not be acknowledged on all hands, that as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense, a man may affirm that there be more or fewer Sacraments? But of this you may see more at length, in the Answer to the Jesuits tenth paper, page 238. and 239. Let it be then considered, how willing the Jesuit was of a Scriptural trial, who dates not adventure on the examination of other Controversies, and only betaks himself to this, wherein the Adversary may shut himself up in a thicker of Logomachies? But fourthly, Doth the Jesuit really proffer to have that on Controversy concerning the number of Sacraments, betwixt Papists and us decided by Scripture? Or doth he bring Arguments from Scripture to prove a precise Septenary of proper Sacraments, neither more nor fewer, which is the Doctrine of the Present Romish Church? Nor at all. What then? Only that he might seem to say something, he desires me to prove from Scripture that there be only two Sacraments, or that there be no more than two, which is, in very deed, to require me to prove the Negative, while he himself declines to prove the Affirmative, viz. That there is not only more than two, but completely seven. Though the jesuits demand be irrational, I hope I have satisfied it, in its own proper place. But what though I had succumbed in proving that there were no more but two proper Sacraments? Yet the question betwixt Romanists and us, concerning the number of Sacraments were not decided, except it be proven that there be precisely seven, neither more nor fewer. If there be not a precise septenary, one Article of the Romish faith falls to the ground. Consequently, the jesuit never submits the Question concerning the number of Sacraments to a Scriptural trial, until he offer to prove by Scripture a precise sepetenary of proper Sacraments, which as yet he hath not done, nor I believe will adventure to do. He will find need of the supplement of his unwriten traditions here: But neither I suppose will these serve his turn. But Fifthly, what are all these ensuing papers, but a demonstration of the jesuits tergiversing humour? In his first paper, he proposed four postulata like so many Oracles. I discovered an egregious fallacy in one of them. But to this day he never once endeavoured to vindicat himself. He proposed in that paper an informal Syllogism, (but could never thereafter adventure on a second,) which was retorted in better form against the Popish Religion more ways than one: but these Retortions to this hour remain unexamined. I denied the Assumption of that long studied Syllogism, but he could never be induced to undertake the probation thereof. In that Assumption the jesuit had said, that the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the letter of Scripture. To repel that bold allegiance, I appealed him to produce any solid ground of conformity with Scripture, which either the True Christian Religion hath, or that the Popish Religion can pretend to, which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wants. But he could never be moved to produce any. Sometimes he hinted at the Infallibility of the Propounders of the Articles of Faith, but he durst neither adventure to tell whom he meant by these Infallible Propounders, or to prove the Infallibility of Romish Propounders, or to answer Arguments against their Infallibility. At length, being outwearied with his tergiversing, I produced positive Grounds, for proving the conformity of our Religion to the Scriptures, and the disconformity of theirs, viz. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessary, and Conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries. Hereupon he positively declined both Scriptures and Fathers in these first three Centuries, as a test to find out the Truth of Religion. Therefore finding that still he shunned to come to particulars, I pirched upon that much controverted Scripture, which Romanists pretend to be as favourable to them as any, viz, Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body, and proved the sense which PROTESTANTS give thereof to be True and Genuine, and the sense which Romanists impose to be false and absurd. And offered to do the like concerning other controverted Scriptures, such as Luke 22.32. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Matthew 16.18. Upon this Rock I will build my Church. 1. Tim. 3.15. The pillar and ground of Truth, etc. This I did in the Answer to his seventh paper, from page 126. to page 130. But all these he waves as tedious Digressions in his eight paper, page 148. I resolved also to try his behaviour more particularly, in reference to Antiquity, and therefore in the Answer to the jesuits eight paper, from page 169. to page 173. I produced seven articles of the present Romish Religion, which I briefly show to be repugnant to the faith of the Ancient Romish Church, viz. Their Adoration of Images, Their Transubstantiation, Their Communion under one kind, The Pope's Supremacy, Their maintaining the Apocryphal books to be Canonical Scriptures, the Papes usurped Jurisdiction over Princes, and their Indulgences for easing Souls under the pains of Purgatory. But this is all the Answer which the tergiversing Jesuit makes to these particulars, in his paper 9 page 176. What makes it to our purpose, your digressions about Images, about Transubstantiation, about Communion under one kind, about the Pope's supremacy, about Apocryphal books, about Indulgences, Purgatory, etc. I gave likewise some account of their corrupting, the Morals and Practicals of Christianity by their impious doctrine of Probables, in the answer to his eight paper, page 162. 163. etc. But to this he answered Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem, nothing at all. The rest of his rergiversing Preteritions, I must leave the Reader to collect by his own observation. Did ever, I pray an ill cause fall into the hands of a more unhappy Advocate? Whether now my charge against the jesuit, as on that declines to have the truth of Religion tried either by Scripture or Antiquity be just, let him who who ponders these particulars, and peruseth all the Papers, judge. Had I tergiversed as the jesuit hath done, had I been left at such disadvantages as he, would they not have made the World ring with it? What ever answer shall be returned to me, Our Popish Apostats will be ready to entertain it with Plaudire's, as if the field were won. But I hope they who are judicious will hereafter less regard their clamours, having such experience of their triumphing, when their Champion had behaved himself in such a piteous fashion.  
Our Romanists are pleased to boast that how soon these papers come abroad they shall have an Answer tripping upon their heels. Indeed I have eased them of much labour by publishing all these papers. Have they not had a good opportunity these six or seven months, wherein they knew their papers were at the Press, to prepare supplies for Mr. Dempsters' omissions? Have they not many hands and heads to furnish them materials, & little work to divert them from scribbling? Yet they would take heed lest through preposterous h●ste they fall into Mr. Dempsters' error, to leave the chief of their work behind them. My design ever was, rather to contend with them in solidity of reason, then in Celerity of dispatch. Diu apparandumest bellum ut vincas celerius. If Romanists be as speedy in their Reply as they talk, will it not discover that they apprehend some danger to their ill Cause from these papers? If their speed be not answerable to their boasting, will it not be an evidence that they are large as good at boasting as at argueing? All the courtesy I crave from the ingenuous Reader is to allow me an equal hearing with the Adversary. So as when he is to pass judgement betwixt us, he consider an equal number of his papers and mine. Here there be ten of either side presented. If now Sentence should be passed, neither of us could complain that we had not been heard. But if Romanists add their eleventh paper, then ought not any further sentence be suspended until my Reply be heard? The jesuit having the first word, doth not the last, de jure appertain to me? Yet if the eleventh paper run in the same trifling and tautologizing strain with the former I plead no Suspension.  
My heart bleeds for our straying Apostats, some falling to rank Popish Idolatry, others to the delusions of Quakerism, which, if learned and judicious persons be not mistaken, is but Popery under a disguise. However, O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, to weep day and night over these deluded Souls, under whatsoever Denomination they go. O that their eyes were opened to see the Sin, the Scandal and Danger of their way! It might be of some use to speak of the Causes of so great a Defection, had not these Papers already swelled to such a bigness. I shall therefore only transiently hint at a few. And First, There is, alace! an innate Principle of Levity and Instability in people's h●ar●s, so that they are ready to be Tossed to and frolic Children with every wind of Doctrine. Eph. 4.14. If the heart be not established by grace. The 〈◊〉 sideration of this should humble all, and make us jealous our own hearts, and watch unto Prayer, lest we fall into temptation. Secondly, Seducers have usually a wonderful insinuating faculty. Rom 16.18. By good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple. By smooth words accommodated to the complexion of these with whom they deal, they steal away their hearts, as is said of Absalon. Yet, they in a manner fascinat and bewitch them, as is the Apostles expression, Gal. 3.1. And now these decenfull workers (as they are termed, 2 Cor. 11.13.) have taken an unusual boldness upon them to intrude into all companies where they have any hope of prevailing. These therefore who would eschew their Contagion, would shun their fellowship as they would shun Persons smitten with the Plague, for the Words of Seducers do eat as a Gangrene, 2. Tim. 2.17. The Apostle john would not breathe in the same air with the Heretic Cerinthus, but sprang out of the Bath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayeth Euseb, lib. 3. hist. Eccles. cap. 25. How soon he perceived the Heretic to be there. Thirdly, As Heretics are high and specious in their pretences, so also bold and peremptory in their Asseverations. The Romish Emissaries talk bigly of the Church, as if none had an interest in the Catholic Church but these of their way. The Quakers take us great a latitude to boast of the Light and Spirit. God forbidden that we should derogat from the necessity or efficacy of the Spirits working, or from the due esteem to the Catholic Church, nay I hope our hearers know we speak more to the just advantage of both then either Jesuit or Quaker. But besides these vain and specious pretences, these men are very confident in their Asseverations. Though they cannot solidely prove any of their Erroneous Positions, yet they will affirm the truth of them boldly, and be ready to Anathematise all who dissent from them. Now it can hardly be told, what influence bold Assertions from persons of reputed gravity, especially joined with high pretences, and some plausible Sophisms will have upon credulous, apprehensive or melancholy persons, yea upon most of people who are not well grounded in Religion, and some way studied in the Controversies. But fourthly, Both Romish Seducers, and Quakers join issue in this, that the persons they intent to pray upon, may have nothing to guard them, against their Seduction, they reflect heavily upon the holy Scriptures, and Faithful Ministers The Scripture (say they,) is but a dead letter, Ambiguous, Obscure, capable of divers, yea, contrary interpretations, and insufficient to terminat controversies in Religion. They reproach Ministers as Hirelings, they load them with calumnies, and the trespasses of some few they charge upon the whole function, by which means they so abuse poor people that they despair of good by consulting either with the Scriptures or Ministers. These Seducers deal with poor people, as the Wolves (in Demosthenes his Apologue to the Senate of Athens,) who offered to make peace with the Sheep, if they would put away their Dogs, but the Wolves intended to pray upon the poor Sheep when once their Guardians were gone. They therefore who would not betray their own Souls to these Impostors would bring every thing to the Scriptures as to a test, Isaiah, 8.20. and would consult with their Spiritual guides, I mean the Ministers of GOD'S Word, Mal. 2.7. The serious consideration of these few overly hints may be useful through the LORDS blessing against the growing defection of these times. Let it withal be thought upon what heavy Characters the Scripture sets upon Apostasy and Seducers. I commend to this end the reading of these Scriptures. Heb. 10.38. 2. Pet. 2.1.2.3.2. Thess. 2.9.10.11.12. 1. joh. 2.19. Matth. 24.24.25. 2. Cor. 11.13.14.15. And in particular, there be most dreadful threaten against Complyers with Romish Babylon which may make the ears of all that hear to tingle, I mention but one at the time, Revel. 14.9.10.11. If any man worship the beast and his Image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out with out mixtur into the cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone,— and the smoke of their terment ascendeth up for ever and ever. Shall not then these who are ensnared by Romish Impostors harken to the call, Revel. 18.4. Come out of Babylon my people that ye be not partakers of her fins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. I know Romanists turn these things off as not concerning them. But if a common Whore can as Solomon sayeth, Pro. 30.20. Wip her mouth as if she had done no wickedness, is it any wonder, that the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, Revel. 17.5. endeavour to palliate her Villainies with floorishes of words, & School-distinctions, especially having so many thousand jesuits, and other Ianisary's under pay for that effect. Will Antichrist when so ever he appears proclaim himself to be the Antichrist? Will he not dissemble the matter? Why else is his work termed a Mystery of iniquity, 2. Thess. 2.7? Why is it said that the Beast Revel. 13.11. Hath two hornslike a Lamb? why hath the great Where upon her forehead written Mystery? And if great Authors do not misinform us, the same is written upon the Pope's Mitre. Have not Learned PROTESTANTS in their debates on this subject, made it more than Probable, that the Papal faction is that Antichristian state spoken of in Scripture. I shall only now remember you of the Reply which Sir Francis Bacon gave to King James, when he asked at him whether the Pope were the Antichrist, If, said Sir Francts, a hus and cry were made after the Antichrist, and I should apprehend the Pope, I would make him clear himself of the marks of the Antichrist before I would let him go.  
Perhaps this warning shall not have much influence upon them who have already devoted, or rather mancipated themselves to the Popish or Quaker interest. For Heresy is a pertinacious disease. Sin is never so dangerous as when it is covered with the mantle of Truth or Duty. It was the ingenuous confession of a good man, Error meus erat Deus meus. That once his Errors were his Idols, and then it seemed as hard for him to forsake them as to renounce his GOD. O how piteous is the case of deluded Souls who esteem their Apostasy from Truth, their Blaspemyes and Idolatry, acceptable service to GOD? Yet though Israel play the Harlet, let not Judah offend, Hos. 4 15. Let me therefore obrest these, who through Mercy are preserved from the contagion of Popery and Quakerism, as they regard the Eternal Salvarion of their Souls, that they would hearken to the peremptory Scripture-caveats against Apostasy. 2. Pet, 3.17. Beware lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your steadfastness. Revel. 3.11. Behold I come quickly, hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy Crown 1. Cor. 10.12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he slandeth, take heed lest he fall. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, Jud. 24.25. And to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour be glory and Majesty, Dominion and Power, both now and ever  
AMEN.  Cicero. Tantam semper potenti●ns veritas habuit, ut nullis machinis aut cu●usquam hominis ingenio aut arte subverti potuerit: & licet● in 〈◊〉 nullun Patronum aut defensorem obtineat, tamen per sc●ipsa defenditur.  

A faithful Copy of the Papers exchanged betwixt Master JOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinty in the Mareshall College of ABERDENE: and Master Francis Dempster Jesuit, otherwise Sir-named Rinne, or, Logan.  

The Jesuits first Paper. For Master JOHN MENZEIS, whose Answer is civilly required, according to his promise.  
1. GOD Almighty, who is supreme Lord, hath decreed for man eternal happiness after this life, and howbeit, he might have decreed to give it him absolutely without any condition; yet, de facto, he hath tied the obtaining of it to certain conditions to be fulfilled upon our part, whereby Christ's blood and passion is applied to us, and amongst these conditions, one is, that we be of one true faith, and one true religion.  
2. Since that by God's decree, eternal happiness and salvation, is tied to one true religion, this true religion must be sufficiently furnished with grounds and principles, whereby it may prove itself to be a true religion, which grounds and principles are so determinat to truth, that they cannot serve to prove a false religion to be a true religion.  
3. It is to be supposed that all parties agrees in this conditional proposition, that they would submit their judgements and belief with all firmness to any thing, if they knew certainly that God had spoken it, or that the sense that is given to such a text of scripture, were the true sense. or the sense intended by the holy Ghost, when he dyted such words. Since than that all must agree in this conditional proposition, all the controversy must be reduced to this, what party purifies this conditional, that is to say, what part hath more  and stronger reasons: that they have the assistance of the holy Ghost to give the true sense of the letter of the word of God.  
4. As it is impossible for one to prove himself an honest man, except he can show some distinction betwixt him and a knave, and that there can be verified of him, something which is not applicable nor can agree to a knave: so it is as impossible for a religion to prove itself to be a true religion, except it can assign some distinction betwixt it and a false religion, and that there can be verified something of it, which cannot be verified nor applied to a false religion.  
Out of these premises is deduced this one Syllogism.  


That Religion cannot be a true religion, which hath no peculiar principle or ground to prove that it is a true religion, and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of God.  
But the Protestant religion hath no peculiar ground or principle, to prove that it is a true religion and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of God.  
Ergo, it cannot be a true religion.    
May it please the answerer of this syllogism to remember that the ground or principle which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion, or that it is conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of God, must have this propriety, that it cannot serve, nor cannot be assumed to prove a false religion to be a true religion, or to be conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of God: as the ground and principle that one produces to prove that he is an honest man, must have this propriety that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man, or if he allege that the ground or principle, whereof he serves himself is only misapplyed by a false religion, than he is obliedged to assign some good reason, whereby he shows that it is well applied by him and misapplyed by the other.  
Likewise he is entreated to answer shortly to the point, and lay aside all long homilies and excursions, lest by multiplying many words, he incur suspicion that he seeks only to obscure the matter, that the weaker sort, may not penetrate nor see through his weakness.  
20 april, 1666.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits first paper.  
An answer to a paper, from an anonymous person of the Popish profession, commonly supposed to be Master Francis Dempster, alias, Logan.  
IT had been sufficient for me, upon the first reading of your paper, instantly to have returned this or ely answer, NIGO MINORIM, I deny your minor. For I found but a poor naked Syllogism, the assumption whereof is splendidlie false, and ye have not so much as added the shadow of a proof to confirm it. Neither can ye be exempted from being tied to prove it, because it is a Negative, as shall afterwards appear. Yet for the clearing of truth, and also, (if it may please GOD) for your conviction, I have added these following animadversions.  
1. And first, Ye lay down four previous Propositions, as so many oracles, which might extort an assent from any Reader. But you must give me leave to tell you, how specious soever they seem to you, they want not their own flaws. Take one instance from your third proposition, wherein there is an egregious fallacy committed in your explication of that conditional, wherein ye suppose all parties to agree. For it is one thing to know that the sense given to such a text of Scripture, is, the true sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words; which is the condition at first mentioned by you, and it is a quite other thing, to know that he who gives the sense, hath the assistance of the holy Ghost to give that true sense, which ye hold out as the explication of the former. This latter savours rankly of that erroneous Popish tenet, concerning the necessity of an infallible visible judge of controversies. Now, is it handsome, under pretence of explaining a proposition wherein all agree, to foist in one of the main points of difference, as if that also were agreed upon? could there be a greater cheat put upon a simple Reader?  
2. But secondly, It had been of more use than all these your propositions, to have laid down the Thesis which ye were to oppugn; and to have explained the terms thereof. Since therefore ye have omitted it, it will be necessary for me to do something to it, lest we seem to fight Andabatarum more, as Persons blindfolded. The Thesis then which we defend and you oppugn, is this.  

The Protestants Religion is the True Religion.  
Take these few hints of explication of the terms. By True Religion, We understand the true doctrine of salvation concerning God, and the right way of serving and worshipping him. By the Religion of Protestants, we mean, the Christian Religion contained in the holy Scriptures. By Protestants, these Christians who protest against, and do reject Popish-Errors and additions to Scripture truths. So that Christianity is our Religion, and our protestancy is not our Religion, but our rejection of your Popish corruptions. If then ye consider the importance of the Thesis which ye impugn, ye will find that ye undertake a hard work, nay, an Infidels cause. Namely, that the Christian-Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures, and held by these who are called PROTESTANTS, because of their rejection of Popish-Errors, is not the true Religion.  
3. Thirdly, Because ye so oft make mention of some peculiar Grounds and Principles, which the true Religion must have to prove itself to be the true Religion, and which cannot be verified of a false Religion, which ye illustrate by the similitude of an Honestman and a Knave. I desire, that these two things may be noted in reference to this; which may perhaps give some light to the whole matter. And first, these Grounds and Principles must be understood, ex parte objecti, on the part of the object, not of the subject. That is to say, that the true Religion hath sufficient Grounds in itself, to manifest itself to be the true Religion, if it meet with a well disposed intellect. For, (to use your own similitude,) an Honestman may have Ground enough to show a distinction betwixt him and a Knave, albeit a fool cannot discern it. So the true Religion may have Ground enough to prove itself true, (which the false religion hath not,) though an Infidel, or Heritick, whose foolish mind is darkened. Rom. 1.21. cannot take it up. Secondly, The prime peculiar difference of the true Religion from a false, stands in its conformity to the will of GOD revealed in the Scriptures; and this conformity, hath a sufficient intrinseck objective evidence in itself, to any who have a well disposed understanding, to collate and compare these two together, to observe the exact correspondence betwixt the one and the other. This likewise may be illustrated by your own example of Honesty and Knavery. An Honestman being one whose actions are squared according to the Law, what ever a Knave may pretend, yet when both are compared to the Law, the honest-mans' conversation is found to be that which the Law enjoineth; not so the Knaves. So that this honesty which is the conformity of his actions to the Law, hath an intrinseck objective evidence, to demonstrat itself to any discerning Person, who can compare the man's actions with the Law. So it is in the present case. Yet, besides this intrinseck objective evidence, which is in true Religion, I do not deny, but there are many external and accessory Grounds which strongly persuade its credibility.   

Having thus paved my way, I come to examine your Syllogism, which runes thus.  


That Religion cannot be a true Religion, which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion, and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
But the PROTESTANT Religion, hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion, and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
Ergo it cannot be a true Religion.    
Answer. 1. I might hear first friendly advise you to take better heed hereafter to the form of your Syllogisms. For both your Premises are Negative, and ye know the Logic rule sayeth, ex ntraque premissa negativa nihil sequitur. But I shall endeavour to help this by improving your medium, in a better form, and I hope also to better purpose, against yourself and your Romanists, thus.  


The true Religion hath a peculiar ground and principle to prove that it is a true Religion, and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
But the Popish religion, hath no peculiar ground and principle to prove that it is a true religion, and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
Ergo, the Popish Religion is not the true Religion.    
Hade ye intended to satisfy the conscience of any Person, you would have held forth these peculiar grounds and characters of a true Religion, which is conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of God; and ye would, at least, have endeavoured to demonstrate that thes did exactly quadrat with your Romish Religion, and not at all with the Religion of PROTESTANTS. But as to this, there is nothing but deep silence in your paper. Before you make good your retreat from this Argument, as thus inverted against yourself, ye may perhaps find, that ye are taken in the gin which ye designed for others.  
Ans. 2 But Secondly, I would try you with another Retersion, thus. If the true Religion have grounds and principles to prove its conformity to the true sense of the letter of the Word, than no article of Faith and Religion can be founded upon an unwritten Tradition. But the first is true Ergo etc. The Minor is clear from the Major of your Syllogism. The consequence of my Major is no less clear. For it is impossible that an article founded merely upon an unwritten Tradition, should prove its conformity with the letter of the written word of God, else it should be written and not written. Nor can ye handsomely resile, by saying you did thus only argue, ad hominem, against PROTESTANTS. For this your Syllogism, you deduce from your four premised propositions, which, ye suppose, aught to be agreed to, by all Parties. Now what thanks you are to expect for this manner of arguing, from your late Pamphleteers, who do so highly magnify your unwritten Traditions, ye yourself may judge.  
Ans. 3. But Thirdly, leaving Retorsions, I Answer directly denying the Assumption, viz. that the PROTESTANT Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion, and conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Nay surely, it hath that intrinseck objective evidence, in its conformity with the Scriptures, to demonstrate it to be the true Religion, of which I was speaking a little before; which neither Popery, nor any other false Religion either hath, or can have. But now, it lies on you as the Opponent to prove your Assumption. It seemed strange to me, that this Proposition whereon the whole stress of the Controversy didly, was so nakedly proposed by you without any proof. Only it would appear, because it is a Negative, you would lay over upon me to prove the contrary. Are ye so soon weary of the Opponents office, who were so eager to have it? Find you the burden of impugning the Religion of Protestants so heavy, that so soon ye shrink under it? Are there no Negative Propositions proved in the Schools? Doth not Philosophy teach us more Moods and Forms of Negative Syllogisms then of affirmatives? Shall there be no way to oppugn an affirmative position but by turning the Respondent to an Opponent? Yea, let me put you in mind, that though your assumption and conclusion be expressed Negatiuly, yet, upon the matter, we do rather maintain the Negative, and you the affirmative. Which I thus make out. If any consider our Religion and yours; it will be found that in most of our Positives, ye and we are agreed. As that there is a GOD, three Persons, that Christ is both GOD and man, etc. But the difference is mostly in our Negatives. As for instance, Ye affirm the necessity of a visible infallible judge of controversies, we deny. Ye affirm the necessity of subjection to the Pope of Rome as head of the Catholick-Church, we deny: Ye affirm that there is a  propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, we deny: Ye affirm that the Apocrypha books are Canonic Scriptures, we deny: Ye affirm that Saints are to be invocated; that Crosses, Images, and your Sacramental Hosty are to be adored; we deny: Ye affirm a Purgatory, we deny, etc. In all these and such as these we maintain the Negative, and ye the Affirmative, yea, and these are your Superadditions unto Scripture truths. And consequently, when it is demanded, whether that which we, or ye maintain in these particulars, be agreeable to the sense of the Scriptures? The meaning is, whether doth the Scripture hold these things out, or not? Ye affirm, and we deny. Therefore, according to the saying, that, Affirmanti incumbit probatio; It lies upon you to find out the exact measures of the true Religion, and the peculiar Grounds, which do evidence its conformity to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD, and also, to demonstrate that these Grounds cannot agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS. Bellarmin, Gretser, Valentia, and others of their fellows who have traveled long in this work, have been able to effectuate nothing, by all their vast Volumes. And have ye the confidence to do the business by this one naked Syllogism?  
But that I may shut up these lines, remember, ye cannot now call upon me to show a peculiar ground or evidence, which the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath, to prove itself to be the True Religion, and that it is conform to the True sense of the Scriptures. For Religion is not one individual truth, but a complex of many truths, which cannot all be proven at once, or with one breath, though there be none of them, but through the mercy of GOD, we are able to demonstrate against any Adversary. But now it lies upon you, as the Opponent, to prove your Assumption.  
Instance therefore, if ye can, one Ground necessarily requisite for evidenceing and proving the True Religion, and its conformity to the True sense of the Scriptures, which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS; which, I hope, I may confidently say, neither you, nor any of your fraternity, shall ever be able to do.   
April, 24. 1666. john Menzeis.  
POSTCRIPT.  August. lib. De unitate Ecclesia, contra Epist. Petiliani cap. 3. Sunt certe libri Dominici, quorum authoritati utriqueve consentimus, utrique credimus, utrique servimus. Ibi quxramus Eccesiam, ibi discutiamus cansam nostram. Idem Patrlo infra Ergoin Scriptures sanctis Canonitis Ecclesiam requiramus. 
It is desired, that any Answer which shall be returned, be subscrived, as the Author would have it taken notice of.   

Apryll 28, 1666. The Jesuits second paper.  
A Reply to an Answer made be Mr. JOHN MENZIES, to a discourse of a Romane-Catholick, showing that the PROTESTANT Religion, cannot be a true Religion, or a Religion wherein men can save their Souls.  
I Have perused your paper, and find that in writing ●● are like to yourself in conference by mouth, because in both much, that you may seem to the simple sort to say something. The controversies that we have in hands about the means to know a True Religion, and to distinguish it from a false Religion is not of small concernment, neither hath it so narrow dimensions, as within the compass of them it 〈◊〉 not able to detain for a little while, all the pith or force of 〈…〉, or be leaping out be the sides, to mix it with other digressions about traditions, visible judge of controversies, untimely retortions of Arguments, etc. Which maketh nothing to the present difficulty; which may be fully ended without mentioning any such things. Laying them closely aside, and purposely ●●ske nuing all your excursions as out of the line, and swelling only of tergiversations and diffidence, to answer directly, I lay again to your door this point, viz. It is impossible that the Protestant Religion can be proven to be a True Religion, or the Religion to which GOD hath tied the promise of eternal life, and consequently, that whosoever aimeth at eternal happiness after this life, or intendeth to save his Soul, is obliged to quite it, and to make search to find out the True Religion, Prescinding for now, where this True Religion is to be found, since the present difficulty is only to show that Protestant Religion cannot be it.  
This point I proved by this one Syllogism.  


That Religion cannot be a True Religion, which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion, and conform to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD.  
But the Protestant Religion, hath not peculias ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conform to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD.  
Ergo, it cannot be a True Religion.    
To this Argument you answer first carping it that is not in form, as having two Premises Negatives, but in this you are far mistaken; for the Negation in one of the Premises is not taken Neganter but Infinitanter, and doth not affect or light upon the Copula, but is a part of the subject of the Proposition. Next you answer, as you say, directly admitting the Major and denying the Subsumption, to wit, that the Protestant Religion hath no special ground or principle to prove that it is conform to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD, and so denying that it hath no special ground or principle, you consequently must affirm that it hath some special ground or principle, whereby it can prove itself to be destinguished from a false Religion, and to be conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now lay all these things together, first, that under your own hand writ, ye have undertaken to mantain the Protestant Religion to be a True Religion. Next that you grant a Religion cannot be True, except it have some peculiar ground or principle whereby it can prove itself to be Ture, or conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of God. Thirdly, that you deny that the Protestant Religion hath not their special grounds and principles whereby she may prove herself to be True and conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now let any be judge whether to weind yourself out of this labyrinth, and without manifestly deserting of your cause, ye be not obliged to produce these peculiar grounds or principles whereby you say that Protestant Religion is furnished to prove itself to be True, and conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Which likewise may be extorted by this Dilemma. Either the Protestant Religion is furnished with sufficient grounds or principles to prove itself to be True and conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD, or it hath no such principles: if it have no sufficient principles, then confess ingenuously it is a groundless Religion; if it have them, then let them be produced and examined, And why do you reserve & keep them up, since the producing of them is necessary to maintain and defend the truth of the Protestant Religion? are they perhaps invisible, or are you ashamed to bring them to light? only remember that the grounds or principles that you produce to this effect, to prove your Religion to be True, must be special and have this propriety, that they so prove the Protestant Religion to be True, or conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of God, that they cannot be affirmed to prove a false Religion (and which you yourself holdeth for a false Religion) to be a True Religion, or conform to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. As the ground or principle which is produced to prove Honesty, or one to be an honest man, must have this propriety that it cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honestman.  
Lastly, in your paper you insinuat two superficial and fleeing shifts and evasions which doth nothing help you. The first is, that the Protestant Religion hath, ex parte objecti, intrinseck grounds and principles whereby it is constitute a True Religion, though it hath not, ex parte subjecti. But this only is to bring new obscure terms, which put in good SCOTS, signify only the same, which hath been said hitherto; to wit, that Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall and objective truths and conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD, but is destitute of all special grounds or principles whereby it can prove itself to have such intrinsecall and objective truth and conformity. But I pray you, what false Religion is there, that may not with as good reason apply the same terms to themselves, and say that their Religion is true, ex parte objecti, and hath intrinsecall and objective evidence, truth and conformity with Scripture, though they cannot show this, ex parte subjecti. Likewise they have as great Reason as you to say that their Religion, and the truth of it may be made evident, if it encounter with an understanding well disposed, though it cannot be made evident to fools. So, you are pleased civilly to call all those who have their understanding of such temper that they cannot see the truth of your Religion.  
The other shife and evasion is, that Religion is not one individual truth but a complex of many truths, which cannot be proven at once, or in one breath. But what makes this to your purpose? since that before you can prove any one of those particular truths, to be conform to the true sense of the text of such a Scripture; you must first produce some special ground or principle to prove that your Clergymen in Actu primo hath such assistance or hability as is prerequired in men that should give out to People the true sense of particular texts of Scriptures: or else how can men be induced to believe that the sense which you give is the true sense? since every false Religion might pretend with as great reason as you do, that they give the true sense, though plain contrane to the sense that you give.  
In the end of your paper you desire me to subscrive, and to put my name to the answer that I make, as you have put to your name to yours, but this your demand doth not seem rational, since your condition and mine are not alike, for you are at home, and as a Cock on your own midden, and there must lurk some other thing under this demand, since it can make nothing to your cause, who proponeth the reasons against, if they be pertinent and to the purpose.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the jesuits second paper. May 2. 1666.  
An Answer to a second paper from the traffiquing Romanist, who commonly passeth under the name of Mr. Francis Dempster, alias, Logan.  
YOur confident undertaking to impugn the Religion of PROTESTANTS, made me once to expect great things. But for what I can yet discern, Parturiunt montes etc.  
I did truly nauseat, to read this your raw and indigested paper, in which you wholly pass by the most material points in my Answer, and are pleased to reflect on them, as unnecessary excursions, that so your Omissions might seem less criminal. A very easy subterfuge, by which any faint disputant may decline to meddle with these difficulties, which he sees would nettle him.  
But that I may keep you close to your work, I must crave leave to remind you of some of these omissions, and yet to desire that, first, ye would clear yourself of that fallacy, wherewith I charged the third proposition of your first paper. Whether it were an impertinent excursion, to discover an egregious fallacy in one of these propositions, which ye laid down as a foundation of all your ensuing superfl●●cture, the indifferent Reader, may judge. Secondly, I desire you to answer directly to the retorsions, whereby I inverted your Syllogism against yourself and your Romanists. Is there any thing more ordinary in School debates then retorsion of Arguments? or when the grand debate betwixt you and me is, whether the PROTESTANT RELIGION or Popery be the True Religion; was it untimely or improper for me to show, that the weapons which ye bring against the Religion of PROTESTANTS, do strike at the very foundations of Popery? And thirdly, I desire you to prove the assumption of your Syllogism denied by me; or else to refel the Arguments, whereby I show, that, though it be a Negative, yet this is no sufficient ground to turn over the opponents office upon me. If you do not perform these things, to all which ye are tied by the rules of disputing, I believe ye shall hardly escape from being censured by judicious Readers, as an Ignoramus.  
I shall not insist upon the evasion, which ye have devised, to cloak the informalitie of your Syllogism, ex omnibus negativis; pretending that in one of the propositions you take the Negative, Infinitanter, not neganter. Although you have not been pleased to tell in which of the propositions it is so taken; and though there be no indifferent Reader, but would look upon all the Propositions, as simple Negatives; neither could you in our Language express them, more Negatively, if you intended to affect the Copula with the Negation. Yet I shall pass this, seeing I have only used this transient insinuation, to admonish you to look better to the form of your Syllogisms, and withal did show you a clear way, how to have corrected your error, without ●unning to these Termini infinitantes. Only you must remember that if your N●gatio infinitans fall in the Minor, than it becomes an Affirmative, and so your pretence of liberating yourself from being tied to prove it, doth wholly vanish.  
There be divers other things in your paper, deserving severe castigation, but they are truly so judibrious, that it is irksome to me once to mention them. Nay hardly shall any thing material be found in the whole paper, beside the repetitions of what ye had said in your first. Yet lest the wrapping up of all these in general, should give you occasion to say, that my complaint were groundless, I shall therefore branch forth two or three of the particulars.  
And first, Ye seem to strengthen your Syllogism, with a Dilemma, which yet upon the matter is nothing but Recocta cram, the same thing in a new dress. And thereupon you insult, not without petulancy, as if you had nothing to do, but to triumph, saying, Hath the Religion of PROTESTANTS no principles whereby to prove itself? Are they invisible? or, are you ashamed to produce them? Soft, I beseech you. Is the Sun invisible, because the blind Mole doth not see it? Did I not tell you, that the Religion of PROTESTANTS, had peculiar grounds and principles to prove itself to be a True Religion? Did I not likewise declare, wherein this chief Ground and Principle consisted? Namely, in its conformity to the Will of God, revealed in the holy Scriptures. Which neither Popery nor any false Religion hath or can have. Were you so dull as not to take up this? or, if you did, why did you not either acknowledge it, or at least, go about to disprove it? I find you indeed a little after, objecting thus. What false Religion is there that may not say with as good reason, that they have the like conformity with the Scriptures? But did I not preoccupy this cavil in my first paper, and by your own example of Honesty and Knavery, illustrate the whole matter? know therefore again, that it is not pretended, but real conformity with the Scriptures, which demonstrats a True Religion. A Knave may pretend (but not with good reason,) conformity with the Law, which he hath not. And the only way to discover him, is to compare his actions with the Law; whereby the dissonancy thereof will appear. A man may be so absurd, (though contrary to reason,) as to affirm a crooked line to be strait: But when his line comes to be applied to the rule, the obliquity thereof is clearly discovered. Just so, Popery and other false Religions, may prerend, (albeit with as little good reason,) a conformity to the word of GOD. But learned Divines, by applying the rules of Scriptures to them, have demonstrated their obliquity and dissonancy, as with a Sun beam. Hath not this been the way, how our Lord Christ, his Apostles, the aneient Fathers, and the faithful witnesses of Truth, confuted Heresies and false Religions in all ages?  
But secondly, In your next section you prevaticat, yet more grossly. For whereas, I had said that the True Religion hath sufficient grounds, ex parte objecti, to prove itself, to be a True Religion. Ye offer thus, to make Scors of my words. That the PROTESTANT Religion, hath intrinsecall and objective truths, and conformity to the sense of the letter of the word of GOD, but that it is destitute of all special grounds, to prove itself to have such objective truths and conformity to the Scriptures. I believe, rarely hath such contradictory Nonsense been heard. You might aswell, if I had asserted Snow to be white, have concluded, that I mantained it to be black. Did I not make plain Scots of my assertion in my own paper, explaining it thus. That is to say, That the True Religion hath sufficient grounds in itself, to manifest itself to be the True Religion, if it meet with a well disposed intellect. Or if ye would have it yet clearer, take it thus. The True Religion hath such grounds to manifest its truth, That if it be not taken up and assented to, it is not through any defect in the Religion, but through the defect and indisposition of the subject, which it meets with. You do acknowledge, that I affirm the PROTESTANT Religion to have Objective evidence. If it have objective evidence, how can it want grounds to manifest itself to be the True Religion? what else, I pray you, can be meant by Objective evidence, but grounds, Exparte objecti, to manifest itself? Let this be a Caution to you, that you do not henceforth substitute your Nonsense, as an explication of my assertions.  
Thirdly. In your penult section, ye involve yourself in a palpable contradiction, saying That before any particular truth of Religion be proven to be conform to the true sinse of Scripture. it must first be proved that the Clergy hath such habilities and assistance, in actu primo, as is requisite for giving out the truesense of Scripture. If you mean, infallible assistance, ye not only take for granted, what ye know, all PROTESTANTS do deny; but also, ye declare that no sense of Scripture can be taken off your hand, or such Traffiquers as you. Seeing, according to your Romish principles, none below the Pope, or general Council, are the subjects of this pretended infallibility. Yes, not only are your own men divided in this, whether this infallible assistance, be entailed to the Pope or Council, but also, some of your greatest Rabbis, have concluded, that both Pope and Council may err. And if so, who then according to your Arguing, should give the true sense of Scripture. But leaving this, to let you see how your own words entangle you, I shall desire you to consider this Enthymeme. Before any particular truth of Religion, be proven to be conform to the true sense of the Scriptures, this must first be proven, that the Clergy hath such requisite habilities, and assistance In Actuprimo, for giving the true sense, Ergo, this truth, concerning the Clergies habilities and assistance must be proven before it be proven, which implies a manifest contradiction. The Antecedent is your assertion. The Sequel is clear. Because, that the Clergy should have such assistance, (according to you) is one truth of Religion. If therefore it must be proven before every truth, it must be proven before itself. Is not this, not only to contradict the truth, but your own self. Who would not pity a Person smitten with such a Vertigo?  Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse. 
Go not henceforth to cavil, that it is either through diffidence or tergiversation, that I decline to prove the contradictory of your Assumption. The Grounds on which I have done it, are these. First, because, that I resolve to keep with you exactly, the rules of disputing. And therefore, seeing you have taken upon you, the office of an Opponent; you must eitnier do his work, or else acknowledge that the PROTESTANTS Religion, is such a● you cannot impugn. Secondly, because, to prove the PROTESTANTS Religion, to be a True Religion, is to prove the several Articles of our Religion, to be conform to the Scriptures, which as I said, cannot be done with one breath. But if you desiderat to see it done, I shall remit you to Chamieri Panstratia Catholica; not to mention the works of other Champions for the Truth. In the mean while, remember, I have appealed you (and yet again do,) to instance any One Ground necessarily requisite to prove the True Religion, which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS.  
In the close of all, you offend, that I should have desired you to sign your papers. And your language concerning this, savours of a Dunghill. But I shall ingenuously tell you, why I did desire it, That I might know, with whom I deal. For this hath been observed, as one of your Romanists practices, when ye have been worsted in debates, then to allege, it was no Scholar, that sustained such a debate, but some obscure Person. Again therefore, it is required of you, that you would sign your papers, as you would have them regarded.  
I once intended with this paper, by way of retaliation, to have sent you some demonstrations that Popery cannot be the True Religion. But as yet I have spared, because, I confess, it is likesome to me, to grapple further with you, until ye discover some more stuff.  
john Menzeis.  
POSTSCRIPT.  Augustinus, de doctrine Christiana, lib. 2. cap. 9 In iis, Qua aperte posita in Scriptura sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia qua continent fidem moresqueve vivends. 
After the writing of this, a new Edition of this your second paper was transmitted to me, correcting somewhat the dress of it, but nothing the matter, which therefore I judged not worthy of any further recognition.  
Reader know, That the Corrections in the second Edition of the jesuits second paper, were only of some trespasses of Orthography, which are now much better corrected by the PRINTER.   

The Jesuits third paper.  
An Answer to a Reply of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, wherein he labours to justify, that the grounds which he produced to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion, were not mere shifts and evasions.  
May 5. 1666.  
YOUR reply is stuffed with words, wherewith ye undervalue all things that are brought against you; calling them none-sense, raw and indigested, that you have a faint disputant, that the matter is Recocta cram, etc. But do you not know that such tenor of words are called Sagittae parvulorum. Since every one who hath a tongue and pen, may say or writ what he pleases, or why may not all their things be reponed with as good reason to yourself, calling you a faint disputant, and that your discourses are raw and indigested, and so, a matter of so great importance, as to discern a True Religion from a false, shall be resolved in a flyting, whereof you have this advantage, to have the first word.  
Laying then purposely aside all things that are out of the way, I propone to you again this point, that the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion, nor the Religion to the which God hath annexed the promise of eternal life, and consequently, whosoever aims at eternal happiness, after this life, or intends to save his soul, is obliged in conscience to quite it, and to search for the True Religion, prescinding or abstracting for now, where this True Religion is to be found, and insisting for the present in this only point; that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be it: and assure yourself that this point will be a Crambe cocta et recocta, and alwise set before you, till by sufficient heat you digest, and make good substance of it. This point we proved by this one Syllogism, which again is repeated to you.  


That Religion cannot be a True Religion, which hath no peculiar ground nor principle to prove that it is a True Religion, or conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle, to prove itself to be a True Religion, or a Religion conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
Therefore, the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion.    
Here you deny the Subsumption, that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove itself conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD, and consequently, you affirmed that it hath peculiar grounds or principles, whereby it can prove itself to be a Religion, grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD, and being pressed to produce your grounds, to prove the truth of your Religion, in stead of  grounds, you produce these two sleeing shifts and evasions.  
The first is, That the Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall grounds Ex parte objecti, though it have not alwise Ex parte subjecti, that is, if they do not alwise prove, the defect is not in the Religion, or in the grounds considered in themselves, but in the indisposition of the subject to the which they are applied. But it was told you that it was a mere shift, and that your obscure terms being resolved in good Scots, signifies only, that your Religion hath objective and intrinsical truth, or conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD, but so, that it is destuute of all special ground or principle, whereby it can prove itself to be grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And that your answer can have no other sense but this, is proven, because all their four propositions are Synonimons, to wit, A Religion, to be a True Religion, A Religion to be conform to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture, A Religion to have objective and intrinsical truth and evidence, A Religion that is able to convince, if it meet with a well disposed intellect or capacity. These four propositions being all Synonims, and signifying the same thing, and so all equally in controversy, you cannot prove one by another, but you must prove them be some extrinsecall and distinct Medium, otherwise you must grant that your answer is a mere shift, and which in good Scots signify only this. That your Religion is true in itself, but hath no peculiar ground whereby it can be proven to be true, and so we must believe it to be true, only because you say that it is. And with this, I set again before you this Recocted Dilemma. Either the Protestant Religion hath special grounds to prove that it is a True Religion, that it is a Religion conform to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture, that it is a Religion that hath objective or intrinsical truth and evidence, that it is a Religion able to convince any intellect that is well disposed, or else it hath no special ground or principles, whereby all their can be verified of it. If it have special grounds, let them be produced and examined: if it have none, let an ingenuous confession have place, that it is groundless and destitute of all principles, whereby it can prove these four Synonime propositions to agree to it. Which is confirmed: because any Religion even that which is acknowledged be themselves to be false, may affirm with as good reason, and pretend that all these four forenamed Synonime propositions, may be verified of their Religion. To wit, that their Religion is a True Religion, that their Religion is conform to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture, that their Religion is true, Ex parte objecti, and hath objective and intrinsical grounds, that their Religion is evident and true, if it meet with an intellect well disposed. All the answer and disparity you give, is, that they are fools and ye wise men, that they are blind, and so no wonder that they cannot see the clear beams of the truth of your Religion But may not they apply all this to you, with as good reasons as you do to them?  
The other shift that in stead of a  ground you brought was this, that you were not obliged to give a particular ground or principle, to prove in general your Religion to be true, because Religion say you is not an individual truth, but a complex of many truths whereof one must be proven after another. But this answer is a mere shift, whereby you would decline the only and main difficulty, by bringing in a whole body of controversies: which likewise can no ways help you. Because before you can prove any one of these particular truths, to be conform to the true sense of such a text of Scripture, you must first by some special ground or principle prove that your Clergy. Men hath In Actu Primo, such assistance and hability, as is prerequired in men who should give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture. since every false Religion may pretend that they give the true sense though contrary to the sense that you give.  
To this you reply, that it is a contradiction to say: that before other particular proofs be proved to be conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of God, it must first be proven, that their Clergy hath such ability and assistance in actu primo, as is requisite to give the true sense of Scripture. Because say you, this same that the Clergy should have in actu primo, such assistance is one particular truth, and so, if it should be proved before every particular truth, it should be proved before itself. And it seems, you have great compleasance and are fallen in love with this answer, as with a prime and unswearable subtility, backing it both with prose and meeter, and likewise, advertiseing me to consider it. But I likewise advertise you to consider, how that in this you fight only with your own shadow. For first, may not a proposition be in itself one and particular, and yet have an object universal, in the which, though it be contained, yet the thing affirmed of that object, do not agree to it: otherwise ye would by this, prove that David contradicted himself, when he pronounced this proposition, All men are liars; for if all men be liars, and David be a man, than he was a liar, in saying all men are liars. Next, what makes it to the purpose, whether the necessity of particular assistance in actu primo, in Clergy men, to give the true sense in other particular truths; what imports I say, that this is so of an general object, that it is in itself one particular truth distinct from the rest, it being sufficient, that it be such a particular truth of whom other truths depends, and of the which, the people must first be convinced, before they can be persuaded, that other particular points proponed to them, are revealed in such texts of Scripture. Wherefore take this Recocted dilemma again, either the Protestant Religion hath special grounds or principles, whereby men's understanding can be convinced, that their Clergy is qualified In actu primo, with such assistance and hability as is requisite to persuade the people, that they give the true serse of the letter of Scripture, or they have no such grounds or principles. If they have, then let them be produced, and examined. If they have no such grounds and principles, they cannot exact of people to believe their gloss, as the word of GOD since without this particular and interior assistance, they can only guess at the true sense of the text of Scripture.  
As to that you desire again, that I sign my answer with my name, and that you require this, because you would know with whom you deal, and because it hath been observed, to be one of the Romanists practices, when they have the worst in debates, to allege, it was no Scholar that sustained such debate, but some obscure person. But good Sir, in what Register did you find such a practic, or whether they may not with greater reason be turned over upon yourselves? and who will not smile, to hear you compare yourself, and your Divines, with Catholic Authors? Since it is known, that the most part of the doctrine that you vent, either in Pulpits or Schools, is copied out of them. The thing then desired of you, is, that you answer to the reasons proponed, not caring by whom they be proponed.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Answer to the jesuits third Paper.  
An Answer to a third Paper from a traffiquing Papist, commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster, alias Rinne or Logan.  
IS it not Ominous, that this your third Paper, beginneth with a notorious falsehood, in its very Inscription? as if I in my second Paper, had undertaken, to prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS. Whereas, it is manifest, that in both my former papers, I only sustained the part of a Defendant. And this I did of purpose, that it might be seen, how you would discharge the Office of an Opponent, under which you now appear, clearly succumbing, by your nauseating repetitions.  
If the acrimony of my Style, in my last offend you, ye may blame, partly your own tedious repetitions, and trifling in a matter of such importance, and partly some scurrilous expressions, which yoused, and opprobrious accusations, of tergiversation and diffidence, where with ye loaded me in your second paper. Because, forsooth, I would not gratify you so far, as to take the Opponents work off your hand. So that, what of this kind hath been, owes its rise to you.  
I admire nothing in you but your confidence. That ye are not ashamed, to offer to me a Paper, bearing the inscription of a Reply; when ye seem as afraid to touch the chief points in my Paper, as you would be to handle a Serpent. Did I not charge you with grievous Omissions in my last? Why do you not clear yourself of that Fallacy, in the third proposition of your first Paper? Why do you not answer, to the Retorsions of your argument, against yourself? Why do you not either prove your Assumption, or else refel the arguments, by which I show that ye were tied to prove it? Did I not demonstrate the pertinency of all these particulars, and withal, conjured you to speak to them, as you would not incur the heaviest characters of Ignominy? What construction after all this, can your deep silence bear, but that you are not able to acquit yourself in these points? Hath there been one article of controversy in any of your Papers, which I have not examined? whether therefore you, or I, be guilty of tergiversation, or diffidence, the  Reader may judge.  
I am so wearied with your Tautologies, that I should not have deignied this paper with an answer; but that I know, the clamorous impudence of many of your Party, to be such, that if no answer had been returned, (how insignificant soever your paper be,) they would have insulted, and sung Victoria. But let me ask you seriously, doth the frequent repetition of this poor naked Syllogism, either help the form, or strengthen the matter thereof of, both of which have been justly questioned? Are battologies so savoury, and delicious to your Popish ? will the ingemination of your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, extort an assent, from these who have the use of their reason? How oft will ye constrain me to tell you, that I deny your Assumption, and consequently, the second branch of your ragged Dilemma, which is wholly coincident therewith, and that I have long desiderated the probation of both? But seeing ye have some fancy for Dilemmas, I will repone this one to you. Either you can prove the Assumption of your Syllogism, or not. If you can, give I pray you a specimen of your Acumen, and tergiverse no longer. If ye cannot, then profess ingenuously, (as the truth is,) that ye have undertaken a work which ye cannot perform. And it is no wonder that here you be at a Nonplus. For, if the Christian Religion revealed in Scripture, hath grounds to prove itself to be the True Religion, (which none but a down right Infidel can deny,) then surely, the Religion of PROTESTANTS, wanteth not grounds to prove itself. For the Religion of PROTESTANTS, is the Christian Religion, revealed in the holy Scriptures, as I told you in the explication of the terms in my first Paper. And consequently, what ever solid grounds were brought either by these Ancient Apologists, justin Martyr, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Arnobius, etc. Or are held out in the modern tractats of Morney, Grotius, Amyrald, yea in your own Vives, to prove the truth of the Christian Religion, these also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS. Nay, do not you Romanists acknowledge the most of all our Positives? So that the great question which remains, is, Whether you Papists have any evidence for your superadditions. And is it not your concernment to show this? But when I think upon your Tautologizing way, it calls to my mind the custom of children, who, when their memory fails them, in saying their lesson, lest they should seem to say nothing, they will needs ingeminate the last word. Away then for shame with these childish, unmanly, and insipid repetitions.  
You blot much paper needlessly, with four Synonimons propositions. But I might advertise you, first, that your discourse concerning them, is wide from the purpose. For it supposeth, that I am now proving the Religion of PROTESTANTS to be the True Religion, which is not at present my work. But seeing ye have undertaken to impugn it, my bussines is, to cleat it from your cavils. Secondly, I doubt if ye can reconcile, what ye have said of the Equipollencie, of these four Propositions, with your Tridentine Faith. For if it be the same thing, for a Religion to be a True Religion, and to be conform to the Scriptures, than it cannot be true, which your Council of Trent hath defined, that Unwritten Traditions, are to be received Pari pietatis affectu, with equal devotion, as the written Word of GOD. For, if this Tridentin Canon be true, the truth of Religion, cannot stand adequatly in its conformity to the Scriptures, but partly in its conformity with the Scriptures, and partly, in its conformity with unwritten traditions, and consequently, your  propositions, cannot be adequatly Synommas. You may bethink yourself, whether ye, or the Council be in the Error? But thirdly, granting these propositions to be Synonima's, that is, to have an Objective identity: I pray, by what Logic will ye prove, that one of them, cannot be brought to prove the other? Is it not lawful to argue, á Definitione, ad Definitum, betwixt which, there is an objective identity? Do not Logicians acknowledge an identity, betwixt objective Premises, and the Conclusion? And therefore, though a True Religion be a Religion cōforme to the Scriptures, yet, there is no absurdity in proving the truth of Religion by its comformity to the Scriptures. Even as, to use your old example, from which ye are fallen off, (as seems) because, it made so much against you. An action to be honest, and conform to the Law are Synonima's, and yet, the best way of proving it to be honest, is, to prove its conformity to the Law. By all this it appears that your plain Scots, (which ye are not ashamed again to repeat) is plain Nonsense, as I demonstrated in my last. For the truth of Religion consisting in its conformity with the Scripture, may be demonstrated by holding out its conformity with the Scripture. An objective evidence of a Religion being nothing else, but a ground whereby the truth of Religion may be demonstrated, it is unconceivable, how a Religion can have objective evidence, and yet want a ground, whereby to manifest itself to be a True Religion. If here you but understood your own self, I hope there would be no more controversy, as to this, betwixt us. So that the matter is not obscured by my terms, (as you say,) but by your contradictory Nonsense. As to your frivolous oft repeated cavil, that a false Religion may pretend the like conformity and objective evidence, it was confuted so fully in my last, that I shall remit you to what was then said. Though Anaxagoras and Hypochondriack, Persons may maintain Snow to be black, Shall that make others who have their eyes in their head, and the use of their Reason turn Skeptics, and question, whether it be white or black.  
Towards the close, ye pass by many things, (as your custom is,) which I had said concerning the assistance of your Clergy men, In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture. And ye only labour to extricat yourself from that Contradiction, wherein I show you to be involved, but all in vain. Nay ye involve yourself the more, by affirming, That a proposition, may have an universal object, whereof itself is a part, and yet, that something may be affirmed of that universal object, which cannot be affirmed of that part of the object. A rare notion forsooth! implying a manifest repugnancy. But I am loath to digress, to a Philosophic debate with you. Can any thing (I pray you,) be affirmed of every man, which cannot be affirmed of you and me? As for that proposition of david's, All men are liars, which you bring to illustrate your paradoxal notion. How could you make use of it in your argueing with me, until first you proved your infallibility? For, (if you may be believed,) I can take no sense of it from you, until you first prove yourself infallible; which, (I suppose,) you pretend not to. But, it is your ill luck, to be still involved in contradictions. Yet, to speak more particularly of this example, and not to take up time in enumerating the several acceptions, of this Syncategorematick particle, All, it may be evident that David did not take it Universally, of all men, in reference to all their say, else he had not only convicted himself of a lie; but also, charged all the pen men of holy Scriptures, as liars, in all that they said. Which, I believe, no rational Person will affirm. It must therefore be restricted to one of two. Either, to these who had said that DAVID should be King; and if thus, it was indeed an overreaching, and false assertion in DAVID. For among these the Prophet Samuel was one. And no wonder that DAVID did overreach in this, for he acknowledges, he spoke it, in Festinatione, in his haste. Or secondly, (to which I rather incline,) it must be understood thus, every mere man, of his own nature, is prone to lying, and fallible, as your Esthius and A Lapide, upon Rom. 3.4. And many others do expound it. And so it holds universally, and can be affirmed of every one, who is a mere man; and yet David not be guilty of actual lying, in speaking so. Nay this sentence of david's, reaches a deep stroke, at the pretended infallibility of your Clergy; except, ye can prove, that they have a special gift, of infallible assistance, which I believe you will do when you prove your assumption: namely, Ad Graecas Calendas, that is to say, Never. You are then so far, from having any subsidy, from this saying of DAVID, that while you go about to expede yourself, you do involve yourself the faster. But I leave you in this thicket, until I consider your other evasion. For, Must miser est uno, qui tantum clauditur antro.  
You therefore except this truth, Concerning the assistance of the Clergy, from being in the condition of other particular truths: As if the knowledge of this, were to be presupposed, before we can know the conformity of any other particular truth to the Scriptures. But this shift yields you no more succour than the former. Nay, it leaves you likewise in a Contradiction, which I thus demonstrat. A Religion, and the several points thereof to be true, and to be conform to the true sense of Scripture, are Synonima's, according to you. Therefore, no point of Religion can be known to be true, until it be known, to be conform to the true sense of Scripture. But, that the Clergy should have such assistance, In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture, is one point of Religion, as you affirm. Therefore, it cannot be known to be true, until its conformity with the true sense of Scripture be known. And yet upon the other hand, you say, that, before the true sense of any Scripture be known, we must first know, that the Clergy hath such assistance to give the true sense of it, Ergo, that the Clergy hath such assistance, must be known, before the true sense can be known. And consequently, the assistance of the Clergy, In actu primo, must be known before the sense of Scripture, and not before the sense of Scripture. Now, what need have you of Ariadne's clue, to wind yourself out of this labyrinth?  
By this, it is easy to consider, what we are to think of your last Dilemma. Either (say you,) The PROTESTANT Religion hath special grounds, to prove that the Clergy hath this assistance, In actu primo, to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture, or it hath not, if it hath, let them be produced, and examined: if it hath not, than the People have no ground to believe their Teachers. Who seethe not, how easily this may be retorted upon yourselves? For, either the Romish-Religion, hath special grounds, to prove that their Clergy hath this assistance, In actu primo, to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture; or, it hath not. If it hath, let these grounds be produced, and I doubt not, but upon examination, they shall be found light. If it have none, than the poor deluded People, have no ground to believe their Romish Doctos. Nay, it were easy, (if I did not fear too great prolixity,) to demonstrate, that this falls much more heavylie on the Romish-Religion, than it can do on us. For, how (I pray you,) can your Romists know, that they have any Clergy at all? Seeing, the being of their Clergy depends upon a condition, whereof they can have no infallible certainty. Namely, the intention of the Ordainer, as is defined both in the Council of Florence, and Trent. And if they cannot know who are their Clergy Men, far less can they know that they have this assistance, so much talked of. Again, If the knowledge of their Clergies assistance, be such a prerequisit, then, it ought to be defined, to which of the Clergy this assistance is entailed. Whether to all, or only to some, and who these some are, whether the Pope, or General Council? But as to this ye are not agreed among yourselves. Nay, as I hinted in my last, some of your chief Doctors maintain, both Pope and Council may ere'rt. Define then (if you can,) who these are, that are to give the sense of Scripture, with this pretended assistance.  
Therefore, to answer directly to your Dilemma: If you speak of infallible assistance, I absolutely deny, that the knowledge of such infallibility, In actu primo, in the Clergy, is a necessary prerequisit, before the true sense of Scripture may be known. And now again, the probation of this will lie upon you. Which (I believe,) ye shall find as difficult, as the probation of your Assumption. Can I not give an assent, to a Jurist explaining some of the Institutes of Justinian, or receive from him satisfactory resolution of a Law-case, unless first I know him infallible? Can I not assent to him who explains or demonstrats a proposition of Euclyd, unless first I be satisfied as to his infallibility In actu primo? I wish your Proselytes would deal with you according to your principle, and believe nothing you say, till you prove your infallibility. But to remove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this your mistake. Know that our People's faith is not built on our Authority. We arrogat nor Dominion over their faith, we are but helpers of their joy. 2. Cor. 1.24. But seeing you have pitched upon the knowledge of the infallible assistance of the Clergy, In actu primo, for giving the true tense of Scripture, as a necessary prerequisit, before the true sense of Scripture can be known; which the PROTESTANTS deny. I therefore appeal you, to prove this to be a necessary prerequisit, if you can.  
Ye are not a little commoved, that our Divines should be compared to yours. It is long indeed, since the pride of the Romish Clergy, made an eminent Person say, Odi festum istius Ecclesiae, but I may say without vainity, to the praise of GOD, there have been eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches; such as Calvin, Beza, , Whitaker, Morton, Ʋsher, etc. Who lake only some years to make them be enroled among the Fathers. Neither indeed do I desire them to be otherways compared with your men, then as one would compare Austin, Jerom, or Athanasius, with the Heretics of their time. Yet, would I not put all the Doctors of your Church in one class. Some we know, have been of a more moderate principle, than the Grandees of your faction, for which cause many of their writings have suffered by your Judex Expurgatorius.  
How are you not ashamed, to say, that the most we teach in Schools or Pulpits, is copied out of your Authors? Do we (I pray you,) reach Popery either in Schools or Pulpit? Do we cite your Authors, but to confute them? Or, do we make further use of them, except in common truths, wherein we and ye agree? as we make use of Heathen Authors; and as Virgil made use of Ennius, to extract Aurum ex stercore Ennii; or, as the skilled Surgeon can make use of Viper's flesh, to compound a sovereign treacle. I am sorry, that as your Paper began with a falsehood, in matter of fact, (you must excuse my plainness,) so it should be shut up with another: Sic respondent Ultima Primis.  
You may not expect, that I will trifle away more time, in answering your frivolous unsubscrived Tautologies. Either therefore, leave your repetitions, and do the work of an Opponent seriously, or else, you will constrain me, to give a public account to the World, of your trifling, and tergiversation.  Turpe est difficiles habere nugas. 
Aberdene, May 9 1666. John Menzeis.   

The jesuits fourth Paper. Answer to a third Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, whereby he labours of new, to persuade that the Grounds which he produces, for the truth of the Protestant Religion, were not mere shifts and evasions. 28. of May, 1666.  
This Paper was not delivered to Mr. JOHN MENZEIS till june 2.  
YOUR third Paper, bearing the date of the ninth of May, Did not come to my hands before the twenty seventh of May. Neither know I, wherefore it hath been so long kept up. Since, as I am informed, you did first dyt it to your Scholars, who out of zeal to the reputation of their Master, did use all diligence to disperse many copies of it: and although it be not authentic, and subscrived with your hand, with the solemuities used in your former paper, yet, for the ordinary strain of digressions, not making to the purpose, I do acknowledge it for yours. And it is pleasant, that you say that you marvel, that I pass over in silence, and does not answer. But how can you marvel at this, since I have always protested to you, and protest to you again, that I would close misken, and take no notice of any thing that is out of the way, and which does not concern the decision of the present controversy, to wit; Whether the Protestant Religion can be shown to be a True Religion, by any ground or principle, which may not serve with as great Reason, to prove any false Religion to be a True Religion. And so soon as you (who hath bragingly undertaken, to prove the truth of your Religion,) shall produce any such ground, whereby it may appear, that you put yourself at least in the way, either to give some satisfactory answer, or at least, to confess ingenuously, that you have no such ground for your Religion; I oblige myself, and shall find you Surtie, that I shall answer at length to all your Digressions, to all your Retorsions, and likewise, shall disput with you at great leisure, about the rules of Logic, and show how grossly you are mistaken, in confounding Objective negations, with formal negations, as if a formal affirmation, might not fall upon objective negations united be an objective affirming Copula. As for your injurious and undervaluing words, both in Greek, and Latin, wherewith your paper is stuffed, calling all things brought against you, Tantologies, Battologies, Insipid and Childish things, and Nonsense, etc. I told you before, that any man that hath a tongue, may heap up and utter injurious words, even against GOD himself. And this way of proceeding, would be thought by the judicious, to be a clear testimony of a deserted cause, and that, since by sufficient reason you cannot propped the tottering truth of your Religion, at least by Digressions, Injurious words, and other practices, you will shoulder and hold up your reputation before simple people, who adjudges the Victory to him who rails most. As if the means to try a True Religion from a false, were not of such high concernment itself alone, as did deserve to confine both your thoughts and pen within the gyre of it. So that without wrouging the weightiness of the matter, ye cannot decline to squabble about other things, before it be fully ended.  
Laying then aside as before, all other things as out of the rod; this is laid again before you, that the Protestant Religion, cannot be the true Religion, nor the Religion to which GOD hath tied the promise of eternal life, and consequently, whosoever arms at eternal happiness after this life, or intends to save his Soul, is obliged in conscience to quit it, and betake himself to a diligent search for the True Religion, prescinding for now, where it is to be found, and insisting for the present is this, that the Protestant Religion cannot be it. This point is proven at before by this Syllogism.  


That Religion cannot be a true Religion, which hath no special Ground or Principle whereby it can prove itself to be a true Religion, or conform to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God.  
But the Protestant Religion, hath no special Ground or Principle, whereby it can prove itself to be a true Religion, or to be a Religion, conform to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God.  
Ergo, the Protestant Religion, cannot be a true Religion.    
Though you leave off to call this Syllogism a Crambe recocta, being conscious to yourself, not to be able to produce sufficient heat to dissolve and digest it, yet you call it a poor and naked Syllogism, which if it be as you say, it begs this favour of you, that you will  and cover the nakedness of it, with some fitting answer. Only be pleased to remember, that since you deny the subsumption, and so puts yourself in obligation, to produce grounds for the proof of your Religion, that the grounds you produce, must have this property, that they cannot serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion, to be a True Religion, As the grounds which serves to prove one to be an honest man, must have this property, that they cannot serve to prove a knave, to be an honest man. Neither do you satisfy in saying, that Honesty consists in a conformity of actions with the Law, as Knavery in a deformity of actions to the Law: this I say does not help you, because this is only to explicat the terms, and to draw the lineaments not filling up the fields and vacuities. For the present controversy is not wherein consists objective Honesty, or objective Knavery; nor wherein consists objective truth of Religion, or objective falsehood of Religion: but suppoining the one to consist in a conformity, or difformity of actions to the Law, and the other to consist in a conformity, or difformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD: it remains to show by some special ground, wherefore of one man is verified this objective Honesty, and not of the other? and wherefore of one Religion is affirmed this obiective truth, and not of the other? To this you answer, that this is easily known, be applying and comparing only the actions of both with the Law, and the tenets of both, with the word of GOD, as the obliquity and crookedness of a rule, is presently known by applying it to a strait and even rule, and with this popular discourse, you think to have cleared, and exhausted all the difficulty. But good Sir, give me leave to discover the shallowness, and superficialness of this answer. You say objective Honesty is proven to agree to such a man, because his actions are conform to the Law. But I ask you, what if the letter of the Law, with the which you compare the actions, be capable of divers, yea, contrary senses, and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knavery, are conform to the Law, taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it? In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man, unless there be produced some special ground, to show that his actions are conform to the true sense of the letter of the Law, and which cannot favour the Knave, nor his actions? Likewise, since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers, yea, contrary senses, and there is no Religion so false, but pretends that the tenets of it, are conform to the letter of Scripture, taken up in the sense that they give it: there rests no remedy to prove a Religion to be true, or to be distinct from a false, but by producing some special ground, which is not applicable to a false Religion. And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled, and at how easy a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained, be a discourse, smoothly, and plausibly proponed, and attempered to their capacity, though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and solidity.  
Out of this you may see, that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion, and grants that the truth of a Religion, cannot subsist without some special ground, denying the subsumption, that affirms the want of all grounds, there results out of all these, a necessity and obligation upon your part, to produce some special grounds for the truth of your Religion, whereby you may make appear, that the objective truth, or the objective grounds of a true Religion, doth agree to your Religion, and which cannot serve, to prove that the objective truth, or objective grounds of a true Religion, agreeth to a false Religion. Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation, the pretext that you are the Defender, and I the Impugner, because, to me, as the Impugner, belongs only to press you, either to grant that you have no grounds, or to produce them to be impugned.  
Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds. The first was, that your Religion hath objective truths, or objective grounds of evidence, though they be not alwise convincent, by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whom they are proponed. But, it hath been told you, that all their are Synonims, A Religion to be a true Religion, A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence, A Religion to be conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD, A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed. And so their being all Synonims, and all equally in controversy, one cannot be ground to prove one another, but they must all be proven by some other thing. And this was told you, and is now repeated again. Neither doth it help you, the answer that you insinuat in this paper, that, although they be all Synonims, yet one of them may serve to prove another, as it is lawful to argue A Definitione ad Definitum, though there be an objective identity betwixt them, as likewise, betwixt objective premises and the conclusion. But in this, as before, you discover your shallowness, in touching only the screofe, not going deeper. Because this way of arguing doth not hold, when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversy, whether they do agree in such a thing, for than they must be proven by some other ground. Moreover, may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion, and which you yourself acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence, and prove this be this other Synonime, that their Religion is conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD? Now all the answer that you always give, is, that those that sees not the truth of your Religion, have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools, Blinded, and now you add that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons. But all this is as easily turned over upon yourself, since men that denies and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion, are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as yourself.  
The other shift that you bring, when you are pressed to produce some special ground, whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion, is, That Relgion is not an individual truth, but a complex of many truths, which cannot be proven altogether, but successively, one after another. But, who sees not this to be a mere shift, in place of a difficulty, to substitute a whole body of particular controversies, which though they may now be begun, yet requires years to bring them to an end? And doth not Aristotle teah us, that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus, before we descend to particulars, least doing otherwise, we be forced to repeat often the same things? Likewise remember, that the same shift with as great reason, may be alleged by any false Religion, to decline the necessity, that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion.  
As for that, in which you enlarge yourself to show an Contradiction in my discourse, whereby I told you, that before you can induce the people to believe, that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture, you must first produce solid grounds, that you are qualified with such assistance, and such directions, In actu primo, to give out this true sense. In this I told you before, that you are fight with your own shadow: and putting up a feigned adversary to yourself that afterward you may have a feigned pleasure in putting of him down. For what contradiction can it be, to say, that the actual operation, or, Actus secundus, doth necessarily suppone, Actum primum, and if, In actu secundo, you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture, then necessarily you must be furnished In actu primo, with sufficient ability to give this true sense? Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing, Hearing, Speakeing, In actu secundo, except he be supported to have In actu primo, sufficient ability to do their operations? And you must have great dominion over your intellect, if you can persuade yourself, that this discourse involves a contradiction. Now I request you to  this ragged Dilemma, as you call it. Either you can produce some special grounds, whereby can be made manifest, that your Clergy men are qualified In actu primo, with sufficient ability and assistance, to give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture, and let their grounds be produced, and shown, that they cannot be assumed with as great reason, to prove that the Clergy of a false Religion, hath this ability In actu primo, or else, you are destitute of special grounds, and then it is impossible that your Clergy can give the true sense of Scripture, because, it is impossible to do any thing In actu secundo, without a special ability In actu primo, to do it. So that all the ability that your Clergy is furnished with, In actu primo, is only, to guess at the true sense of Scripture, and wherefore, should people pay you Stipend for guessing, since they are endued with sufficient ability themselves, and without you, to guess at the true sense of Scripture.  
In this your last Paper, you add a third shift, to wit, that all the grounds, whereby Tertullian and other Fathers, proved the truth of Christian Religion against Pagans, proves likewise the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion. But who will not laugh at this answer, as if there were no Christian Religion but your PROTESTANT Religion? And what Christian Religion is so false, which may not with as great reason assume this shift of yours? As to that, whereby you remit me to the grounds, which Morney, Grotins, and others of your own Authors brings, I pray you, since they are your own, take all the help you can of them, and either be distilling or squeezing all their writs. Express me one solid ground to prove the truth of your Religion, which may not with as great reason, be applied to prove a false Religion to be a true Religion.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Answer to the jesuits fourth Paper.  
An Answer to a fourth Paper from a traffiquing Papist, commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster, alias Rinne, or Logan.  
TO apologise for your long silence, you allege, that my third Paper, dated May ninth, came not to your hands until May twentyseventh, and that it was unsubscrived, and had been first dictated to my Scholars. To which it is answered, that on the ninth of May, I sent an authentic copy of that paper, to the Gentleman of your profession, by whom the rest, both of yours, and mine, were addressed. If he hath neglected to deliver it to you until the twentyseventh of May, you may call him to an account, and put him to Penance at your next shriveing, for being so negligent of the concernments, of his Ghostly father. Whereas, you say, it was unsubscrived, I can hardly believe you; yet, if it be so, it hath been a lapse of memory. But you are not In bona fide, to object that omission to me, who never had the confidence to sign any of your papers. However, Quod scripsi, scripsis what I have written, I have written. And to give evidence, that I am ready to maintain, what ever is in that Paper, against all the fry of Jesuits; transmit to me with a confident hand, the copy which I sent, and it shall be returned with my subscription manual. As to the allegiance, that it was dined to some Students, before I sent it to be conveyed to you, it is a gross untruth. For it was not communicated to them, or to any else, until the week thereafter; which I was the more easily inclined to do, hearing how busy your Romish proselyts were, to disseminat your Papers, and that with the addition of impudent calumnies. But believe me, I should not have accused you for your delay, if at length, you had supplied the omissions of your former Papers, and done the work of an Opponent neatly, and throughly, as ye were required. Sat cuò, si sat benè. But, you must give me leave, to give you a free Character of this Paper. I find it to be nothing but a rhapsody of Rail, Repetitions, Tergiversations, yea, and shameful flinching from your own principles. So that, if I mistake not, it had been more for your credit, utterly to have kept silence. For, Stultus est labor Ineptiarum.  
By this time it appears, that it is lost labour, to press you any further, to make a Reply to the principal points of my former Papers. For now, you protest you will not do it, and you cloak your shameful tergiversation, with this pellucid excuse, that these things in my Papers were out of the way. That is, (if you may be believed,) impertinent. But who, beside you, will say, that it was impertinent for me, to discover a fallacious Sophistication, in the ground of all your discourse? What ingenuous person, would not have judged himself concerned, to clear himself of such an imputation? Yet, though this hath been now four times charged on you, ye think it not pertinent to vindicat yourself. Who, besides you, but will acknowledge, that it was pertinent for me to demonstrate, that by your own discourse, you had ensnared yourself in Contradictions, and had cut the sinews of your Romish and Tridentine faith? What a poor Advocate then are you for the Romish cause, and an unworthy stipendiary to your Master the Pope, who have no more to say, but, that it is not pertinent for you now to speak to these things? But what need I wonder at this? Seeing you judge it impertinent to prove the Assumption of your own syllogism, which I had not only requited you to do, but also, condescended to demonstrate by many Mediums, that you were tied to do it. And yet, it seems not pertinent to you, either to prove it; or to refel these my arguments. Shall only impertinency be pertinent with you? I doubt, if that cowardly boast shall raise up your falling reputation, that if I should answer according to the method which you prescribe, that is, if I would liberat you of the burden, of proving your Assumption, than you would answer, not only to all these my Digressions (as for the salving of your credit, you are pleased to term them,) but also, dispute at leisure with me, about Logical Rules, and I know not what, notional whimsies concerning Formal and objective negations.  Quid dignum tante feret hic promissor hiatu? 
When I compare your big, but conditional bragging, with your lean performances at present, I remember of him in Plutarch who was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Semper dicebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & nunquam dabat. He was liberal in promises, but nothing at all in performances. If you be so able to expede yourself in these particulars, what mean you by all these shifts and dilatours? Quinon est hodie, cras minus aptus erit. If you were once become so ingenuous, as to acknowledge that you cannot prove your Assumption, I would so far commiserat you, as to grant you an exemption. But till then how can you expect courtesy at my hands? Might not a man of your years, have learned so much discretion, as not to prescribe methods of answereing, to his Adversary? Vain debates for victory and not for truth, do not become grave persons. Yet, I purpose never to decline to exchange a Paper with you, or any Romanist, either upon a Philosophical, or Theological subject, when I see it for edification, or the Church's advantage. This trifling encounter with you, hath made the esteem of your Romish breeding to fall exceedingly with me. For though you have been of such fame among these of your Cabal, that I promised to myself learned and accurate discourses from you, yet I must profess, that the most of the lines which I have received from you, have been like the ludibrious prattlings of a Quaker.  
You take it ill, that I accuse you, of your Tautologies, and Battologies. Is it a crime to call Scapham Scapham, or to call black, black? Had I not just cause so to do, when now the fourth time you have repeated one Paralogism, yea, and glory in your recocted colworts, as if they were delicious food? Would it not tempt the patience of another, to have to do with one, who will needs still repeat the same note? Apage coccysmum. You call upon me, To  your naked, and informal Syllogism, with an Answer. If you look back on the Papers, which ye have received from me, you will find, that I have returned three Answers unto it in my first Paper, though, as than I told you, it was unworthy of any further reply, then, NEGO MINOREM, That I denied the Minor. Is it not rather your concernment, To  your Syllogism, with a probation of the denied Assumption? All that was incumbent to me, was to publish the Nakedness of it, which I hope in some measure I have done. You say, that they who have a tongue, or pen, may throw the like reproaches upon me. I have indeed sufficient experience of your revile. For it is ordinary with you, to upbraid me with shallowness, and superficialness, etc. Yet these shallow discourses have so (as seems,) affrighted you, that ye have not adventured to plumb them. But, I rather never put pen to paper, before you, or any other, had just ground to accuse me, of such Childish repetitions. If you hold on in this way, the like fate may befall you, which did that Rudolphus, who for his trifling, was to his reproach, surnamed, Nugax. Whether I have deserted the cause, which I have undertaken, as you are pleased to reproach me, let yourself, or any of my most prejudicated adversaries, after they have perused all these Papers, judge?  
You have studied now at length an evasion, but a miserable one, to elude the example whereby I did illustrate in my foregoing Papers, that the truth of Religion may be proven, by holding out its conformity with the Scriptures, even as the honesty of a man's actions, may be demonstrated by holding forth the conformity thereof with the Law. But what (say you,) if the letter of the Law, be capable of divers, yea, and contrary senses, and then making application to Religion, you affirm, That the letter of the Scripture, is capable of divers, yea, contrary senses, and thereupon, you would infer, that the truth of Religion cannot be known by its conformity with the Scripture. But you are so unhappy in all your arguings, that they are both false on the matter, and return with more violence on your own head, then upon your adversary. And first, may it not with more reason be retorted on you, that the Canons of your Councils, the Bulls, Breves, and decretals of your Popes, and what else of that nature you would make use of, to verify the truth of your Religion, are capable of divers and opposite senses? Need I put you in mind of the eager debates of the Jesuits, and Dominicans, about the sense of, Posse dissentire si velit; in the Fourth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent? Or, shall I remit you to see further digladiations of your Doctors, about the sense of other Canons of the said Council in Vasquez, in primam secundae disput: 203. and cap. 9? When you lose this knot, in behalf of your Romish principles, you will ease your Adversary of the pains, of discovering the vanity of your arguing. But I shall not wait for your help, and therefore, I plainly Answer by this distinction. If you mean that the Law, which is the measure of honest actions, is capable of divers, and contrary genuine senses, it is a manifest falsehood. For the Law cannot at once command two contraries, more than a man can at once, blow hot and cold breath out of his mouth; else, two contrary propositions should at once be true, which Logicians tells you, cannot be. But if you mean, that the Law may have divers, yea, and contrary imposed senses, Sive ex inscitia, sive ex nequitia, whether through the ignorance, or perverseness of cavilling imposers, or, one genuine sense, and others imposed. It is granted, that this may be. But, these misprisions of cavillers, will not impede the clearing of the real honesty of a good action, by its conformity with the genuine sense of the Law. No more than the cavilling of a Sophister, pretending a crooked line to be strait, will impede the discerning of a strait line, from a crooked, by the application of both to the rule. Which was another example formerly made use of by me, of which also, in this your last paper you make mention, but the evidence thereof, seems so to have dazzled your eyes, that you have not been able to find out a Sophism, to elude it. This same distincton serves for the other branch of your discourse, concerning the Scriptures, For, if you mean, that the Scriptures have divers or disparat, yea, and contrary genuine senses, intended by the holy Ghost: you speak both falsely, and impiously, as if the Spirit of GOD did equivocat in Scriptures, and Scriptures were like to Apollo's dubious Oracles. But, if you mean only, that divers and disparat, yea, and contrary senses, may be imposed on Scripture, through the ignorance or cavilling humour of men; it is granted. But this hinders not, but that, the truth of Christian Religion, may be demonstrated by its conformity with the one genuine sense of Scripture. Especially, seeing, though there be depths in the Scriptures of GOD, yet they are clear in all things necessary to salvation. As our Divins have demonstrated in the controversy, De Perspicuitate Scripturae. Know you not that of chrysostom. Homil. 3. in 2. Epist: ad Thess. In divinis Scriptures quacunꝙ necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. Or that of August: in Psal: 88 Et si quadam sunt tecta mysteriis, quadam tamen si● manifesta sunt, ut ex ipsis facillime ap●riantur obscura. Or what think you, of the boldness of Irenaeus, lib: 2. Contra Hereses cap. 46. Vniversae Scripturae Propheticae & Evangelicae in aperto & sine ambiguitate & similiter ab omnibus audir● possunt. Yea, this truth is so luculent, that it hath extorted testimonies from your own writters. Hence Aquinas part: 1. quest: 1. art: 10. Nihil sub Spirituali sensu continetur fidet necessarium quod Scriptura per literalem sensum alicubt  non tradat; and Sixtus Senensis lib: 6. Bibliotheca Annot. 152. Affirms that part of Scripture, apertam esse & dilucidam quae complectitur summa rerum credendarum, principia & pracipua bene vivendi praecepta & exempla. So that, were I not resolved to keep you at your work, as an Opponent, it were easy thus to redargue, all which you have said.  
If the Scriptures be clear in all that is necessary to Salvation, than the Religion of PROTESTANTS, hath a clear ground to prove itself to be a true Religion.  
But the first is true, Ergo.  
The Sequel of the Major is so clear, that your Romanists have no other evasion, but to accuse the Scriptures, sometimes of obscurity, sometimes of ambiguity, as being capable of divers, yea, of contrary senses. And in this, you imitate the old Heretics, as appears, by that luculent testimony of Irenaus, lib: 3. cap: 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi variè sint dicta, & non possit ex bis inveniri veritas, ab iis qui nesciunt traditionem. The assumption is proved at length by PROTESTANTS, in the controversies De Perfectione & Perspicuitate Scriptura. When you have tried all the art of jesuitical Sophistry, to disprove these popular discourses (as in the height of your Spirit, you are pleased to term them,) I hope you shall find them both solid and impregnable.  
This may silence your clamour, that I should produce a ground, by which the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion may be proved, for you suppose, that you are tied to no more, but to press me to produce the grounds of the PROTESTANT Religion, that you may impugn them. But, to silence this your vociferation, you may remember, first, that I have demonstrated that you are tied to do more. Had you indeed undertaken, to prove the Hypothesis of the Atheist, that there is no true Religion at all, in this case, you might have demanded of me, a ground to prove a True Religion. But when you affirm, that, there is a True Religion, which hath peculiar grounds, which can be verified of none else, you were tied, to have produced these grounds, and to have demonstrated, that they could not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS. Especially, I having solemnly appealed you to instance one ground, requisite to prove the true Christian Religion,  is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS. Secondly, You had not only in the general affirmed, that the True Religion had grounds to prove itself, but you had particularly condescended upon one, namely, the knowledge of the assistance (as seems infallible,) of the Clergy, In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture, before the true sense thereof can be known. Whereupon in my last, I told you, this was expressly denied by us PROTESTANTS, and therefore, appealed you, if you could, to prove it. But you have been so far from doing it, that you have shamefully flinched from it, as shall a little after appear. But thirdly, I have Ex superabundanti, though not tied thereto, by rules of disputing, given you a Ground of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS, namely, The Perspicuity of the Scriptures, (but not excluding the use of means,) in all things necessary to Salvation, which you might have collected, from that Intrinseck objective evidence, of which I spoke from the beginning. Only remember, that you call not upon me to prove this, though it were easy to do it, and hath been done, times without number, by PROTESTANTS, in their debates against your Romanists. But now, we are to keep the rules of disputing, and you have acknowledged, that it is your concernment, As the Impugner, when a ground is produced, to impugn it. And therefore, you must either do your work, or else become so ingenuous, as to confess, that you are not able to impugn the truth of God. In the mean time, trouble me not with the cavils of your fellows, which have been often already refured by our Divines, else, I will remit you to the Authors, who have examined these Sophisms before. But, if you have any new thing, worthy of consideration, you may propose it. I wish you were moved by such principles, as he who said, 2. Cor. 13.8. We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. Yet do you as you will, Fortis est veritas & praevalebit.  
I had showed you in my last, that your whole discourse, concerning your four Synonime propositions, was both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wide from the purpose, and likewise inconsistent with your Tridentine faith. Yet, so rare a disputant are you, that you make no return to these things, what can I conclude, but, Qui tacet consentire videtur. The reasons which I brought, have so far prevailed with you, as to make you explicitly grant, that of two propositions, Objectiuly Synonims, the one may be brought to prove the other, except when both are equally in controversy. But this can be of no use for you, in the present case, until you disprove the Perspicuity of the Scriptures, in these things which are necessary to Salvation, which, I believe, you will find beyond your reach. This Hypothesis also, takes off the cavil of Heretics, pretending a conformity with Scripture, for these Heretical vapours, cannot stand before the radiant beams of Scripture-light.  
You discover both your Humour, and Ignorance, in alleging, that it was a Shift in me, to say, That Religion being a complex of many truths, it could not be proven at once. Suppose a man had an hundred pieces to be tried, whether they be upright Gold or not. Can (I beseech you,) this be done, but by bringing every one of them to the Touchstone? Suppose there were an hundred lines to be examined, whether they be strait or crooked. Can this be done, but by applying each of them to the Rule? Even so, there being a multitude of points of Religion to be tried, whether they be agreeable to Scripture or not. How can this be done, but by comparing each of them with the Scripture?  
I have admired nothing more, since my encounter with you, than your flinching toward the end of your Fourth Paper, from your own Principle. Viz. That the knowledge, of the assistaence of the Clergy In actu primo, is a necessary prerequisite, before the true sense of any Scripture can be known, from which I had concluded you, to be involved in an Inextricable contradiction. I had besides reflected upon a paradoxal, yea, and implicatorie notion of yours, That something might be affirmed, of an universal object, distributively taken, which cannot be affirmed of every particular, under that universal. I likewise discovered your Childish, and inconsistent discourse, concerning that word of David, All men are liars. I show further that your last Dilemma, concerning the Clergies assistance, did fall so heavily on your own head, that your Romists could have no infallible certainty, that they had any Clergy at all; let be, that they had this pretended assistance. Yet to these things, and many more, which here were tedious to me to repeat, you make no more particular Reply, then if they had never been objected to you. It your silence, the strongest confutation of your Adversary? All I find you saying is, What contradiction can it be to say, that the actual operation, or Actus secundus, doth necessarily suppone Actum primum. But, Quid hoe ad Rhombum? Was this the question betwixt you & me, whether the Actus secundus did presuppose Actum primum? From which, no more can be concluded, but, that they who give the true sense of scripture, when they give it, have assistance, In actu primo, to give it: which not Protestant, or rational man ever denied. Yet, if you understand your jesuits principles, the Actus secundus, or actual operation, doth not necessarily presuppose such an infallible assistance, In actu primo, as here you seem to plead for. For according to them, Omnia quae tenent se, ex parte actus primi, in free agents, may consist, Cum actu, vel, actu contrario, vel actus negatione. But to leave this, the question betwixt you and me, was, as appears by your former Papers, Whether the knowledge of the Clergies assistance, in actu primo, be a necessary prerequisite, before we can know the sense of Scripture, given by them, to be true? Which is vastlie different from what you now assert. Who seethe not the difference betwixt this proposition, He that gives the true sense of Scripture, when he gives it, hath assistance in actu primo, to give it? And that other, Before I can know the sense, given by such an one to be true, I must antecedently know, that he hath assistance in actu primo, to give it? It is true, one cannot exercise the operations of Seeing, and Hearing, (which are your own examples,) unless he have a sufficient ability, In actu primo, to exercise these operations. But he may exercise them, although he doth not know, and actually reflect upon the faculty which he hath, In actu primo. A beast both Sees, and Hears. so doth an Infant, who yet, cannot reflect upon the Actus primus, of these operations, I can hardly say, whether in this prevarication, you have discovered more crafty falsehood, (you must excuse this plainness,) folly, or impudency. Only henceforth, I commend to you, that rule of Ruffian, Lib. 1. historiae Ecclesiasticae cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est, scientibus vero dolum intendere, non aliud est quam risum movere.  
Afterwards, you bring your old Dilemma upon the Stage again, but in a more ludibrious dress then before. Either say you, we can produce some special grounds, whereby may be made manifest, that our Clergy men are qualified, in actu primo, with sufficient ability, to give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture, and then let them be produced, or we are destitute of them, and then it is impossible, that our Clergy men can give the true sense of Scripture, Because, it is impossible to do any thing, in actu second, without a special hability, in actu primo, to do it. And so they can only guess at it. Who doth not see, how this judicious Dilemma, such as it is, doth recoil upon your own head, Mutatis mutandis? But I did canvas it so fully in my last, both by retortion, and direct answer, which you have not as yet adventured to take under your consideration; that I must remit you back, to what was then said. Only now, I take notice of your ludibrious confirmation, of the latter branch of your Dilemma, viz. that, if we cannot prove antecedently, that the Clergy hath assistance, In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture, than it is impossible, that our Clergy can give the true sense: Because, it is impossible to do any thing, In actu second, without a special ability, In actu primo. It is a wonder to me, how ever such a Childish consequence, could drop from the pen of one, who would be reputed a Scholar. Is the Sequel good, A negatione probationis, ad negationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse? Because you, or I, cannot prove that such a thing is, doth it therefore follow, that it is not? Because I cannot infallibly prove, you to be Mr. Dempster, the jesuit, Doth it therefore follow, that you are not he? who but a child would conclude, that, because I cannot prove Antecedenter, and a priori, that such a Doctor of the Church, hath an assistance In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture, therefore, he hath it not? The Spirit breathes on whom, and where he pleases. The assisting influence of the Spirit, may be given, when I cannot demonstrat A prtori, that such a one hath it, Hic & nunc. But surest arguings in such cases, are, A posteriori, from the effect. Such an one hath given the true sense of Scripture, Ergo, he had the assistance of the Spirit to give it. Had you but consulted with your Romanists Principles, you would have found, that you were under a necessity to acknowledge the truth of this. For you pretend not to conclude peremptorily, and antecedently of any Doctors of your Church, that they have this assistance, In actu primo, for giving the true sense of Scripture, except of your Pope in Cathedra, and general Councils, yea some of your Authors dare not conclude so much of them. Will you the refore say, that none beside the Pope, and the general Councils, can give the true sense of Scripture? You cannot prove antecedently, by any Medium, that Tostatus, Toletus, Pererius, Esthius, A Lapide, etc. had assistance, In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture, For none of these were Popes. Nay, nor can it be proven, A priori, that A●stine, Jerome, or chrysostom, had this assistance, In actu primo. Will you therefore conclude, that none of these, ever gave a true sense of Scripture, but only guessed at it? But the root of your mistake, is, that you apprehend, the objective ground, on which our belief to such a truth is built, must be the Persuasion, We have, that such a Doctor, is guided by such an infallible assistance, which is a manifest untruth. For whereupon I pray you, is that persuasion grounded? That must surely have another foundation. But because you had so often insinuated this, therefore I did appeal you, and again do appeal you, to produce Grounds for this pretended Infallibility of your Clergy; or else, I will take your silence, for an evident desertion of your cause.  
Your last brawl is, because I had said, that what ever solid Grounds were brought by Tertullian, and the rest of the ancient Apologists, to prove the truth of the Christian Religion, or are to be found, in the late Tractats of Morney, Grotius, Amyrald, and Vives, De veritate Religionis Christianae, These also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS. Who (say you,) will not laugh at this answer, as if there were no Christian Religion, but your Prot estant Religion? And then your choier is stirred, that you should be remitted to our Authors, Morney, and Grotius. I confess, smiling and silence, are your best Topics. But, laugh you, fret you, you must hear truth. Are there, I beseech you, more true Christian Religions than one, that you say, As if there were no Christian Religion, but your Protestant Religion? Says not the Apostle, Ephes. 4.5. Una fides, unum baptisma, One faith, one Baptism? We shall not therefore decline this jest. Prove, if you can, our Religion, not to be the Religion of the purest, ancient, primitive Church, in the first three Centuries, or that there is an essential difference, betwixt their Religion and ours, and I shall yield to you the Buckler, and grant, that our Religion is not the true Religion. But you may sooner pull the Sun out of his Orb, then perform this. Nay, if I were not resolved to keep you, at the probation of your Assumption, I might argue thus.  


That Religion which in all its essentials, agrees with the Religion, of the purest and most primitive Antiquity, in the first three Centuries, must be the true Religion.  
But the Religion of PROTESTANTS, in all the essentials thereof, agrees with the Religion of the purest, and most primitive Antiquity, in the first three Centuries.  
Ergo, the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the true Religion.    
The Major, you must admit, or else, condemn the primitive Church yea, and Christianity itself. The Assumption is evident, by comparing our Religion, with the apologies of Tertullian, justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Arnobius, etc. I appeal you, out of all the authentic writings of the Fathers, of these three Ages, to produce one essential difference, betwixt their Religion and ours. But on the contrary, it were easy from this same Principle, to demonstrat that your Romish Religion, is not the true Religion, Thus, 

If the Romish Religion, differs in its essentials, from the Ancient Christian Religion, in the first three Centuries, than the Romish Religion, is not the true Religion.  
But the Romish Religion, differs in its essentials from the Ancient Christian Religion, in the first three Centuries.  
Ergo, the Romish Religion, is not the true Religion.    
● The Major is clear, the true Christian Religion being but one. For proof of the Assumption, I remit you to that Formula fidei, or Romish Creed, contrived by Pope Pius the fourth, which is set down by Onuphrius in the life of the said Pope, to which all the Bishops of your Church must solemnly swear. In which, after the Constantinopolitan Creed, there be added many articles, which never were, either in the Apostolic Creed, or in the Nicen. Or in the Athanasian, or in the Constantinopolitan, or in any other Christian Creed, much above the space of three hundred years, after Christ. Nay, in it, all the articles defined in the Council of Trent, are declared to be, Fides vera Catholica, extra quam neme salvus esse potest; the true Catholic faith, without which there can be no Salvation. Now I appeal you, to produce any evidence from the indubitat writings, of the first three Centuries that this was the faith of the Catholic Church in these three Ages. Which if you do, here under my hand I engage, to become a Papist. If you cannot, (as I am persuaded you are not able.) then confess that your Religion is not the true Christian Religion. Nay, learned Divines amongst the rest Crakanthorp, in his Defence. Ecclesiae Anglicanae, contra Spalat. cap. 15. num. 4. And long before him, Bishop jewel, in a Sermon preached at London, Anno One thousand five hundreth and sixty, appealed the Doctors of your Church, to produce, either Church, Councils, or Fathers, for the space of six hundreth years after Christ, who mantained all these Articles, which now are concluded, by the forementioned Formula fidei, of Pope Pius the fourth, to be necessary to Salvation. And yet, to this day, none of your men have been able to perform this. Was it (I pray you,) a point of faith, necessary to Salvation, in the first three Centuries, (I might go much lower;) to acknowledge the Church of Rome, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches? Or the headship of the Bishop of Rome, over the whole Catholic Church? What meaned then the opposition, made to Pope Victor, by Polycrates, and the asiatics? or by Cyprian, and the Africans, to Pope Stephanus, not to mention others? Or was it a part of the Christian faith, necessary to Salvation, in the first three hundreth years, that Images were to be adored? that there is a Purgatory after this life? That Bread and Wine, are transubstantiated into the Body of Christ? That the Communion ought to be given, under one kind, abstracting the Cup from the people? As to this last, I shall present to you, the testimony of your own Cassander, (by which you may judge of the rest,) In Consult. Art. 22. Satis compertum est universalem Christi ecclesiam, in hunc usꝙ diem, occidentalem vere, seu Romanam, mille amplius a Christ annis in solenn & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, utramꝙ Panis & Vin● speciem omnibus ecclesiia Chrsti membris exhibuisse, id quod ex innumeris veterum Scriptorum tam Graecorum, quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est.  
You needed not to have offended, that I remitted you to Morney, and Grotius, especially, I having joined with them your own Vives, and these Tractats, not having been written in opposition to you Papists, But against Jews, Heathens, and Mahumetans. And it was but shallowness in you, to desire me to squeeze them, for one ground, to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion, seeing, I did appeal to all the solid grounds that ever were made use of, either by Ancients, or Moderns, either by these of the Eastern, or Western Church, either by PROTESTANTS, or Papists, to prove the Christian Religion against Heathens; that it might be examined, whether these did not likewise prove the PROTESTANT Religion to be true. Squeeze you them all; and if you find it not to be so, Herbam dabo. Only I must add, that these last named Authors, were Persons of such eminent learning, that neither you, nor I, need to be ashamed to learn a lesson from them.  
This much further I have written, then once I intended to have done, so long as you hold on in your trifling strain. But until you answer to all the particulars of this Paper, and to these you have omitted in my former Papers, know, that I will look upon any thing that comes from you, as unworthy of a Reply.  
I shall close with that saying of Cyprian, Epist. 40. Qui mandatum Dei rejictunt, et traditionem suam st atuere conantur, Fortiter a vobis (& nobis,) et firmiter respuantur.  
Aberdene June 9 1666. John Menzeis.   

The Jesuits fifth Paper.  
An Answer to a fourth Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, wherein he continues, to persuade; that the grounds which he produced, for the truth of the Protestant Religion, were not mere shifts and evasions. June 13. 1666.  
THIS your fourth Paper, carrying the date of the ninth of June, came to my hands the twelfth of June, and in it you make a more ample muster of your ordinar digressions, contumelies, and misapplyed Eruditions, though you know, that the better sort esteems this weak-mens' weapons, and clear testimonies of a deserted cause, but it seems all one to you, if by this means you can uphold your reputation with the Vulgar sort, who seeing you blot so much Paper, remains in conceit, that you retain still your post. If I had the qualities, to render me worthy of your friendship, I would in a homely, and friendly manner, suggest to you a compendious way to spare Paper; observing only their three omissions. First, that you omit all exeursions out of the way, that is to say, that you omit all these things, without naming of the which, the present controversy may be fully deeyded. Secondly, that you omit all contumelies, and undervalueing words, as more besetting a scolding Wife then a Scholar. Thirdly, that you omit all these things which cannot favour your Religion, but with this inconvenient, that in the same degree, in the which it favours you, it must favour and shelter a false Religion, and which is holden by yourselves for a false Religion. And I hope, that you will grant their things, to be very rationally demanded of you: since it is known, that there is a great difference to be put, betwixt the handling of a controversy in a Pulpit, where one rails at random, having none to contradict him, and the handling of it in a School way, where you must foot your bowl, and hold you within the score; under the pain to be exploded. Now if you will be pleased to observe their three things. which are so rationally demanded, I oblige myself to make it good, that you will not be able to put ten lines in Paper, which shall be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversy. And for proof hereof. you may be pleased to take all your four Papers, misaplyed as they are, squeeze them, and see if you express out of them their ten lines, taking first away, their three things, to wit, Digressions about other matters. Contumelies, and base flyting words, and things that cannot favour your cause without favouring in the like degree a false Religion. And since it is to be presumed, that none can express more substance out of your own Papers, nor yourself, it is expected of you that after you have taken the pains, to blow away all this chaff; you will show, that there remains greater quantity of solid corn upon the floor, then can be contained in ten lines of Paper.  
That it may appear, how far you wander out of the way, you must be content to have patience, that the main point be laid always again and again before you, which is, the Protestant Religion cannot be the True Religion, or the Religion to the which, GOD hath tied the promise of eternal life, and consequently, whosoever aime● at eternal happiness after this life, or intends to save his soul, is obliged to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search for the true Religion, prescinding for now, where it is to be found, and insisting only for the present, that the Protestant Religion is it not. This is both a substantial point, and proponed in so clear terms, that none can but understand it. And it is proven by this one Syllogism.  


That Religion cannot be a True Religion, which hath no special grounds or principles, to prove itself to be a True Religion, or a Religion conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
But the Protestant Religion, hath no special grounds or principles, whereby it can prove itself to be a True Religion, or to be a Religion conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
Ergo, the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion.    
To this Syllogism you answered first, cavilling the form of it, as componed of two premises negatives, and so concluding nothing. But in this you discover gross ignorance, confounding and calling negative propositions, affirmative premises of objective negations. Next you come to deny the subsumption, that is, you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no special grounds to prove itself to be a True Religion, or to be a Religion, conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And you add, that since the subsumption is denied by you; it is my part who is the Opponent, to prove it. Let it be so. But hath it not been sufficiently proven, first, Because, if it have any good grounds, they are produceable, but they are not produceable, or else produce them. Next, hath it not been often inculcat, and is now of new inculcat, that the Protestant Religion hath no special grounds or principles, to prove itself to be conform to the true sense of the letter of Scripture, but such that with as great reason may serve to prove a false Religion, to be conform to the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Ergo, it hath no true principles or grounds, because a true principle is not of an indifferent nature, but is so determinat to truth, that it cannot protect nor shelter any error. Now, that it may appear, that all the principles, or grounds, which you bring to prove the truth of your Religion, are indifferent, and consequently, cannot be true principles, we shall run them over and lay them open to the view of all.  
The first ground you produced is, that your Religion hath objective truth, and objective ground, or evidence, and can sufficiently show, and prove itself to have this truth, upon condition that it encounter with a well disposed intellect. But all this may be assumed, and is assumed by a false Religion; or assign some reason, wherefore you have right to assume it, and they not.  
The second is, that your Religion is easily known to be a true Religion, by applying and confronting the tenets of it with the Word of God, as a man is easily known to be an honest man, be confronting his actions with the Law; as likewise, a line is easily known to be strait, and not crooked, by the conformity it is seen to have with a right rule. But what false Religion is there, that doth not apply all this to themselves, with as great reason as you do. And though the letter of Scripture, is of itself, capable only of one genuine sense, to wit, which was intended by the holy Ghost, which is all the shift which you add now in this last Paper. But what makes this for you, since you bring no reason, whereby may appear, that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture, is that one genuine sense intended be the holy Ghost, or that the sense which you give, is that right rule, by the which all crookedness is to be known? You think it is enough to say their things, without any proof, as if a Religion, which you yourselves gives out for a false Religion, did not with as great reason pretend all this for themselves.  
The third is, that Religion is not an individual truth, but a complex of many truths, which cannot be proven altogether but one after another. As a man who hath a hundred pices of Gold, and would prove whether they be upright Gold or not, this proof cannot be done, but by bringing every one of them to the Touchstone. But this likewise may be assumed, with as great reason by a false Religion, or assign wherefore they may not use this shift as well as you, when they are required, to give some ground for the truth of their Religion.  
The fourth is, that the grounds which Tertullian, and the holy Fathers brings to prove the truth of Christian Religion against Pagans, proves likewise the truth of your Protestant Religion. But this with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion, or show wherefore not.  
The fifth that you add in this Paper now is this, that the perspicuity of Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation, is a ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion. But though this were true, what makes it more for the truth of your Religion, nor for the truth of a false Religion, since they with as great reason as you, may and does pretend, that the tenets which they hold as  to Salvation, are clearly contained in Scripture.  
Likewise, you have been often pressed to produce grounds, whereby might be shown, that your Clergy hath In actu primo, some peculiar assistance to give In actu secundo, the true sense of texts of Scripture, which doth not prove the like assistance, to the Clergy of a false Religion. So that in handling of Scripture, you are all one with them, having no more assistance to handle it rightly than they have. As to that which you add now in this Paper, that this sense, which is given by a Doctor to a text of Scripture, may be the true sense, though neither he, nor others reflect or know any thing of the hability that he hath In actu primo, to give this true seuse, for, Spiritus ubi vult spirat. But though this answer were to the purpose, may it not be assumed with as gryt reason in favour of a false Religion. Next, you force me to discover the shallowness of the discourse that you make here, because it seems, you only intent to induce a plausable and glittering scroofe upon things, to dazzle the eyes of simple people, not ear-ring what stuffely under. For the question, is not, whether a thing may be truly such in itself, though I do not know it to be such, nor knows any thing of the causes whereof the truth of it depends, since things are such and such in themselves, whether they be known or not known by us. Neither is the question about matters of Science, where objective evidence convicts the understanding to assent, and that independently of all authority of the Proponer. But the question is, about matters of Faith, where all the motive to induce one to believe a thing, is reduced to the authority of the Speaker, and according to the divers degrees, that are found in the authority of these that speaks a thing, so are the correspondent degrees of firmness in the assents whereby the hearer believes such things, and because, the authority of GOD is a supreme authority, and above all other authorities, therefore the assent that is due to such authority, when it speaks or reveals any thing, must have a firmness, above the firmness which other assents have, and which we give to matters proponed only by inferior authorities. Now I ask, how can people be induced to exerce one Act of faith, or to believe with that firmness which is due only when GOD speaks or reveals a thing, if they be not first assured that GOD speaks by the mouth of such a man, and consequently, that such a man hath sufficient assistance and direction In actu primo; that he cannot deceive nor speak one thing for another. Now, you are required to produce some special ground, whereby the people may be assured, that their Clergy who should instruct them in matters of faith, hath this assistance In actu primo, and which is  if they would beget superuaturall faith in their hearers, that is to say, Such a belief whereby the hearers do adhere above all, to the things that are proponed to them, as revealed by GOD in such texts of Scripture, otherwise it will follow that the assistance which you have does not exceed the assistance which the Clergy of a false Religion have; and consequently, that preach what you will, and though you rune over the whole Bible, you will never be able by your preaching, to produce so much, as an sol Act of supernatural faith in your hearers.  
Out of all this appears, at what poor posture you have reduced the truth of your Religion, notwithstanding, that in the beginning, you did so bragingly undertake to maintain the truth thereof, before whomsoever, against whomsoever, and in whatsomever place. And likewise to this effect, have spent and blotted so much Paper, since all ends in this, that your Religion is indeed true, but so, that it cannot be shown wherein it differs from a false Religion, as if one had taken in hand, the defence of the honesty of a man, and after long pleading at the bar, and brought the matter to this pass, that he were declared to be indeed an honest man, but such an honest man, that there were no seemable difference betwixt him and a knave.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, his Answer to the Jesuits fifth Paper, Which was not delivered to Mr. John Menzeis till June 15. 1666.  
Some Animadversions on the jesuits fifth Paper.  
HOW forcible are right words, but what doth your arguing reprove. Job 6.25. You are pleased to censure the Prolixity of my Papers, but you might have known that of Seveca, Epist. 48. Longiore mora opus est ut solvas quaestionem quam ut proponas.  
You take the boldness also, to asperse these lines with Impertinency. But were not you afraid whom I had so oft convicted of manifold Impertinencies, to have it reponed to you, Calvus calve calvitium ne objiciat? Is not the true crime whereof these poor lines are guilty, because they have touched you in the quick, so, as you are not able to answer, and therefore, they must be endited of Impertinency, though you could not particularise one impertinent line? But I shall be surety for them, that they shall not decline, to have their pertinency examined by your Romish Inquisitors, though your Pope, like another Rhadamanthus, presided in the Court. Only your Fathers would remember, that we PROTESTANTS, are not besotted with an Implicit faith, as if there charres were made of Irish timber, which cannot bear a Spider. Wherefore, they had need to be more cautious than you have been, and not to deliver there naked affirmations for Oracles. In the mean time, you are required, to verify this your ignominious accusation, with particular instances; (for, Dolus est in generalibus,) as you would not convict yourself to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to have drunk in that Machiavillian principle, Calumniare audacter, aliquid adhaerebit.  
You fret at the plainness of my Admonitions, but could I have chosen a more proper medicine, to purge you of your tautologizing, and tergiversing humour. Yet, for what I can discern, your disease is likero prove so pertinacious, and malignant, that well it may be reckoned, Inter Medicorum opprobria. Nevertheless, if you can pitch upon one of my expostulations, for which you have not given too much ground, you may hold it for a contumely.  
You fill up the Paper, wherein you should have examined my Reply, with an eccentric discourse, concerning Rules of brevity. But in this, as in all the rest, you are so unhappy, as to be an impudent transgressor of your own Canons. For had you waved Impertinencies, you had not transmitted any of these lines to me, since your first Paralogism, And for contumelies, you think me too narrow a mark to shoot at, unless you reproach the whole Ministric as Railers at random. But there was a more compendious Rule for brevity, than all these which you have named, which I wonder, you did not recommend from your own practice, viz, to pass in silence, what ever seems to be of moment, in the Paper of the Adversary, & to hold that for a learned confutation. This is all the Laconic concisenes which I have discovered in your discourses; which how justifiable it is, or satiafying to the judicious Reader, when you come to yourself, you may judge.  
Doth not the shameless repetition, no less than five times, and still in Folio, of that one insignificant, and often confuted Syllogism, without any proof, bewray both a disperat cause, and an empty brain? If you produce it the sixth time, you may for me, go on till you come to the perfect number of the Be●st, Six hundred and sixty six. Are not your Recocted colworts, of hard digestion with your own self, which do regurgitat so often with you?  
If both the premises, of your famous Syllogism, be Affirmatives, (as herey you allege, to cover the informality thereof,) how then is the Conclusion a Negative? Or what pretext had you hitherto, for shunning the probation of you Assumption, but becase it was a Negative? Or might you not have showed, as you were required, how in our Language, you would have expressed these propositions more Negativelie, if you had intended to make them Formal Negatives? But perhaps, this may be one of your M●steries of Jesui isme, so to express yourselves, that men shall not understand, when you Affirm, or when you D●●y.  
Your frequent repeating, and glorying in this ludicrous Syllogism, tempts me, to discover more of its vitiosirie, then once I intended. Though I for brevity, did only deny the Assumption, and did require no more from you, but the probation thereof, yet I might have denied both Major, and Minor, yea, and the Conclusion also. I say, first, I might have denied the Major. For the True Religion, and the true sense of Scripture is the same. What is the True Religion, but the true Doctrine of Salvation? And is not the true sense of Scripture the true Doctrine of Salvation? Now must the true sense of Scripture, have a ground to prove that it is conform to it own self? So, that your Major, which I did let pass, might justly have been questioned. Next I denied the Assumption, because, Religion or the Doctrine of Salvation, may be considered under a double notion, either as revealed in Scripture, or as professed by men. Under the former notion, it is the very true sense of Scripture, and so to prove it to be conform to the sense of Scripture, were to prove it to be conform to it own self, and that Sub eadem formaliratione. But under the latter consideration, namely, as professed by us, the truth of Religion may admit of such a probation, as when the truth of an Apograph, is proven by its conformity to the Autegraph, or the truth of a Transumpt, by its conformity to the Original. Nay, lastly I added, that I might have denied the Conclusion; because of the informalitie of the whole structure, which you have been endeavouring to palliate, by your formal and objective negations, yet have you not been able to salve. May you not by all this discern, that your gloriation hath been De re nibili, yea in your own shame?  
You subjoine a piece of notable Pageantry. For though hitherto you have been declying to prove the assumption of your Syllogism, yet now with a brazen forehead, you affirm you have proven it, and that oftener than once. But how I pray you? Because forsooth, you have here twice magisterially affirmed, that there can be no grounds of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS produced, which cannot be verified of a false Religion, and these your two affirmations, you hold for two learned probations. But are not your affirmations, Synonyma's, upon the matter with the denied assumption, and equally in controversy with it? Think you us so simple, as to believe your assumption, because you do once and again, affirm it to be true? Then indeed, you might conclude us, as well as yourself to be, Boeotûm in patria crassoque sub aëre natos.  
At least, you could not be ignorant, that I would desider at a probation of your Affirmations, as well as of the denied Assuption. And it hath been often told you, that by rules of disputing, you could not tie me to produce Grounds of the truth of our Religion; you being the Opponent, and having affirmed, that there is a true Religion, which hath peculiar Grounds, compatible to no false Religion. Therefore, had you either manifested that candour, which might have been expected, or endeavoured the satisfaction of consciences, you would have produced the Reciprocal Grounds, of the True Religion, and have essayed, to show that they could not compet to the Religion of PROTESTANTS, especially, I having often appealed you Sub perîculo cause, to produce one ground of the true Religion, which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS, but Hic haret aqu●. Consider therefore this Dilemma. Either you acknowledge that there is a true Religion, having peculiar and reciprocal Grounds, which can be verified of no false Religion or not. If not, than it is not only the Religion of PROTESTANTS, which you impugn, but all Religion, and it is Atheism which you go about to establish. If therefore you grant, that there is a True Religion, which hath these peculiar and reciprocal Grounds, let them be produced, and let it be examined, whether they do agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Romanists. Hic Rhodus, hic Saltus. Had you not disinherited your cause, you could not being the Opponent, have shifted this so long.  
But to put a more speedy period to this controversy, I had condescended, to mention to you Grounds of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS, which are not really compatible to any false Religion, however they may be pretended too. It is hard to me to tell, whether in your enumeration of them, or in your ludicrous way of confutation, you manifest more Childish weakness and folly.  
And first, in the enumeration of the grounds of Religion, you number up five, more indeed, then ever I gave you. For the first two, namely, the Intrinsic objective evidence of Religion, and The conformity thereof to the word of GOD, were never mentioned by me as two distinct grounds; yea, yourself in your third Paper, reckoned these as Synonima's, and therefore, you but play the child in reckoning them as distinct. Neither is the fifth ground which you mention, concerning The perspicuity of the Scriptures, to be adequatly distinguished from these. But your chief prevarication is, in that which you mention, as the Third ground of the truth of our Religion, namely, that Religion being a complex of many divine truth, cannot be all proven at once, but by compating each of these truths with the word of GOD. I could not have expected, that a man who was not in a perfect Delirinm, could have bewrayed such stupidity, for this was never laid down by me, as a Ground of our Religion. Nay a Child might have discerned by the very terms, that this was only brought as a reason, why in such a short Paper, I could not be tied to give you the grounds of our Religion. For it were to tie me, as matters are now stated, to writ a whole body of controversies. What an impudent cheat than is this, you would put upon your Reader, to substitute that, as a Ground of the truth of our Religion, assigned by me, which in very deed was brought by me as a reason, why I was not tied at this time, to give you any grounds? Henceforth therefore, when you go to impugn any thing in my Papers, propose it in my own terms, else I must say to you in the words of the Poet.  Quem recitas meus est, O Fidentine, libellus, Sed malè dum recitas, incipit esse tuus. 
You discover no less weakness, in your trifling confutation, of these grounds of Religion, for all ye say to every one of them, which five times you do repeat, is that a false Religion may allege all these grounds. But herein, you play the silly Sophister, Ab ignoratione elenchi, for the question is not, whether the PROTESTANT or true Religion hath grounds, which a false Religion may not allege or pretend, but whether the PROTESTANT Religion hath grounds, which cannot be verified of a false Religion? I freely grant, that a false Religion, may lay claim to the grounds of the true Religion, as the mad man of Athens, laid claim to all the Ships that came into the Harbout as his own, though none of them were his. But the Grounds of the true Religion, can never be verified of a false Religion. It was not enough then for you, to say, that a false Religion, may lay claim to those Grounds, nay, nor was it to the purpose, unless you could also have showed, that the Ground of the PROTESTANT Religion, namely, Conformity with the Scripture, might be verified of a false Religion. This you ought to have shown, if you had intended a real confutation of my grounds. But this you will find as impossible for you, as to remove the Earth from its Axis.  
If you look again, to my last Paper, you will find, that in stead of these Five grounds, of your mustering, I gave only these Two grounds, from which indeed, the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS, and the falsehood of the present Romish Religion, may be discovered. The first was, The perspicuity of the Scripture, in all things necessary to Salvation, which I did confirm by luculent Authorities, which you have not once dared to examine. The other was, From our Agreement in essentials, with the faith of the purest, and most Ancient primitive Church, in the first three Centuries. And with all, from this I deduced, a demonstration of the falsehood, of your now Romish Church, and Religion, from the discrepancy thereof in essentials, from the faith of the Catholic Church, in the first three Centuries; which I confirmed from your Formula Fidei, or Popish Creed, contrived by Pope Pius the fourth, which differs in its essentials, from the faith of the Church, in the first three Centuries. Had you been willing, that imparriall search should be made, whether the truth stood on your side, or on ours, Had you not here matter enough to work upon, both from Scripture and Antiquity?  
But dissembling all my arguments from these principles, you only give this snifling Answer, that they who have a false Religion, may also pretend, that their Religion is also contained in Scripture, and is conform to the Religion of the primitive Church. To which I Reply first, that these forementioned grounds, do not cease to be grounds, for proving the True Religion, because Heretics pretend an interest in them. Nay on the contrary, Heretics laying claim to them, is a strong presumption, that they are the induitable grounds of the true Religion, as a Rogues pretending conformity with the Law, is so far from proving, that the Law is no discriminating Test, betwixt Honesty and Roguery, that it is rather, a vehement presumption of the con-ratie. Secondly, Had you resolved to go to the borrome of the business, you should have proved, that either these grounds assigned by me, are not proper grounds, for the discerning the True Religion, from a false; or that these grounds doth really agree to a false Religion, that is, That a false Religion is perspicuously contained in Scripture, and doth agree in its essentials, with the Religion of the primitive Church, in the first three Centuries, or that these grounds, do not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS. But none of these do you once attempt to perform. Nay over again, you are put to prove any of these, which if you do, Tu Phillida solus habeto. But thirdly, I demonstrate on the contrarie, that these are sure grounds, by which the truth of Religion may be discerned, Thus, if Scripture be not a sufficient ground, and Test, to distinguish a true Religion from a false, than it must be, either because, it doth not contain All things, necessary to Salvation, or because, it doth not hold out Perspicuously all these things, for there is no other impediment imaginable, unless with the Infidel, you should question the Authority of Scriptures. But when we say, that the Scripture is the indubitable Test, for discerning the True Religion, from a false, it is to be understood among Christians, who acknowledge the divine Authority of Scriptures. Consequently, if the Scriptures be Perspicuous in all things necessary to Saulation, (as our Divines have often demonstrated, and I cleared in my last, by irrefragable testimonies, both of Ancients, and of your own Doctors,) than it must be a sufficient ground, and Test, to discern a True Religion from a false. Your cavil concerning the ambiguity of Scriptures, is frivolous. For, if Scripture had not sufficient objective grounds, (means of interpretation being duly used,) to clear its own genuine sense, in all things necessary to Salvation, than were it not Perspicuous which is against the Hyphothesis laid down, against which you have not adventured to move one Objection. So that still it holds, that if Scripture be perspicuous in all things necessary to Salvation, it must be a sufficient ground, and test, to discern a True Reilgion from a false. What therefore remains, but that either you show the Scriptures not to be clear, in all things necessary to Salvation, or else, that both the Religion of PROTESTANTS, and Papists, be brought to this Test, and examined, which of them are really conform thereunto. But next, as to the other ground, I argue thus. Either the faith of the Catholic Church, in the first Three Centuries, was the True Christian Religion, or not. If not, then there was no true Christian Religion at all, Absit blasphemia. If it was, than what accords with it in its essentials, must be the True Christian Religion; and on the contrary, what differs from it in essentials, cannot be the true Christian Religion, and therefore here again I appeal you, either to show an essential difference, betwixt the ancient True Christian Religion in these ages, and ours, or, that there is an agreement in essentials, betwixt the ancient Religion in these ages, & your Romish Religion, as it is expressed in that Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth, or else to acknowledge, that the Religion of PROTESTANTS, is the True Religion, and that your Romish Religion is but a Farrago of falsehoods, and Innovations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In your penult section, you whistle like a child, concerning the Clergies assistance In actu primo, to give the true sense of Scripture, and you call upon me, to prove that our Clergy hath such an assistance. As if it were a point of our faith, that the knowledge of the Clergies infallible assistance, (for of that only you must be understood,) were a necessary prerequisite, before the true sense of Scripture can be known. But have I not often told you, that this is denied by us, and also often appealed you, if you could to prove it, else I would hold it for confessed that you could not do it. But to call you to your duty, is, Surdo canere. Yea, from this your assertion, concerning the knowledge of the Clergies assistance, I have showed you to be encircled in an inextricable Contradiction, from which, you have never attempted to expede yourself. Only in your last Paper, you flinched from your own principle, as if you had only affirmed, that the Actus secundus, presupposes Actum primum, which none denies. Know therefore again, that a Doctor may give the true sense of Scripture and we may have ground enough To believe, that it is the true sense which he gives, though neither he, nor we, have an anteceden knowledge, of his Infallible assistance in actu primo, as a civil Judge may give the true sense of a municipal Law, and I may have sufficient ground to believe, that he hath sensed it aright, though nei●●er he, nor I have antecedent knowledge, that he hath Infallible assistance in act primo.  
Though in all these things, you have bewrayed shameful weakness, and as a Thersires, declined to examine what was reponed to you in all my Papers, yet now, like a vaive glorious Thras●, in the conclusion, you sing a Triumph, but without a Victory.  Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici. 
What means this insulting, that you cry out of the poor posture out Religion is brought too? Have you said ary thing, that would have reduced the weakest Tyro, in our Schools, to a straight? Have I slipped one Punctillo, in any of your Papers, which I have not confuted? Hath not all you have written been sitted Ad furfures? Can you say the like of my Papers? Yet you are bold, to compare the Religion of PROTESTANTS, to a Kn●ve, pretending Honesty, and not able to prove it; but, Mutato nomine narratur fabula de i●. He that would compare your Romish superstition, with the Religion of PROTESTANTS, might aswell compare Catiline with Cato, the Rogue Ziba, with Honest Mephibosheth, or the strumpet Thais, with chaste Lucretia. But I shall propose a true Emblem, of the stare of our Religion, and yours, from the state of the present debate, betwixt you and me, leaving the application to your own self. Suppose that Titius and Sempronius stood at the bar, and that Titius acclaimed the monopoly of Honesty to himself. And withal, accused his Neighbour Sempronius as a very Knave; because, (as Titius alleged,) he could produce no grounds to prove his Harestie. On the other hand, Sempronius modestly show how easy it were to recriminat, and retote all these accusations upon Titius. Yet though he might have desired Titius, as the Accuser, to prove his indytment, or else, to suffer Secundum Legem talionis, and to be esteemed as an errand Knave; yet, he would condescend so far, as to give Grounds by which his Honesty might be proven. But with this Proviso, that both he, and his Accuser Titius, might be brought to the Test, that the World might see, who was the Rogue, and who the Honestman. The first Ground to which Sempronius appeals, is the Law, protesting that both he and his Accuser Titius, may be judged by that Rule. The other Test, to which Sempronius refers himself, for trial, Is the practice and example of men of untainted Honesty, such as Aristides, Fabricius, Cato, etc. Protesting likewise, that he be stigmatised as the Rogue, whose conversation shall be found discrepant from theirs. Tïtius, though at first a bold Accuser, yet not able to endure so accurate a trial, studies all the subterfuges his poor wit could invent. And first, he declines the Law, alleging it could not be the Ground of trial: because it is ambiguous, and admits of divers and contrary senses; nor can any give the sense of the Law, except he be jufallible. Which gift of Infallibility, Titius would have all men to believe, though he cannot prove it, to be peculiar to himself alone, so as no sense of the Law may be admitted, but that which he homologates. And for the example of Aristides, Fabricius, and Cato, etc. They are too strict Patterns for Titius; yet not daring openly to condemn them, he makes this evasion. What Knave, says he, is there, that may not pretend conformity both with these, and also with the Law? But Sempronius gravely answers, that however Knaves might pretend conformity both to the Law, and Practices of Goodmen, yet they had it not. And again, he solemnly protests that the matter might be put to exact trial, whether the Accusers or his conversation were agreeable to the Law, and these untainted Patterns of Honesty, and withal added, that it was an intolerable reproach, thrown both upon the Law, and the Lawgivers, that a Law was given to people to walk by, which no man except Titius, with his pretended infallibility, could understand. Is it not strange (said Sempronius,) that my Accuser Titius, can speak his accusation so intelligibly, that a Child can understand the sense thereof; and yet that our Lawgivers had not so much wit, as to express the Laws, which they would have to be the Rule of our lives, in intelligible language? What prudent Senators, would suffer themselves, and Lawgivers, thou to be reflected upon by Titius, and would not, for his pleading after this manner, condemn him as a petulant Rogue? The application of this Emblem is left to you, and to the judicious Reader.  
I have made so many experiments upon you, that if there had been any Mercury in you, in all probability, before this time it had been extracted; but the longer I deal with you, the greater Dounce do you appear. I am both wearied, and ashamed, to grapple further with one, who multiplies such Childish impertinencies, and notorious falsehoods. Lest therefore I should seem, Cum Cretensi Cretizare, I discharge any further exchange of Papers with you, except you change your strain.  
Yet because I know the Genius of many of your Party to be such that if you transmitted to me a Rhapsody of perfect Nonsense, to which no answer were returned, you would glory, as if you had approven yourself, as a Doctor Irrefragabilis. Therefore, to put a check to this insolency, and withal, to satisfy the judicious, I add two things. And first, you are required, though an Adversary, to do me so much justice, as when you communicate to others any of your Papers, that you do likewise communicate my Answer; and then I shall decline no rational Person, either of your, or of our profession, who is not either Ignorant, or Blinded with prejudice, tosi● as Umpyre, or Arbiter betwixt you and me. If you do otherwise, after so solemn admonition, it will be an evidence, that you are conscious, that your Papers are naught, and not able to abide the Test. But next, if you find an abler Person than yourself, that can manage this debate, to better purpose than you have done, he shall not GOD-willing lake an answer, so far as the interest of truth doth require it. In the mean time, I say to you, as Cyprian did to Demetrian. Oblatrantem te & are Sacrilego & verbis impiis obstrepent●● frequenter Demetriane contempseram, melius existimans errantis imperitiam silentio spernere, quam loquende dementis insaniam provecare. Nec hoc sine ●agisterii divini & Numinis authoritate faciebam, quum scriptum sit, noli respondere imprudenti ad imprudentiam ejus, ne similis flas illi. Cyp. lib. ad Demet.  
Aberdene, 28. of June, 1666. john Menzeis.  
POSTSCRIPT.  
This Paper was written on june 18. but I being called to the Country, on june 19 and not returning until June 26, it could not be transcribed until this 28. of June, 1666.   

The jesuits sixth Paper.  
Answer to a fifth Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, wherein he brings a new Shift and Evasion, for a Ground of the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion, disowneing all things for to be grounds, which he hath brought hitherto. July, 6. 1666.  
YOU was disired to give a proof of your ability, to put only ten lines in Paper, which could be judged to make to the purpose, in the present controversy, observing three things, first, to ●●it all ex●●sions out of the way, that is to say, to omit all things, without naming of the which, the present controversy may be fully decided. Secondly, to omit all hase undervalucing words, as more besetting an flyting Wife, than an Scholar. Thirdly, to omit all things, which cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion, but with this inconvenient, that it equally serves to prove an false Religion to be true. But in this Paper, deboarding mor than ever, you give cleir testimony, that all your strength consists in their things. So that the confining of you within their limits, were to disarm you altogether, and to bind up all the fecundity, which you have to blot Paper, and multiply words, for hiding your weakness. Laying aside then all things of whatsoewer sort that are out of the line, I lay  you again the main point, to wit, the Protestant Religion, cannot be the true religion, nor the Religion to the which GOD hath tied the promise of eternal life, and consequently, whoseever aims at eternal happiness after this life, or intends to save his soul, is obliged in conscience to quit it, and to betake himself to a diligent search for the truth, prescinding for now, whair it is to be found, insisting for the present in this only, that the Protestant Religion cannot be it. This cannot be called a nonsense, since its both an most substantial point, and likewise proponed to you in such clear terms. It is proven by this one Syllogism, 

That Religion cannot be a true Religion, which hath no special grounds, whereby it can prove itself to be a true Religion, or to be a Religion conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
But the Protestant Religion hath no special grounds, whereby it can prove itself to be the true Religion, or to be a Religion conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
Ergo, the Protestant Religion, cannot be the true Religion.    
To this Syllogism, you answered first, carping the form of it, as if it were of tuo premises negatives and though it was shown you your gross ignorance in this, calling affirmative propositions, negations, because they are of objective negations, yet now you add with also grit ignorance, that the conclusion is negative. Is it possible that an Rabbi in Israel is so ignorant, that there most be made to him a lesson of Summules to make him capable to discern betwixt affirmative and negative propositions? Here indeed would come in season, a way for shame, and such hissing and histrionical expressions as you use now and then in your Papers. Next you say, that though hitherto, you have only denied the subsumption, yet you have acquired, by the benefit of so long a time, a new light which discovers a defect also in the Major. But this argues that the Syllogism is not of so obvious a nakedness, as you stilled it, since a man of your capacity hath need of so long time to acquire light for the discoverte of the defects of it. But giving and not granting, that there were defects in the Major, yet since you have engaged your self, in denying the subsumption long ago, and so incurred an obligation, to produce grounds for the truth of your Religion, you must first end this, before you begin the other, either confessing that you have no grounds, or else producing them; that they may be examined whether they subsist or not. And here I cannot but commend your ingenuity in that you confess clearly, that all the things that you have spoken hitherto, in so long libels, are not true grounds, but only reasons to show, that you were not obliged, to produce grounds, for the truth of your Religion; and so you Disowne, and recant them all as taken under this formality. But let them be called as you please, either grounds or shifts, to disoblige you from producing of grounds, yet the m●ine point remains always, that they may be with as great reason, assumed be an false Religion, as be you, and so all this time, you have been pleading aswell for an false Religion, as for your own.  
After you have Disclaimed and recalled under the formality of grounds all things that you so copionstie have spkoken of hitherto, Now you prodoce your Achilles, in which you profess that you will own as a ground of the truth of your Religion, to wit, Scripture taken as containing perspicuously all things necessary to Salvation. So that Scripture taken under this formality, is the only ground distinctive of your Religion, from all false Religion But let us go on here sofilie, that it may appear better the juggle that lurbs under this answer, and the labyrinth and obscurity that you have involved your self in. For first, by Scripture of which you affirm, that it is a distinctive of your Religion, from all false Religion, must be understood the letter of Scripture taken in the true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost. So that to contain all things necessary to Salvation, with perspicuity is affirmed of the letter of Scripture, taken with this true sense, as contradistinguished from all false sense. Ergo it cannot serve for a distinctive ground, of your Religion, from all false Religions, except first you prove, that the sense, which you give to the letter of Scripture, is that true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost, and that all other senses, which do not coincide with yours are false and erroneous. Because according to yourself, Scripture is not a ground to distinguish your Religion from a false Religion, but in so far as it is suppoved to contain, (and that with perspicuity,) all things necessary to Salvation, and again it does not contain this, but so far as it suppons, and is taken for the letter of Scripture, with the true and genuine sense. Now I ask, how can you assume the letter of Scripture, taken with the true sense; for a ground to prove your Religion to be true, and to be distinguished by this from a false Religion, Except first, you show with pregnant and convincing reasons, that this sense, which you give to the letter of Scripture, is that true genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost? Neither does it avail you, that which you now here insinuate, that the sense which you give, must be the true sense, For the conformity it hath with the sense holden by the Church in the first three Centuries. Because this claim to Amiquity is common to all Sexts. And so you cannot make use of it, except first, you bring some solid reason, to prove your claim to be more just than theirs. Secondly, I ask you, how can you affirm so boldly, that all things necessary to Salvation are contained and that perspicuously in Scripture, except first, you draw up A list or a catalogue of all things that are necessary to Salvation, as contradistinguished from all other things not necessary, and whereof a great pairt are likewise eleirly contained in Scripture, and Scripture itself makes no mentione to distinguish the one from the other? For according to the rules, you gave yourself, it cannot be but blindling affirmed, That all the pieces of Gold that one hath in his purse, are upright Gold, except they be all produced to be tried: Thirdly you say, that all things necessary to Salvation, are perspicuously in Scripture, but with this limitation, and supposition, That the means for the interpretation be duly used, so that Scripture is not of itself alone so perspicuous in all things  to Salvation, except there interveene the due use of certain midst to attain to the true sense of Scripture. But heir again you plunge yourself in a new labyrinth of obscurity, for I ask, what are their means, and what you mean by the due use of them? And whether the people without your preaching, can duly use their means, & by the due use of them, attain to the knowledge of all things,  to Salvation, as well as your Clergy men can do? whether, a false Religion, and acknowledged by yourself to be a false Religion, may not use duly their midst aswell as you? Now I know all their things, will be called by you nonsense, childish things, and not worthy of the sublimity of your understanding, and such railing will be all the answer that I will get.  
Likewise when you was asked, whether a man can believe a thing to be true, precisly for this motive, because it is revealed and spoken by GOD, unless he be assured, that GOD speaks by the mouth of him, that propons such a thing? To this you answer here, That a Preacher may propone and give the true sense of Scripture, and the hearer may have sufficient ground, to believe the thing proponed to him, though he have no antecedent knowledge, conifying him, that the Proponer hath such assistance, that he cannot propone a false revelation, in place of a true; as a judge may give the true sense of a municipal Law, and the hearer may have sufficient ground to believe that the sense given is the true sense, though he have no antecedent knowledge, that the Judge hath infallible assistance. But in this answer you 〈◊〉 yourself altogether Ignorant, of the nature of supernatural faith. Since supernatural faith is not every sort of assent and adhesion, but an assent above all things, and an adhesion with such firmness, as can be given only to the supreme authority of GOD, when he speaks a thing: Now I ask, how is it possible, that the intellect, who in matters of faith hes no other motive, to induce it to assent, bot the mere authority of the speaker, can produce any assent, whereby it adheres above all things, and with all sort of firmness to a thing, which it knows not otherwise to be true, bot precislie because GOD hes spoken it, and revealed it, except there preceded a knowledge certifying that GGD speaks by the mouth of him, that propones such a thing, and that he cannot deceive him, in saying GOD to have spoken a thing, which he hes not spoken, or else one would either suspend his assent, or else not give it in that high degree of firmness, and adhesion which is necessarily required to supernatural faith, and which he is obliged to give in case he knew certainly, that GOD speaks by the mouth of such a man. And the example which you bring of a Judge giving the sense of the law, confirms manifestly, that you are altogether Ignorant, of the nature of supernatural faith, for the assent one gives to the law, exponed by a Judge, is not a supreme assent, and so does not require in him that believes, a knowledge of any infallible assistance, and yet according to the degree of the firmness of this assent, he must have a knowledge of a correspondent ability in the Judge, for otherwise, he might believe with as great firmness another man, giving the sense of that law, though he knew that he hade little or no skill of law.  
In the end of your Paper you take the Person of a puffed up Goliath, complaining of the weakness of your adversary, as an that brings nothing but childish nonsense against you, and protests that you will altogether leaze this stage, except there be substitute against you, some 〈◊〉 qualified Antagonist, that you, may with some reputation wrestle with him. But this your bragging, will be reputed not so much an effect of pride, as of silliness and pusillanimity, that seeing how you cannot longer subsist, having voided all your Magazine, and spent all your powder, you would use bragging words, as a mean to save your reputation in this retreat. But though by this way you provided so and so, for your own reputation, how do you provide for the reputation of your Religion, that you leave with this blot and aspersion, that there can be shown no difference betwixt it and a false Religion, and so leaves it in the same condition, with a man, whose honesty being called in question, and much pleaded for, did at last obtain a favourable sentence, whereby he was judictallie declared, to be such an honest man, that there was no difference betwixt him and a knave.  
July, 6. 1666.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits sixth Paper, which was not delivered to him till July 9  
An Answer to the Jesuits sixth, Lying, and Railing Paper.  
I Have oft heard, but now I find, that, Fides Jesuitice, est fides Punica. Who but a Devil, or a Jesuit, would have had the Impudency to say, that I had Disowned and recanted all the Grounds, which hitherto I had brought, for the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS; as you have been bold to affirm, both in the Tiole, and afterwards in the body of this your sixth Paper. When I read this, I remembered that word of Austin. lib. 1. Contra julianum, cap. 5. Mirum est, si in fancy hominis, tantum intervallum sit inter frontem et linguam, ut frons non comprimat linguam It is strange (said he,) that there should be such a distance, betwixt the front of a man, and his mouth, that the shame of his forehead, should not repress the impudency of his tongue. But there is a truth in that saying of Seneca, Contra Sycophantarum morsum non est remedium. Produce if you can my own words, wherein I have resiled from one ground that ever I brought, let be from all. Would ye not have done this, to verfie such an ignominious challenge, had ye not been conscious to yourself of Impudent lying? I remember indeed that in my last Paper, I did discover your Roguery, in representing some grounds as distinct, which are not distinct, to make your Readers imagine, I had made such a foolish muster of grounds, as you draw up: But never did I pass from any of them. I know likewise, that I did convict you, of a base prevarication, in substituting that, as a third ground, assigned by me, which was never given by me, as a ground of our Religion at all, but as a reason (as is obvious to any of the weakest capacity,) why I was not tied at this time, to have given you any grounds, albeit Ex superabundanti, I had condescended to give you some. Yet, in stead of clearing yourself of that prevarication, or deprecating pardon for it, you add a grosser, saying, that I had recanted all the grounds; which I had formerly given. Do you not by such dealing, stigmatize yourself to be, as Aegesippus said of Pilate, lib. 2. De exeidio Hieros. cap. 5. Viruns nequam, & parus facientem mendacium? Henceforth therefore, you are required, when you go about to examine any thing in my Papers, to propose it in my own terms, else I must desire the Reader, to look upon it, as the forgery of a Sycephant.  
This your horrid prevarication, will (I believe,) deerogate faith from the rest of your reproaches. But I confess, you have all the advantages of an effronted Calumniator, since, like a man of prostitute reputation, you neither concern yourself in proving the accusations, which you bring against your Adversary, nor in answering these recriminations which are retorted upon you. Yet, seeing the lines which I have sent to you, may bid a defiance to you, or any Momus, or Zoilus, I shall make no other Reply, to these virulent and groundless reproaches, wherewith this your last Paper is stuffed, but what Michael the Archangel did to the Devil, Jud. verse 9 Increpet te Dominus.  
You must again be remembered, (for I find you wilfully forgetful of your duty,) that neither as yet in this sixth Paper, have you attempted, either to clear yourself, of the fallacies, and prevarications, whereof I had in former Papers convicted you, or to expede yourself, from the contradictions, wherein I have demonstrated you to be inextricably involved, or, to supply your beastly omissions, and tergiversations, so often charged upon you. So noble a Champion are you for this desperate cause, which you have undertaken. You repeat now again the sixth time,  to your Cacoethes, the old thread bare Paralogism, and you have the modesty, to accuse me of ignorance, because I cannot so far brutify my reason, as to acknowledge your three Negatives, to be three Affirmatives, albeit you have not been able, either by all your Summulistick. Art, or jesuitick sophistry, to show how you could express them more negatively in our language, had you intended to make them formal Negations. But who needs wonder, that Romanists have the confidence, to obtrude on Readers negations for affirmations, seeing they would impose upon the World, contrary to faith, sense and luculent reason, the adoring of a vafer cake for the real living and glorious Body of our Saviour?  
In my last, because I intended not to have exchanged any more Papers with you, I thought good, to give you a more Spe●isick character of your ludicrous Syllogism, which you have been hitherto licking, as the Bear doth her deformed whelp, but have not as yet been able, to reduce it to any form. I show therefore, that every proposition in it, both Major, Minor, and Conclusion, might justly be questioned. But this you are pleased to wave, accoring to your customary tergiversing humour, thinking it enough, to jeer this animadversion, as a New Light. There is no such Mystery I confess in your Syllogism, that it required much study, to discover the trespasses of it. Only your importunity, tempted me to lay open more of the nakedness, of this your Idol, then at first I resolved. But whether you term it New light, or Old, yet such a light it seems to be, that your eyes could not more look upon it, then if they were of the same constitution with the eyes of an Howl. In vocal debates, I acknowledge the challenging of many faults at once, and putting the Opponent, to the probation of more propositions than one, might breed confusion, but when matters are managed by writ, there appears no inconveniency therein. However, you should the more easily have obtained pardon for this trespass, had you at length proven the Assumption, which from the beginning was denied; and which in my last, you were pressed to prove by a Dilemma, which if you had adventured to examine, would have constrained you, either to profess yourself a down right Atheist, and Infidel, or else to produce some peculiar ground of the true Religion, by which both our Religion, and yours, might be examined. But it appears, that your whole design, is to decline a trial. Let the Reader here remark, that the Major, Minor, and the whole Structure of your Syllogism, hath been questioned, and that the probation of both Major, and Minor, are utterly declined by you, and to justify the Form, you have no other evasion, but to affirm Negations to be Affirmations. Transmit if you will this your conclusion, Ergo, the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be the True Religion, to your Universities of Douai, Lovan, Paris, and Rome, and set them judge, whether it be an Affirmative or Negative.  
After you had again repeated that impudent Calumny, that I had Recallid the grounds of Religion, which I had formerly given. You say, that now I produce my Achilles, namely, the Scriptures as perspicuous in all things necessary to Salvation. Where you insinuate two manifest Untruths. The first is, that Now, as if never before, I had given the Perspicuity of the Scriptures, in all things necessary, as the ground of our Religion. The other is, that this is given as my Only ground, which are both notorious falsehoods in the matter of fact. For neither was that the only ground, I having also given another, Viz. The conformity of our Religion, with the faith of the Christian Church, in the first three Centuries, from which I did demonstrate, the falsehood of the now Romish Religion, because of its discrepancy, from that Ancient Christian faith. Neither was my last Paper, the first time, that I produced these grounds. Have you made lies your refuge? Had you no way to support your lying cause, but by such manifest untruths? Do you not give occasion to your Reader to say, Perîsse frontem de rebus.  
As for that, which you term my only ground, namely, The Scriptures, as perspicuous in all things necessary, which by way of derision, you term my Achilles, I have no cause to be ashamed of that ground. Scripture hath proven against Atheists, Infidels, and Heretics, and will prove against you Romanists also, to be a brazen wall. You make the fashion, of moving some Objections, against the Perspicuity of the Scriptures, in all things necessary. But before, you were in Bonâ fide, to have objected against it, both the terms should have been cleared, and you should have examined the Authorities, whereby I confirmed it from chrysostom, Austin, Jrenaeus, yea and from your own Aquinas, and Sixtus Senensis. But to let this pass, Cum caeteris erroribus, I proceed to the examination of your Objections, which I hop, I shall make appear, to be nothing else, but Juggling shifts, (to use your own terms,) to keep off, from the examination of the main controversy. Only, that the state of the question betwixt us may be clear; Let it be remembered, first, that we do not affirm, that all Scriptures are Perspicuous, and clear, as the Rhemists in their 1. Marginal Note, on Luke cap. 6. And other Rhomists have traduced us. Secondly, That we do not exclude means of interpretation, as Bellar, lib. 3. De verbo Dei, cap. 1. Prateolus in Elench Haereseon. lib. 17. cap. 20. And Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. lib. 6. Annot. 152. Charge upon us. And thirdly, that by Perspicuity, we do not means, that all things are expressly, in so many words in Scripture: But, that they are either expressly in Scripture, or by firm and clear consequence, are deduceable from it. And what is deduced, by firm and clear consequence from Scripture, may well be said, to be Perspicuously contained in Scripture. Even as a Conclusion, which is luculently deduced from the Premises, is said to be clearly contained in the Premises. And this I add also against Bellarmin who in his fourth book, De verbo Dei, cap. 3. States the controversy, as if Papists only mantained against us, Totam doctrinam, sive de fide, sive de moribus, non continer● express in Scriptures. For if by Express, he means in so many formal words, neither do we affirm it. Fourthly, by this Perspicuity, we means an external and objective evidence, and therefore this perspicuity is nothing impeached by the misunderstanding, of Heretics, or others. For their mistakes, flow not from the obscurity of the Scripture, but from the defect Exparte subjecti, or from the indisposition of their understandings who hear or read Scripture. And fifthly, by things necessary, may be meaned either these truths, the explicit belief whereof is necessary to Salvation, Necessitate medii, so as without the belief thereof, Salvation cannot be had; or also, these articles, the belief whereof are only necessary Necessitate praecepti. Many things may be necessary, this latter way, which are not necessary, by the first kind of necessity. Therefore you should have cleared, what kind of necessity you meaned. For us, we freely acknowledge all things necessary, either of the ways, are contained in Scripture, though not with equal clearness: But these things, which are of absolute and indispensable necessity to Salvation, are either expressly revealed in Scripture, or luculently deduceable by firm consequence, from that which is expressly revealed therein. And of this last is our present controversy.  
I have told our judgement, but you like a juggler bring Objections, yet do not tell your judgement, nor I believe can you tell the judgement of your Church. I could here have set down the discrepant opinions of your men in reference to this point, for which I shall remit you, to Gerard, Tom. Vlt. Loc. Com. De Script. cap. 20. §. 422. & 423. Where he shows that some of you maintain, all things in Scripture to be obscure as your Rhemists, your Divines of Colen, and Canisius, but that others grant many things in Scripture, especially these that are necessary, to be clear, as Hieron. ab Oleastro, Thomas, Costerus, Catharinus, etc. You are therefore required, if you can, to set down the judgement of your Romish Church, in this matter, as clearly, as I have done ours. And you may if you will in the entry consider this Dilemma. Either you have a Definition of that Church, which you call infallible, against the perspicuity of the Scriptures, or not. If you have it, produce it. Sure I am your Council of Trent, hath passed no such Decree, and for what I know, none else. If none, then are you a manifest wrangler, and you have no certainty of faith, for the Thesis which you maintain. But let you wander in the mist as you will, I have premised this to clear the grounds, on which I walk, and so I shall proceed to examine your Objections, which are like so many roveing arrows, shot without the prefixing of a mark.  
First then, you object, That the perspicuity of the Scriptures, cannot serve as a distinctive ground of our Religion, from a false, except first, I prove that the sense which we give of Scripture, is the genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost. But this precarious and merely assertory Objection, may with far more reason be inverted against yourself. For, if the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessary, cannot serve as a distinctive ground of our Religion, from a false, then must it either be, because Scripture is not perspicuous in all things necessary, or else because the sense given by PROTESTANTS, is not the genuine sense of Scripture, and consequently, it was itcumbent to you as the Opponent, (who have undertaken in your fourth Paper, To impugn any ground affigned by me,) I say, it was incumbent to you, either to have proven that Scripture, is not perspicuous in all things necessary, or else, that the sense given by PROTESTANTS, is not the genuine sense of Scripture. But neither of these do you once attempt to prove. It is like you did perceive the work would be too hard for you, and therefore, according to your tergiversing humour, you set yourself only to study shifts, and evasions, whereof this Objection is the first, to decline your duty. But from this your first subterfuge, you may easily be beaten, by this Dilemma. For either Scripture is perspicuous in all things necessary, or not. If you say not, then why do you not bring arguments to disprove its perspicuity, you being the Opponent? If you grant that it is perspicuous, then why may it not be a ground, to distinguish a True Religion from a false? Even as a clear luculent Charter, or Patent under the great seal, may be a ground, to justify the title of an honest Sempronius, against the pretences of a cavilling Titius. Nor can it be matter of such impossibility, for PROTESTANT'S (as you falsely insinuate,) to find out the true sense of Scripture, if Scripture be perspicuous. May you not then see, what work is incumbent to you, if you desire to have the matter in controversy canvased? Namely, either to prove, That Scripture is not perspicuous in all things necessary, or else, That the Religion of PROTESTANTS, is not agreeable to that true, and perspicuous sense of Scripture And seeing you may as easily prove light to be darkness, as disprove the perspicuity of the Scriptures, in all things necessary to Salvation, you may try your Acumen, upon the consonancy of our Religion, with the true and genuine sense of Scripture. Pitch therefore upon the chief points in controversy, betwixt you and us, such as your pretended Infallibility, The headship of your Pope, your Transubstantiation, and Sacrifice of the Mass, and let it be tried, whether they be agreeable to the genuine sense of Scripture. I shall be willing, to heat, and to examine, what you have to say for them, and withal, Godwilling, I shall not be wanting, to repone to you, arguments, to prove them to be impious errors, and dissonant or the perspicuous, and genuine sense of Scripture. Then may you best discern, whether we PROTESTANTS, can hold forth the true sense of Scripture. But your whole design appears, to be, to shift a scriptural trial. And this is generally observed now, to be the way of your late Pamphleteers, and herein you resemble the old Heretics, of whom said Tertullian. Lib. De resurrections Carnis, cap. 3. Anfer Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt, ut de Scriptures solis suas quaestion●s sistant & stare non possunt. A noble and luculent testimony, both for the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scripture, seeing all heresies may be confuted by Scripture. And withal, a remarkable character of Heretics, in shuning to be brought to this Test, as knowing then that they cannot subsist. And justly you, as well as old Heretics, may on this account, be termed Lucifuga. But lest I should seem, only to make use of Contra-argumentation against you: Therefore, I add from what hath been said, this brief and direct Answer, to your first tergiversing Objection. If (say you, for this is all the force that I can reduce it to,) The perspicuity of Scripture serves as a distinctive ground, of our Religion from a false, then should I first have proven the sense given by PROTESTANTS, to be the true sense of Scripture. Answer, had I sustained in this debate, the part of an Opponent, this inference might have had some colour of reason: But seeing at the time, I only stand in the capacity of a Defendant and Respondent, I simply deny, that any such thing, was incumbent to me at present. I thus answer, not from any diffidence of the PROTESTANT cause, and therefore forbear cavilling. But that I may keep with you, the exact rules of disputing. The truth of our Religion, and its consonancy with the genuine sense of Scripture, hath been so often and so luculendy showed, by the Champions of the PROTESTANT cause, that for me to add any thing thereto, were but to bring a torch to give light to the Sun. All that could be expected of me, according to the Rules of disputing, is to clear off any cavils, which you bring against the consonancy of our Religion, with the true sense of Scripture. Yet will you come to the examination of particular points in controversy, you shall perhaps find, that I shall not only do the part of a Defendant. In the mean time, is it not a strong presumption, that the truth shines brightly on our fide, seeing after all your insolent boastings, and so many peremptory appeals from us, you can bring no positive argument, either against the Scriptures perspicuity, or the consonancy of our Religion, with the genuine sense of Scripture, but only betake yourself to your flying shifts & declinaturs, & this for your first objection.  
Ye object Secondly, That before I affirm so boldly, that all things necessary are contained in Scripture, I should first have drawn up a List, and Catalogue of these necessary truths, whereas Scripture (say you,) makes no distinction, betwixt these necessary truths and others. And now you would be making use of an old example of mine, That there is no way to prove a piece of Gold to be upright, but by producing it to be examined. To which I repon. First, that by this your objection against the Scriptures, being a sufficient Canon, as containing all things necessary to Salvation, you contradict your own self. For a great part of the scop of your first Paper, and Syllogism, was to hold out, That the true Religion hath grounds to prove itself, to be conform● to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But this were impossible, if all Religion, and consequently, what ever is necessary to Salvation, were not contained in the written Word of God. And  in my answer to your First Paper, I concluded from that Syllogism, that you had overturned your Unwritten traditions. So that now, you are not in Bonâ fide, to object against the Perfection of Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to Salvation, without contradicting yourself. But this hath been a fatality, which hath attended you throughout all this debate. Secondly, this your demand, Of drawing up a Lift and Catalogue of necessaries, is an old cavil of your Romanists, which our Divines have often canvased, and therefore, ●s I told you, that you would be served, when you renewed old Refu●ed Cavils. Itemit you to see, what hath been said to this purpose, By Master Chillingwerth, in his Defence of Petter part 1. capp. 3.4. And by Stillingsleet, In his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury, against T. C. part. 1. cap. 4. And Crakantliorp, in his ‛ Defence. Ecclesia Anglicana, cap. 47. Thirdly, you falsely affirm, that the Scripture doth pur not distinction betwixt, divine truths, of absolute necessity to Salvation, and others, the belief whereof is not so indispensably necessary. Sayeth not the Scriptore, Heb. 11.6. He that cometh unto GOD must believe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him? Is the like Character of necessity put upon every truth? Is there I pray as great necssi●tie to believe that Paul left a Clok at Treat, 2. Tim. 4.13. As to believe there is a GOD? Know you not that of Austin. lib. 1. Contra julianum, cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se, aliquande etiam doctissimi, atꝙ optimi regulae Catholicae defensores, salva fidei compage non consonant, & alius alio de una re, melius aliquid dicit & verius, hoc autens unde nunc agimus ad ipsa pertinet sidei fundamenta. Where the Father acknowledges, there are some Foundation truths in Christianity, absolutely necessary, and others not so. You may see this largely proven, by Master Baxter, in his Key for Catholics, part. 1. cap. 16. And Crakanthorp, loco citato, no to mention others. Fourthly, I absolutely deny, that it was incumbent to me, at this time, to draw up a Lift of truths, simply necessary to Salvation, and it was a tergiversing Shift in you, to demand it, that so you might keep off the eximination, of that which is mainly in controversy betwixt us. For though I with reformed Divines do affirm, that all things necessary to Salvation, are contained in Scripture. Yet, neither they, nor I affirm, that it is necessary to Salvation, to have a precise Catalogue of things necessary, containing neither more not less. Did, I pray you, Chryfostome draw up a Catalogue of necessaries, when he said, Hom. 3. In epist. 2. Ad Thess. That all things necessary are clear and manifest in the Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Augustin, when he said, Lib. 2. De doct. Christ. cap. 9 that, In ●is quae aperte posita sunt, in these things which are plainly laid down in the Scriptures, Inveniuntur amnia, are found all, which belong to faith or manners? Or Tertullian, when he said, Scripturae plenitudinem adero? Cannot this general be proven, that all things necessary, are contained in the Scriptures, unless a precise Catalogue be drawn? Is there no way, to prove an Universal conclusion, but by an induction, and enumeration of all particulars? Cannot I conclude, that all the dead shall rise at the last day, unless I can draw up, a list of all the race of Mankind? Or, that all the Reprobat, shall be eternally shut up in hell, unless I can give you a catalogue, and definite number of that generation of GOD'S wrath? Can I not conclude, that all Jesuits are devoted Slaves to the Pope, unless I can give a catalogue, and a definite number of these locusts? Is not the general, which we affirm, abundantly proven by these Scriptures, in which, the sufficiency of the Scripture, to bring men to Salvation, is held forth, As 2. Tim. 3.15.16.17. John, 20.31. Gal. 1.8.9. etc. In so much, that Tertullian was bold to say, Contra Hermogenens, cap. 22. Doceat Hermogenes Scriptures esse, si non est Scriptum, timeat illud vae, adjicientibus ant detrahentibus destinatum. Yea, what if it should be added, that the explicit belief of more truths, may be necessary to the Salvation of one, then of another. Said nor the Lord Christ, Luke, 12.48. Unto whom much is given, much shall be required. Whereupon, a great Divine spared not to say, That, to call for a precise catalogue of necessary truths, is as unreasonable, as if one should desire us, to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her Changes, or a garment to fit all statures, or a dial to serve all Meridian's, or to design particularly, what provision may serve a● Army for a year, whereas there may be an Ar●●ie of a thousand, and an Army of an hundreth thousand, whose provision therefore cannot be alike. But what ever be of this, let it suffice, to have given you this general character of necessary truths, that no truth of Religion is further to be accounted necessary, than Scripture puts a character of necessity upon it. And here by the way, I might let you see, what a fool you were in meddling with my example, Of trying pieces of gold severally by the Tonchstone. For in the present case, it can import no more, but, that before any truth be concluded necessary, it must first be found, that the Scriptures hath put a character of necessity upon it, and consequently, all necessary truths must be contained in Scripture, Quod erat demonstrandum. You would therefore not meddle with my weapons, lest they cut your hands. But Fifthly, and lastly, I add, that you Romanists, are as much concerned, to draw up a list and catalogue of necessaries as we, and I am sure in so doing, you shall find greater difficulty, especially, if with your late Champions, you say, that all that, and only that, is necessary, which your Church hath defined. For first, can ye agree among yourselves, to tell me, what you mean by the Church? Or secondly, can you enumerat a precise catalogue, of all that the Church hath defined? Or how can you ascertain any of the true sense of these Definitions? Or Thirdly, can you show me, who hath impowered the Church, since the days of the Apostles to put a Character of necessity to Salvation, upon a truth, which had it not before? And Fourthly, did not I from this demonstrate, your Religion to be a false Religion, because, it differs in its essentials, and in these things, which to you are necessary to Salvation, from the faith of the most ancient & primitive Church? Seeing your Formula fidei contrived by Pope Pius the fourth, hath made all the canons of the council of Trent necessary, which I am sure, neither you, nor any man, shall be able to show, to have been the faith of the most Ancient and primitive Church. Though this hath been put to you once and again, yet have you not dared to touch upon this string. Yea Fifthly, from this your imposing new necessary articles of faith, (whereas, Regula fidei, as Tertullian well said, Lib. de velandis Virgin: Una omnino est immobilis & irrefomabilis,) many of our Divines, have demonstrated your Church to be the most Schismatical society, that bears the name of a Church under Heaven. For by this, you have cut yourselves off, both from the ancient Church, and from the greatest part of Christendom at this day. Among many others who have convicted you of this grievous crime, you may try, how you can expede yourself, from that which hath been said to this purpose, by Decter Morton, in his book, entitled, The Grand Imposture of the Church of Rome, cap. 15. by Stilling fleet, in his Vindicatione of the Bishop of Canterbury, part, 2. cap. 2. And Voetius, in his Desperata causa Papatus, lib. 3. From this it were easy to demonstrat, that notwithstanding your great pretences to Catholicism, we, & not ye, are the true Catholics. For we acknowledge communion with the whole Church both ancient & modern, which keep the essentials & fundamentals of Christianity. But your Church by imposing new necessary articles of faith, which neither the ancient Church, nor yet the greatest part of the present Church, did ever acknowledge, have cut yourselves off from the body. I shall close this Section with this Dilemma. Either the Scriptures do contain all that is necessary to Salvation, or not; if they do, than you are a perverse wrangling sophister, in cavilling against this truth. If not, than instance one necessary truth not contained in Scriptures. And this should have been, your work, if you would have done any thing to purpose, against this precious truth, of the Scriptures, being a compleet Canon; to have showed some Necessary article of faith not contained therein. And if you set to this work, remember, that according to your own principles, you must prove it by some infallible authority, which you will find as hard a work, as to roll Sysiphi Saxum.  
In place of your third objection, you inquire, What are the means for interpreting Scripture? what is the due use of these means? Whether a false Religion may not use the mean? And whether people without preaching, can duly use the means of interpretation, and come to the knowledge of all things necessary? And from the use of mean of interpretation, you would conclude the Scriptures not to be perspicuous. Behold now of a disputant, you are become a Querist. You have need I confess in your old days, to turn a Catechumen, and if you would become a docile Disciple, you might receive convincing instructions, and find that you had no just cause, to have turned a Renegade, from the Religion of PROTESTANTS, unto which you were baptised. But so long, as your Queries proceed from a cavilling humour, you deserve no other answer, than the retortion of some puzzling Queries, as our Lord Christ, sometimes confuted the insidious interrogaturs of his adversaries, A remarkable instance whereof you may find, Luke, 20. from verse 2. to verse 8, And therefore, to pull down these Spider webs, in which you seem not a little to confide, know First, that the use of means of interpretation, doth nothing deerogate from the asserted Perspicuity of the Scriptures; especially, seeing the principal means of interpretation, are to be fetched from the Scripture itself. Suppose a man be in a dark Room, with his eyes shut, because, he must first open both eyes and windows, before he can see the Sun, will you therefore accuse the Sun of obscurity? Is not the Perspicuity of Scriptures luculently attested, Psal. 119. vers. 105.2. Pet. 1.19. 2. Cor. 4.3.4. Rom. 10.7.8. etc. If Scriptures be not perspicuous in things necessary, it must be either, because GOD would not speak clearly in them, or because, he could not. It were too hard blasphemy, to say, he could not. Who made man's mouth, Exod. 4.11. Hence, La●tantius, lib. 6. Institut. cap. 21. Num Deus linguae & mentit artifex l●●uin●n potest. Nor can you say, because he would not, seeing this is the very end of Scripture, to reveal unto us the way of Salvation. john, 20.31. Rom. 15.4.2. Tim. 3.15. Dare you say, that our holy and gracious Lord, did purposlle deliver the whole Scripture obscurely, as Arist●tle did his Acromaticks, and therefore, said of them, Edidi & non edidi. You might have learned a better lesson from jerom, on Psal. 96. Where he makes this difference, betwixt the writings of Plato, and the Apostles, Plato (said he,) purposely affected obscurity, that few might understand, but the Apostles wrote clearly, that they might accommodat themselves, to the capacities of all the people of GOD. But, Secondly, Are not you Romanists, as much concerned as we, in finding out the means for interpreting Scripture, yea, and besides to find out also means for interpreting the decretals, Bulls, and Breves of your Popes? Are you, not acquaint with the perplexed debates of your Authors, and particularly, how stapleton's eleventh book, de Principiis fidei Doctrinalibus, is wholly spent, De mediis interpretandi Scripturam? And when all is done, you Jesuits, can never think your Roman cause sufficiently secured, except your Pope, be made the only Infallible Interpreter of Scriptures, and therefore, Gregorius de Valentia, lib. 7. De analysi fidei cap. 1. Proposes this assertion, as that which he would prove throughout the whole book; Pontifex ipse Romanus est in quo authoritas illa residet, quae in Ecclesia extat ad judicandum de omnibus omnino fidei controversiis. And though in his Lib. 8. he mentions divers rules, in determining controversies of faith, yet at last, he concludes in Cap. 10. That the Pope may use these according to his discretion, and that, he is not tied, to take advice of Cardinals, or other Doctors, but according to his pleasure, and that he may desyne as Infallibly without them, as with them. So that, till the Scripture have no liberty to speak any thing, but what sense your Popes are pleased to put upon it, you can never secure, either your Pope or Papal Religion, from Scriptural anathemas. Were it not easy for me here, to give you, and the World, a Specimen of goodly expositions of these your infallible interpreters, I mean your Popes, such as Syricius, Innocent the third, Boniface the eight, etc. They who can expound Statuimus, by Abrogamus, and Pasee ●ues meas, of deposing and killing of Princes, what Glosses can they not put on scriptures? By this it may appear, that this your Querie, like all the rest, returns upon your own Pate. But Thirdly, had PROTESTANTS, devysed new Means of interpretation, which had not been made use of, by the Church in all times, you might have had some pretext for this demand. But we do cordially subscrive to that of the Apostle, 2. Peter, 1.20. No prophecy of Soripture, is of any private interpretation. I shall  remit you to Whitaker, controver. de Scripture. Qu. 5. cap. 9.10.11 12. Chamier. Tom. 1. Panstrati●, Lib. 16. A. cap. 4. ad finem, Zauchius, Tom. 8. tract. de script. ●u. 2. Gerard the Lutheran, In Uberiori exegesi loci de scriptura, cap. 25. Where you will find the means of interpretation, acknowledged by PROTESTANTS, and the way how they are to be used, luculently set down, and vinditated from the cavil● of Staplet●n and others. Or if your prejudice will not permit you, to take them from our Authors; you may take them from Austin, in his Four books de Doct. Christ. Where it is very remarkable, that though he be very copious in assigning rules, for the right understanding of the Scriptures; yet he never once makes mention of that Infallible assistance of the Bishop of Ro●e: which is an undoubted evidence that Austin was not of your now Romish faith. By this we understand, what an impudent calumny that is of Bellarmin, lib. 3. De verbo Dei, cap. 1. who, when he is stateing this question, of the perspicuity of the Scriptures, charges reformed Divines, as maintaining, Scripturam esse tam apertam in se, ut sine explicatione sufficiat ad controversias sidei terminandas: As if we mantained, that there were no need of interpretation of Scripture, which none of our Divines do affirm. And therefore, to cut off that cavil, I purpofly added that caution, of Using the means of interpretation; albeit on the other hand, you would abuse this concession, to deerogate from the Scriptures perspicuty, but with equal ingenuity with your Cardinal. Fourthly, Whereas you ask, Whether the people without preaching, can duly use the means of interpretation, and come to the knowledge of things necessary to Salvation? A ludibrious question as proponed by you implying, as would seem, a clear Contradiction in itself. For preaching is one of these means of interpretation, and therefore, it is all one, as if you had asked, whether people may at once use all the means, and yet not use some of them? Is it not a manifest Contradiction to use them all, and not to use them all at once? But to take of all mistakes, we say, that attendance on public preaching, is one mean to which people are tied Necessitate praecepti, when they may have it, which is clearly confirmed by these Scriptures, 1. Thess. 5.20. Despise not Prophesying. Luke, 10.16. He that despiseth you, despiseth me. Rom. 10.17. Faith cometh by hearing. Yet do we not affirm, that the Public preaching of the Word, is a mean so indispenlably necessary, that the true meaning of the word, can in no case be had by the use of Other means, such as reading, Private instruction, etc. When the public preaching is providentially denied. To this purpose, you may see Ruffian, lib. 1. Hist. Eccles. cap. 9 & 10. But Fifthly, there yet temaines one of your judicious queries, namely, Whether a false Religion may duly use the means of interpretation? I think you would have asked, whether people professing a false Religion, may use duly the means, for it is a very incongruous speech, to say, That Religion useth means. But passing that incongruicy, I answer briefly, that people professing a false Religion, are bound De jure, to use the means duly, though De facto, they do not use them duly, so long as they adhere to A false Religion. For as I said, from the beginning of this debate, there is such an Objective evidence in Scripture truths, that if they be not perceived, when sufficiently proposed, it is still through some defect on the part of the subject: As doth luculentlie appear, from 2. Cor. 3.4. If our Gospel be hid, it is to them, in whom the God of this world hath blinded their minds. And, Joh. 7.17. If any man do the will of GOD, he shall know the Doctrine, whether it be of GOD. This far have I condescended, to satisfy your Extravagant Queriet, and I hope, have sufficiently vindicated from all your cavils, this First ground of the true Religion, taken from The Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures. But do not expect hereaftere, to meet with the like indulgence, as if I would take notice of your ‛ Digressive questions, when you neither observe rules of disputing, nor keep close to the maine hang of the controversy.  
I cannot here, but put you in mind again of another ground which I proposed in my last two Papers, from which the truth of our Religion may be demonstrated, namely, The conformity thereof in all its essentials, with the faith of the most Ancient Church, in the first three Centuries. This you still dissemble, as if you were deaf on that ear. Only in the close of one of your observations, concerning the perspicuity of the Scripture, to confuse these two grounds together, (that so you might escape in the dark, and that your tergiversation, and not speaking to this ground distinctly, might be the less observable,) you do impertinently throw in this word. That the claims to antiquity is common to other sexts. I believe, you would have said, Sects. But besides what hath been said in my former Papers, to redargue such a trifling Reply, now I add, that the falsehood of the claim of the other Sects, may be evicted, by holding out the discrepancy, betwixt the faith of the ancient Church, and false Religions. As I proved the falsehood of your Romish Religion, from the dissonancy, betwixt your now Romish faith, or Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth and the faith of the ancient Church in these ages; which as yet, you have not once endeavoured to answer, though now it be the third time put to you. If you had intended to say any thing to purpose, against us PROTESTANTS, to this particular, you should have instanced Some essentials of the Christian Religion, wherein the ancient Church did differ from us. But I find, that the chief facultio of your Romish Champions, lies in bragging, and false accusing. How often have they accused PROTESTANTS, as Innovatours? And who are such pretenders to antiquity as they? But it is a true character, which Scaliger gave long ago, of our and your writers, Non sumus nos novatores, sed vos estis veteratores. And therefore to vindicate the truth which we maintain, from all their reproaches, I have offered, to dispute the cause of Religion, betwixt us and you, both from Scripture, and Antiquity, But you do shift the trial, from both these grounds, as much as a Thief would shift to be examined by a jury. You are therefore again required, to answer my argument, From the diserepancy betwixt your now Romish Creed, and the faith of the Ancient Church, And to instance, if you can, One difference in essentials, betwixt the faith of the Ancient Church and our Religion; else it must be held for confessed, that our Religion, which you so much reproach, is, The truly Ancient Christian Religion, and yours, but the tares which the envious one, did lately sow in the Lord's field, and that your pretence to Antiquity, is no better, than the Gibeonits' mouldy bread, Ies. 9.5.12.  
Towards the Conelusion, you are so discreet, as to upbraid me, as Altogether ignorant of the nature of supernatural faith. Because forsooth, I would not acknowledge, That the assent of faith, which is given to articles of Religion, must be founded, upon the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance, of the propounders thereof, I suppose you mean the Clergy, of whom you spoke in your former Papers. But First, were you not concemed, (if you had looked to your reputation,) before you had taken the boldness, to reproach me for Ignorance in this matter, first to have cleared yourself from these Contradictions, wherein I have demonstrated you to be involved, from your former assertions, concerning This infallible assistance of the Clergy? Secondly, were you so shallow, as not to discern, that you entangle yourself in a New contradiction, by this your present discourse? For if every supernatura assent of faith to a divine truth, must be founded, upon The foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder thereof, than the first assent to The necessity of the foreknowledge of this assistance in the Propounder, must presuppose it, as being, according to you, An Act of supernatural faith: And yet it cannot presuppose it, because it is the first assent which the person hath concerning that assistance: And consequently, if it did presuppose a former knowledge of that assistance, it should be first, and not first. Is not this a goodly Religion which you have, that you cannot move one step in mantainance thereof, without entangling yourself still in contradictions? But Thirdly, either This necessity of the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance, of the propounder of divine truths, which you make the foundation, of all supernatural faith, can be proven or not. If not, than all your faith is founded upon a fancy, which cannot be proven. If it can be proven, why shun you to do it, I having so often required it of you? But now I will lay this Dilemma about you. If it can be proven, either it must be from Scripture, or from some Unwriten Word, to use your Romanists phrase. Not from Scripture, for according to you, no sense of Scripture can be known, unless first the Infallible assistance of the propounder thereof be known, and therefore, when one doubts of the infallible assistance of the proponer, it is impossible, according to your principles, that this can be proven from Scripture. Nor can you prove it by any Unwriten Word. For you have asserted in your former Papers, that a point of Religion To be true, and to be conform to the Writen Word of GOD, are Synenima's, and that the one of these, cannot be proven before the other. Therefore, you cannot prove the truth of this point, conceming the Clergies assistance, merely by an unwriten Word, else it should be known to be true, before its conformity to the written Word were known, which is the Contradictory of your former assertion. But besides, to know the sense of a Decretal, Canon of Council, or Tradition, or what ever else you will run to, as distinct from the Scriptures of GOD, there is as great necessity of The foreknowledge, of the assistance of the propounder thereof, as for the knowing of the true sense of Scripture. And therefore, before I assent to the true sense of a Decretal, Canon of Council, or Tradition by a supernatural Act of faith, I must first know, that the propounder is guided by an infallible assistance, and consequently, when one doubts of this infallible assistance of the propounder, neither can it be proven by any Unwritten word, Decretal, Canon of Council, or Tradition. Expede yourself from this Dilemma, if you can, without destroying your own principles, by which you are locked up in Contradictions. Nay more, I here freely offer, will you, or any prove to me, either From Scripture, or Universal Tradition, That the foreknowledge, of such infallible assistance of your Clergy, is a necessary prerequisite before I can give a supernatural assent of faith to an article of Religion, and I will turn Romanist. Can I make a fairer proffer to you? Will you not have so much compassion upon me, as to make me your Proselyte? But I may divine here, and not be a Prophet, you will as scone remove the Earth out of its place, according to Archimedes bold undertaking, as to prove your Hypothesis, from either of these forementioned grounds. Fourthly, when you talk so liberally of this Assistance of the Propounder, of articles of faith, ought you not to determine, whom you mean by This Propounder? I hope you extend it not to all the people, nay, nor to all who have received Orders. It was 〈◊〉 pretended, that every one of these was infallible, whether therefore is it the Pope, or General Council, or both, that you mean? If you cannot agree among yourselves, who this Infallible Propounder is, do you not reel as to the Foundation of your faith? I therefore require you again to determine to me, if you can, An Infallible Propounder of articles of faith, agreed upon by you Romanists, and to produce the evidences for this infallibility from Scripture, or Universal Tradition, or Canon of general Council. You would make the world believe, that you had an infallible Propounder of divine truths, and yet you cannot agree who he is. Nor have any of the parties, into which you are broken in this matter, Evidence from your Romish principles, for the infallibility of him, or them, whom they would place in App●llo's chair. Pitch therefore on whom you will, as your jufallible Interpreter, and let us see if his Infallibility can abid the Test. Who knows not how impiously your Popes have erred, and that both In cathedra and extra cathedram? How Pope Liberius subscrived to to the Arrian confession of the Council of Sirmium, and to the condemnation of Athanasius? How Pope Honorius, being consulted by Sergius of Constantinople, gave out sentence for the Monethelite Heresy? How Pope john, the twentysecond, denied the immortality of the Soul? Yea, not to insist further, in takeing this Dunghill, your own Platina, in the life of Stephan●s the sixth, records, that it is almost the constant custom of the succeeding Popes, to infringe, Or wholly abrogate, the decrees of their Predecessors. Are these the infallible propounders of divine truths, upon which our faith must be built? It were easy also, to give an account of the errors, and lapses of Councils, though I should be loath, to deerogate in the least from their due esteem. I shall therefore at present, but mind you of that luculent testimony of Austin, lib. 2. De Baptis. contra Donatistas', cap. 3. where he affirms, Concilia plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari, that former plenatie, and general Councils, are amended by the latter, and consequently, the former undoubtedly erred. The figetree ●●ves, wherewith Bellarmin, and other of your authors would palliate these things are so fully examined by Chamier, and other our controversists, that I shall remit you to them. But Fifthly, if the people's faith, must be built upon the foreknowledge of the propounders assistance, then whereupon is the faith of your Infallible Propounders built? Must they not be perfect Enthusiasts? What difference I pray you, is there betwixt them and Quakers? You may see, if you will, a pretty parallel to this purpose, written by Clopenburg, in Syntagmate selectarum exercitationum, disp. 2. The title whereof, is, Papistarum & Enthusiastarum discordia concors. Sixthlie, suppose it were granted, that either Pope or Council, or both together, were infallible; yet, seeing Christians dispersed through the world, cannot receive the sentence of Pope or Council, immediately from themselves, but at the second hand, from such fallible persons as you: How shall they know, that you have sensed the Canon or Decretal aright? Or what rule of interpretation have you, for finding the true sense of these Canons, or Decretals? Did I not show you in my Fourth Paper, how your own Authors, altercate without end, concerning the sense of your Canons? What advantage then, shall your people have, by that supposed Infallible assistance, of Pope or Council? How shall they know, that such a one as you, who pretend not to Infallibility, is not deceived, in takeing up the sense of Canon, or Decretal, or that for base ends you will not deceive them? But Seventhly, did I not in a former Paper show, that your Tridentine and Florentine principle, of suspending the efficacy of Sacraments, from the intention of the Priest, doth destroy all certainty of Clergy men among you, so that none of you can tell, who is Pope, Bishop, or Priest? And therefore, you cannot have certainty of infallible assistance, attending any person, as a Clergy man, and consequently, you Romanists, can have no certainty of faith at all, the very foundation of it being overturned? And yet, you have the impudence to reproach us, as having neither certainty of fall, nor knowing what the nature of a supernatural assent is.  Quis tulerit Gracches de seditione querentes? 
Know therefore Eightly, that the assent which we give to divine truths, Is truly supernatural. I shall not blot Paper at the time, with the airy debats of your Schoolmen, concerning the nature of a Supernatural being. They who would recreate themselves with a diversion, may see enough of these needle headed nyceties, In Ripalda de Ente supernaturali, in Arriag. 1. part. Disp. 3. And Carleton Tom. 1. Disp. 12. No to mention others. Only the assent we give, is Supernatural, both Objectively and Effectively. That is, both in regard of its Formal object, Viz, divine revelation, or the testimony of GOD, that cannot lie, and in regard of the Efficient cause, namely, infused grace, which doth elevat, corroborat, and quicken out understanding to the production of this assent. Now, whether there be no more to be said, for the Supernaturality of our assent, which is founded, on the authority of Divine Scriptural testimony, then for yours, which is only founded upon the authority of your Propounders, that is, a Priest, or Jesuit, (for these are your immediate Propounders,) or at best, a Pope, or Council, whose Infallibility you can never prove, and concerning whose sense, you may fluctuat till you die, whether I say, there be not more to be said, for the Supernaturality of our assent, then for yours, let these who are rational Judge? But Ninthly, that I may cut off all ground of cavilling, whereas you propound the question thus, Whether a man can believe a thing to be true precisly, because it is revealed and spoken by GOD, unless he be assured, that GOD speaks by the month of him that proponed such a thing? I Answer to both the branches of your question distinctly. And to the First, I say, that if by Precistie, you mean a seclusion of the Means of interpretation, (for the question at present is of the sense of Scripture,) or a seclusion of extrinsic motives of credibility, you may know that we PROTESTANTS, maintain no such Seclusion. But if you mean the seclusion only, of any Vlterior formal object, into which the assent of faith is to be resolved, then indeed we maintain, that the authority of divine testimony, is the Vltimat formal object, into which, our assent of faith is to be resolved. And this seems clear from the nature of Divine faith, which in this, is distinguished from the assent of Humane faith, or purely Sciential. That Humane faith, is built upon the authority of an Humane testimony, and a Sciential assent on the Principles of reason; but Divine faith, upon the authority of Divine testimony. Should we therefore in the resolution of Faith, proceed to an Ulterior formal object; It would either cease to be a Divine faith, or else we should only proceed, from one Divine testimony to another: And so, we must either run In infinitum, from one to another, or else, rest in some last; and then, why not rather in the first Scriptural testimony, which by the acknowledgement of all, is Divine? Whereas the divine authority, of all your other testimonies, are justly questioned, and will never by you be solidly proven, except in so far, as they speak consonantlie to the Scripture. To the second branch of your question, I Answer thus. If your meaning be, that the assurance of the Clergies assistance, In actu primo, to propound nothing but truth, be a necessary prerequisire, than I simply deny it, and often, (though in vain,) have required you to prove it. Nay, I have demonstrated you to be involved in Contradictions, by asserting it. And if yet you will maintain such a thing, I shall but demand of you, whereon that assurance of the Clergy or propounders assistance, is founded; Wherein I believe, you shall never be able to satisfy yourself, nor any rational person. But if you mean no more but that, when we give an Assent of faith to an article of Religion, propounded by another, we must also, Simul & semel, assent, that the testimony which he hath given thereto is true: This is indeed granted. But from this it doth not follow, that the Previous assurance of the propounders infallibility, is the ground of my assent. Even as, when a Mathematician, demonstrats a proposition of Enclide, the sciential assent of the Hearer, is not founded upon the authority of the Mathematician, but upon the evidence of the Premises, from which he deduceth his Conclusion: Albeit the Mathematicians propounding the premises, was a mean to draw forth the hearers assent, and in assenting to the demonstration, he assents to the Mathematicians discourse as true. The same was the importance of that other example, of a man's assenting to the sense of a Municipal Law, given by a civil judge, though he had no previous assurance of his Infallibility; which example you strive to elude, saying, That assent was not supreme. But I desire to know, what you mean by a Supreme assent? If you mean a Supernatural assent, I acknowledge it is not Supernatural; neither did I compare the assent which we give, to the sense of a Municipal Law. and the assent of Divine faith in that regard. But if you mean, that it is not a Firm and Certain assent, but fluctuating, and doubting; than you speak falsely, and are confuted by men's daily experience. And herein only made I the parallel betwixt these two assents: That as we may give a firm and certain assent, Ordinis naturalis, to the sense of a Municipal Law, propounded by a Civil judge, without a Previous assurance, ordinis naturalis, of the judges Infallibility; so why may we not assent, by a Supernatural Act of faith to divine truths, propounded by a Minister, though we have not an Antecedent supernatural assurance of his infallibility, in actu primo? And it is a gross mistake in you, to say, That the assent which we give, to the sense given by a civil judge, is founded on his abilities, and therefore, that the degrees of our certainly is correspondent to the Stronger, or Weaker persuasions, that we have of his ability. I say, this is a gross mistake, for sometime an able judge may give a wrong sense of the Law, and a weaker judge the right sense, and the hearer, considering the evidence, which the wecker brings for his sense, may give a firm assent to the sense propounded by the weaker judge. Even so, a weaker Divine, like a Paphnutius, may give at a time the true sense of Scripture, when abler Doctors may give a wrong sense, and the hearer may upon good ground, subscrive to the sense given by the weaker. And consequently, it is the evidence which the Propounder brings for the sense which he give●, that is the ground of the assent of the hearer, & not the persuasion of the Propounders Ability. Hence was that of Austin, Epist. 19 Fateor Charitati tuae solis eis Scripturarum libris, qui jam Canonici appellantur didici, hunc timorem honoremque defer, ut nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Allies autem ita lego, ut quantâlibet sanctitate doctrinâque prapolleant non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt; sed quia mihi vel per illos authores canonicos vel probabili ratione, quod à vere non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt. From which is evident, that Austin did not believe the sense given by any Doctor, because of the Previous persuasion, he had of his abilities or assistance, but because of the evidence he brought for his sense.  
Thus have I examined your whole Paper, not misrepresenting your Assertions, as you do mine; not setting up a man of straw, and then fight against him, as your custom is; nor dissembling any thing of seeming weight, as you are not ashamed almost constantly to do. Therefore, if you have a mind to insist in the debate, let me once prevail with you, to leave your Tergiversations, and misrepresentations. Propose first my words faithfully, and then you shall have liberty to impugn them as hardly as you can; and I promise to you the like measure. If otherwise, I must again discharge with you, for to exchange Papers with you in your scurvy strain, will be but as if when an Ass kicks at a Man, he should kick at the Ass again.  
As for that boundle of Revile, against not only me, but our Religion also, wherewith you close your Paper, I will not defile my pen in resuming them. I can as easily, and with as little hurt throw them off, as Paul did the Viper. When I read them, I smiled and remembered that of the Poet, Claudicat ingenium delirat linguaque mensque. Yet if you suppose, that you have any advantage to your cause by this debate, you shall have free liberty for me, to transmit both your Papers and my Answers to Rome, providing you do it faithfully; and let your masters there judge, whether they own you thanks for your service. But I fear, if all these Papers should come to an unpartial Consor, he should remit them bacl to you with this superscription, Desperata causa Papatus, and send you to the Hospital of the Desperati.  
Think not strange, that this Answer hath been delayed a while, for I not only have many returns of duty upon my hand; but also, it was a doubt with me, whether to make any further return to you, upon the ground mentioned in my last. Yet at length I was moved to writ this Answer, upon the consideration of that of Solomen, Proverbs, 26.5. Answer a fool in his folly, lest he seem wise in his own conceit.  
Aberdene August, 9 1666. John Menzeis.  
POSTSCRIPT.  
Take in patience the blots and blutres of the Amanuensis, I am truly sorry, that it is not more nitidly written.  
The READER may perceive, how faithful a transcript of these Papers is here presented to him, when not so much as a word of Apology in a Postscript, for a blot of the Amanuensis, is omitted.   

The Jesuits seventh Paper. Answer to a sixth Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, wherein he labours to propped the truth of the Protestant Religion with two Shifts and Evasions. 15. August 1666.  
I Received your sixth Paper of the ninth of August, containing a mass and heap of digressions, copied out of controversy books, of misapplyed phrases, of gross mistakeing, and of injurious and railing words, where you are pleased to honour me with their Titles, Vir nequam, a sycophant, an effronted calumniator, a man of a prostitute reputation, a fool, etc. You have been often desired, and are now desired again, to give a proof of your valour, and to show, that you are able to put ten only lines in Paper to the purpose; observing three things, which every one will judge to be rationally demanded of you. First, That you lay aside all Digressions, that is to say, that you omit all these things, without nameing of the which, the present controversy may be fully decided. Secondly, That you omit all base and histrionical expressions, and contumelious words. Thirdly, That you omit all these things which cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion; but with this inconvenient, that it is equally appliable to prove a false Religion to be true. But since this reasonable favour cannot be obtained of you, you will give me leave, as I have often protested, and protests of new, that I will take no notice, but close misken all that is out of the way, and out of this our first line.  
The Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion, nor the Religion, to the which GOD hath annexed the promises of supernatural happiness, and conscquentlie, whosoever aims at eternal happiness after this life, or intends to save his Soul, is obliged in conscience to quit it, and to betake himself to a diligent search, where the True Religion is to be found, prescinding for now, where it is to be found, and insisting merely in this, that the Protestant Religion cannot be it. This is proven by this one Syllogism.  


That Religion cannot be the True Religion, which hath no special ground or principle, whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion, or to be a Religion, conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
But the Protestant Religion hath no special ground or principle, whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion, or a Religion conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD.  
Ergo, the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion.    
You denying here the Subsumption, were advertised of this one thing, that a true principle or ground is not an indifferent nature, but is essentially determined to prove and infer only truth, and so, not to produce any thing for a principle or ground, to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion, which may serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be true.  
After much fluctuation, and many shifting toes and froes, at lentgh you have pitched on two things, which you say you will maintain as solid grounds, to prove the Protestant Religion to be true, and to be distinguished from all false Religions. The first is, The perspcuity of Scripture, in all points necessary to Salvation. But it was shown you, the great juggling that lies under this answer. For first, by Scripture of which is affirmed, that it contains perspicuously all things necessary to Salvation, must be understood, the true letter, and the true sense of the true letter of Scripture. Ergo, it cannot serve for a ground to prove the Protestant Religion, to be a true Religion, except it be first proven, that the Protestants, hath both the true letter and Translation, and likewise the true sense of the letter. To this, in which the main point consists, you give no answer, nor brings no proof, but only, remits me to read your Protestant Authors, whom you call Champions, and who, as you say, have made all their things clear as the Sun. But wherefore do you not produce the reasons of these your Champions, that they may be examined and impugued?  
Secondly, It was asked, how you could so boldly affirm, that all things  to Salvation, or rather that all the tenets, which the Protestant Religion holds as necessary to Salvation, were contained clearly in Scripture, except first, Drawing op a catalogue of all things that the Protestant Religion holds, as points necessary to Salvation, and as contradistinguished from all other things not necessary. To this you answer now, that a Proposition in general may be believed, though the believer cannot make an induction of all particulars contained in it. So we believe, that all the dead shall rise, though we cannot give a particular account of their persons. But it seems this answer hath escaped your pen, when you were thinking on other things. For though I believe a proposition in general, when that proposition is revealed in general. But where is it revealed, that all the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds, for points nocessar to Salvation, are clearly in Scripture? For, giving and not granting, that this general proposition, All things  to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture, were revealed by Scripture itself attesting it; yet it doth not follow, that this other general proposition is revealled, All the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds, as  to Salvation, are clearly contained in Scripture: or that they may be clearly deduced out of things, clearly set down in Scripture. Ergo, it cannot be an object of divine faith, but by deduceing it by Induction of particulars. And to this serves your own example of a purse full of an hundred pieces of Gold; for though I may believe in general, that all the gold contained in that purse is upright gold, if this were revealed in general by a sufficient authority, yet prescinding from all authority, affirmeing this, I cannot assent, that they are all, and none excepted upright gold, except taking them all one by one, and putting them to the trial, because, if only one of them were not upright, the whole assent would be false.  
Thirdly, Though you say all things  to Salvation, to be clearly set down in Scripture, yet you require the due use of certain midst to attain to the true knowledge of their things, and being demanded, to specify their midst, and what you mean by the due use of them? And for answer to this, you bring now only a long Digression, about rules to interpret Scripture, slightin the main print, which is to show in this, a difference betwixt you, and these of a false Religion, and whether these of a false Religion, may not use as duly these midst, as you can do, for attaining to the true sense of Scripture. To this you only answer, that De facto, they do not use duly these midst, and, That the God of this world hath blinded their minds, etc. But what if they apply this to yourself?  
The second ground that you have pitched upon, to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion, and to be distinguished from all false Religion, Is the conformity it hath with the doctrine of the first three Centuries. But this cannot be a ground, distinct from the conformity which you say your Religion hath, with the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Because giving and not granting, that your doctrine had this conformity, you cannot by this prove, that it is a true doctrine, since by you All these were fallible, and might have erred; And conformity with doctrine, that may be error, cannot serve to prove a doctrine to be true. And if you reply, that though they were fallible and might err, yet they did not err because the doctrine they gave, is conform to the true, sense of the letter of Scripture, Ergo, the conformity with them, is not a ground distinct from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Or else you might prove the conformity, with the Acts of Parliament, in matters of Religion, to be a ground to prove the truth of your Religion, and a distinct ground, from the conformity which these Acts hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Ergo, to make good, that the conformity of your Religion, with the doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries, is a distinct ground, from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture, you must give some Authority to the Fathers who were then, whereby they were preserved from error, though of themselves they were fallible. And this must consist, either in some  quality inherent in them, or in some special  assistance, founded on Christ's promite. And here you have likewise to prove, that this intri●secal quality, or extriusecal assistance, did expire, and was extinguished in the end of The third Centurie inclusive, so that it did not pass to the Fourth Centurie, nor to none afterwards. Wherein I expect likewise some Blasphemy out of your mouth; to wit, that Christ dispenses the protection promised to his Church, that manner of way that natural Agents doth dispense their activity, within a certain Sphere, Uniformiter, Difformiter, producing more in parts near, and less in the parts more remote. But since Christ hath promised to be with His Church to the end of the world, and that the ports of hell shall not prevail against her, than the dogmes and doctrine of the Church, in the fifteenth Centurie when Luther and Calvin leap out, were as pure, and as free from all error, as they were in the first three Centuries, and the one may be called as-much in question, as the other, since both are equally founded upon Christ's promise, having no shorter Sphere and term, than the end of the world.  
I cannot omit by the way, to mar and disturb a little the complesance, and contentment that you seem to take, in dealing with your own shadow, fancying Contradictions upon my part, which are all founded upon your misapprehending, mistakeing one thing for another. For you suppone, that the knowledge of the ability and assistance in him, who propones matters to be believed, because it is prerequired to all Acts of divine faith, that therefore it is in itself, an Object of divine faith, and so you confound the Evident assent, and judgement of credibility, with the Obscure Act of faith, and the motive of the one, with the motive of the other. For though the Act, or assent of divine faith, cannot be had, except this other preceded, yet faith existent, hath its own proper formal motive, distinct from the motive of that other Act, and judgement prerequired to it. As likewise out of the fear of hell, a Sinner may be induced to make an act of Contrition, for his sins, though his act of Contrition existent, have no ways for the motive of it, the pains of hell. Another contradiction you fancy to yourself, founded upon another ignorant mistaking, as if I had said, that a point of Religion to be true, and to be conform to Scripture, were two Synonims: Since this was only said, Ad Hominem, and to oppugn you out of your own principles, who holds that nothing can be a point of faith, but that which is contained in Scripture, or in the written word of God, and so in this you do, as other of your Champions hath done, citeing for the assertions of scholastics and fathers objections that they make against themselves.  
Out of this appears, how true it is that was told you that you show yourself Altogether ignorant, of the nature of divine and supernatural faith, since that out of this, that faith hath for the formal motive of it, only GOD'S word and revelation, you infer, that it may be obtained and exist, though there not preceded a knowledge, that GOD speaks by the mouth of the Propounder. Yea, in this you show yourself also altogether ignorant, of the nature of our intellect, and understanding, who as it cannot but assent, when the object propounded is in itself evident, so it cannot assent by faith whether divine or humane, except it know the authority of him that speaks, or propones; and according as the hearer knows him that speaks, to be of less or more authority, he adheres with more or less firmness, to the thing that is spoken, because otherwise, our intellect might assent to a thing, though there were nothing to induce him, since here, there interveins nothing, to induce one to believe, but only the authority of the speaker. And what makes it to the purpose, the instance which you bring against this, to wit, That sometimes a more skilful judge, and Doctor, may give a wrong sense of a Law, and a weaker may give the true sense? Since it may be likewise, that an Old Wife give the true sense of a text of Scripture, and you, though both a Minister, and a Teacher of Divinity, give a false sense And yet it doth not follow, but the understanding of the hearer will be inclined more to adhere, and assent to your sense, though false, then to hers though true, supponing that there interveene no other thing to move, save only your authority and hers: Because, that which induces immediately the understanding to assent, is not the objective truths of things in themselves, but only, as they appear; according to that saying of Aristotle, that oftentimes false things are more likely than true.  
You can never end one of your Papers without some bragging, and you end this, persuading yourself, that your Papers contains such pregnant and convincing reasons against Popery, that if they were revised by impartial judges, they would turn bacl to you again with this superscription, Desperata causa papatus. But this must be believed, because you say it, and you yourself must be of a sweet temper, who can solace yourself with such dreams.   

Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, his Reply to the Jesuits seventh Paper.  
An Answer to Master Dempster the Jesuit, his seventh Paper, wherein he declines to have the truth of Religion tried, either by Scripture, or Antiquity.  
IT appears to be a true character, which an old acquaintance of yours, as I hear, giveth of you, that if you be put from your Common place, you signify nothing: And therefore, you consume a great part of all your Papers, in repeating, In terminis, your first Paralogism, together with some cunned scurvy preambles thereunto.  
You seem displeased, that I should have termed you an Effronted calumniator, etc. If these names be so unpleasing to you, why took you such pleasure, to practise the crimes expressed thereby? Why did you put a necessity upon me, either to brand you with such a black character, or to take with your false accusations, which no man, but he whose forehead cannot blush would have uttered? Did I not instance the particular Calumnies, Falsehoods, and Prevarications, whereof you are guilty? If you were innocent, why did you not vindicat yourself? But who can less endure the name of a Whore, than the veriest strumpet? What integrity is in that person, who hates Non Crimen, sed criminis nomen, not the crime, but the name of the crime.  
You have the boldness again, to demand from me Ten lines to the purpose. Must all these my Papers be condemned, as impertinent and histrionick digressions, (so civil are you in your compliments,) because your dull and lethargic head, hath not been able to examine The tenth line of them, yea, not one to purpose? Did I not tell you from the beginning, that I needed not Ten words, let be Ten lines, to answer all that you have said, but only these Two words, Nego Minorem. Now I give other two, which likewise might suffice, Nego Conclusionent, I deny the conclusion, in regard of the informalitie, of the whole structure of your Syllogism, which is the marrow of all you have hitherto said. You have bestowed many years, (if my information fail not,) in studying this your rare Syllogism: Can you not in all that space, have put it In modo, & figura? But it seems, you will take as many years, to prove either the Major, or the Minor thereof. But so much hath been said to these things before, that now I shall add no more, lest I should seem, Cum Batto balbutire.  
In my first three Papers, I required you, to prove the Assumption of your Syllogism. But this like a Thersites, you still declined; which I could not but look upon, as an evidence, that you succumbed in your probation. I did likewise appeal you, to produce a ground of the true Christian Religion, which doth not agree, to the Religion of PROTESTANTS. But neither durst you adventure upon any. Hereupon I might have turned my back upon you, as a smattering fellow, wholly incapable to maintain a Theological debate. But to render you the more inexcusable, and to convince all, to whose hands these Papers may come, how desirous I was to have the truth examined, I condescended Ex superabundanti, (though not tied thereto by rules of disputing,) to produce in my fourth Paper, Two irrefragable grounds, by which the truth of Religion may be examined. Viz, The perspicuity of the Scripture, in all things necessary to Salvation, And Conformity with the faith, of the most Ancient Christian Church. Hereupon I have urged, with all the earnestness I could, in my Fourth, fifth, and sixth Papers, that both your Religion, and ours, might be brought to these Tests, and examined thereby; namely, both by Scripture, and Antiquity. But you, like one who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self condemned, knowing in your conscience, that it is a wicked cause which you do maintain, have still declined. And the scop of this your seventh Paper, is yet to decline the examination of Religion, by either of these grounds. But Veritas non quaerit angulos. It is he who doth evil, that hates the light, Joh. 3.21. Yet have you the impudency in this your Seventh Paper, to say, that after many toes and froes, now I have produced two grounds; as if either I had delivered some inconsistencies, or had been driven to produce these grounds, by force of your arguments, or that now only in my last Paper, these grounds had been first produced: All which are manifest untruths. Is this your gratitude to him, who had so liberally gratified you, with the production of these grounds, When you were clearly at a Nonplus?  
The two grounds which I produced, I did prove in my Fourth Paper, to be solid, and sufficiently distinctive of the true Religion, from a false, and from them, I did demonstrate the truth of our Religion, and the falsehood of yours, (for, Rectum est sui & obliqui Index,) but you have not once dared to examine these arguments. While therefore you hold on in this your tergiversing way, it might be enough for me, to say to you with the Poet, Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua. Ought you not, either to acquiesce to these Grounds, produced by me, or to produce others more solid, especially, you being the Opponent? But yet once more, I offer against you, to disput the truth of our Religion, both from Scripture and Antiquity, and shall withal, examine the scurvy, pellucid, and tergiversing evasions, which you have made use of in this your seventh Paper.  
You repeat here again your three cavils, against The Perspicuity of Scripture, in all things necessary to Salvation, or rather, your three cowardly subterfuges, to decline a Scriptural trial; but without any confirmation, deserving a review. I should the more patiently have borne with these taudologies, had you been pleased, for clearing the state of the controversy, betwixt you and us, to have delivered the judgement of your Romish Church, concerning the Perspicuity of the Scriptures. I told you the judgement of PROTESTANTS, and show you, how they are injured by your writers. I required you, with the like plainness, to set down the judgement of your Romish Church, and the rather, because your Authors are found to be inconsistent with one another, in this matter. And though I have looked upon your ablest Controversists, namely. Bellarmin, lib. 3. De verbo Dei, cap. 1. Gretser, In defension capitis primi libri tertii Bellarmin. De verbo Dei, and Stapleton, lib. 10. De principijs fidei, cap. 3. Yet can I not find one Canon of a Council, produced by any of them, as to this particular. Would they not have done it, if they had any? Do you not manifest to the World, you play the juggler, when you dare not adventure, to tell the judgement of the Romish Church, even in that, against which, you do so eagerly cavil?  
You think you have disgraced all that I have written, by calling it A heap of digressions copied out of controversy books, I find you indeed, still better at calumniating, then at arguing. If my Paper did contain any impertinent Digressions, why do you not particularise them? But I have already unfolded the Mystery: That which you cannot answer, must be branded as a Digression, to palliate your ignorance. I acknowledge, I have improven against you, somewhat of the writings of Ancients, of Schoolmen, and of modern Coutroversists, both of your side, and of ours, nor am I hereof ashamed. This I hope is not the base Plagiary trade, which I leave to your jesuits, as being better acquainted with stealing other men's Papers. Have you not heard, how your famous jesuis, Antony Possevin, did steal from Doctor james a learned PROTESTANT, his Cyprianus redivivus, and put it in his great Apparatus, under his own name, for which you may find how sharply he is chastised, by Doctor james, in his excellent treatise concerning The corruption of Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome? Part. 2. page, 9.10. Go trace bacl all the Papers which I have sent to you, and see if you can fix any such trespass upon me. As for you, I confess, we have no cuase yet to accuse you of ripping up the bowels of many Authors: All the Authority, wherewith you have hitherto loaded us, is, Master Dempsters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You need not fear, that any thing which as yet hath come from you will be slandered, as Olens lucernam; you only ramble out any fleeing tergiversing Shifts, that come first In buccam, as a man, who minded not to dive into the controversy. However, once yet, as I have said. I will trace your footsteps.  
In your first Cavil, you allege, that The Perspicuity of the Scriptures, cannot serve as a distinctive character of the Religion of PROTESTANTS from a false; except I first prove, that the PROTESTANTS have the true letter, and translation, and true sense of the letter, To which you say I answered nothing, but remitted you to our PROTESTANT Authors. Here we have a new Specimen of your jesuitical Candour, for First, there was no mention of the Translation, in your first proposal of this Objection. But Secondly, to let this Peccadillo pass, how are you so impudent, as to say, that I had given no other Answer but remitted you to our PROTESTANT Authors? Look bacl on my Paper, and blush for your lying. Had I not first inverted the Objection against yourself, and then did I not Answer directly, that this Objection might have had some colour of reason, had I sustained the part of an Oppovent, but none at all, I being the Defendant, or Respondent? Did I not show you, that it concerned you to prove, that we PROTESTANTS, had not the true sense of Scripture, and that all incumbent to me at present, was, to answer your arguments? And the same now, I desire to be accommodated to the True letter, and translation, of Scripture. Prove, if you can, that we are either destitute of the true letter, translation or sense of the Scripture. What I said of PROTESTANT Writers, that they have showed our Religion, to be conform to the true sense of Scripture, (which indeed they have done, as with a Sun beam,) was not, that they in that had performed, what now I was tied to do, but as then I told you, that it were no impossible task, but had often been performed, though at present, I resolved to keep you to the Rules of argueing. Yea, did I not deal more liberally with you, and require you, to pitch on some chief points in controversy, betwixt you and us, and for your encouragement, promised, that I should not only hold the Defendants part? But you cannot be drawn out of your lurkeing holes, and thereby you discover both your desperate cause, and cowardly Spirit. Nay more, have I not in my last Paper, proven sundry points of controversy against you? Such as the Perfection of Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture, the falliblity both of Popes, and Councils, etc. Yet have you unto once had the boldness, to canvas these my arguments. Should I have passed through other Controversies, is it not like, that you would have waved all under your common pretence, that they were but impertinent Digressions? But though you had keeped silence at other points, I think not so strange, as that you could hear your Popes in cathedra and extra cathedram, charged with error, and yet not awake out of your Lethargy. I will mind you of a testimony of your Alphonsus à Castro, concerning your Popes, to see if it can alarm you, In lib. 1. Adversus Haereses. cap. 4. Thus he writes, Omnis homo, errare potest in side, etiamsi Papa sit. Nam de Liberio Papa refert Platina, illum sensisse cum Arianis, & Anastasium secundum hujus nominis Pontificem favisse Nestorianis, qui historias legerit, non dubitat. Caelestinum Papam etiam erresse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in Haeresin, Res est omnibus manifesta. Neque hic Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat, ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam & non ut Papam, qui in qualibet re seriâ definienda consulere debet viros doctos, quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini Definitio habebat●r in antiquis Decretalibus, in cap. Laudabtlen, titulo De Conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi & legi. So your A Castre.  
In your second Cavil, you allege (for it seems you dare adventure upon no more Syllogisms,) That before I affirm so boldly, that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture, I ought first to have drawn a catalogue of all these necessary points; and now you foist in a word again, which was not in the first proposal of this cavil: Or rather say you, a list would be drawn of all these points, which the PROTESTANT Religion holds as necessary. All the ansvere you bring me in making to this, is, That a proposition in general may be believed, though the believer cannot make an induction of all the particulars contained in it. Are you become so shameless, that in every step you must deal unfaithfully? Who may not see that ye Romanists are moved, by the same Genius with the old Heretics, of whom Austin observed, Hareticorum frontem non esse frontem? Did I not make Five Replies to this your Second Cavil? And you pitch but upon one branch of one of them, and that also, you misrepresent. I must therefore pull you by the ear, and remember you, that First I show, that you were not In bonâ fide, to object against the Perfection of Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to Salvation; neither could you do it, without contradicting the grounds which you had laid down in your First Paper. Secondly, I show, that this demand of A catalogue of necessaries, was an old cavil of your fellows, confuted by many; particularly, by Chillingworth, Crakanthorp, Stillingfleet, etc. to whom indeed I remitted you. To these now I add a very late, but learned Author, Master Tillotson, part. 2. Sect. 3. §. 15. In his confutation of a much eryed up Romish pamphlet, entitled, Sure footing, where he calls This canting demand of a Catalogue of necessaries one of the expletive topics, which Popish writers of the lower form do generally make use of, to sil up a book: And withal, brings in Doctor Holden, in his Analysis fidei, lib. 1. cap. 4. One of the great Patrons of your traditionary way, showing that this demand of a catalogue of necessaries is unreasonable, and maintaining it to be not only Impossible, but also if it could be had, Useless and Pernicious. Thirdly, I show from Scripture, and Augustine, that you falsely affirmed, that the Scripture did put no difference betwixt necessary truths and others. Fourthly, I show it was unreasonable in you, to demand of me a precise Catalogue of necessary truths, for proving whereof, I did coacervat a heap of arguments. And Fifthly, I show, that it concerned you Romanists no less than us, to draw a Catalogue of necessary truths, and that it would prove a more difficle task for you then for us. Yea, from your putting a character of necessity upon marry articles, which sometimes had it not, I demonstrated your Religion to be a false Religion, and your Church (notwithstanding all her great pretences to Catholicism,) to be the most schismatical society under Heaven; and remitted you to Doctor Morton, Voetius, and Stillingfleet, who had demonstrated this at large. Whereupon now I must mind you, how Master Chillingworth, urged his adversary Master Knot, to produce a Romish catalogue of necessaries, assureing him, when ever he received that with the one hand, he should deliver his catalogue with the other; but this could never be obtained from Master Knot. The like offer is lately made by Master Tillotson, to Master Serjeant, the Author of Surefooting; but though Master Serjeant have made the fashion of a Reply, yet hath he not adventured upon such a Catalogue. But all these My five answers you pass, (so accurate an Antagonist are you,) except one branch of one reason, in my Fourth Reply, which also you misrepresent: For you propose it, as if I bade granted, that a catalogue of necessary truths could not be drawn up, which you will not find in all my Paper. That which I said, was, Cannot this general be proven, that all things necessary, are contained in the Scriptures, unless a precise catalogue of them be drawn? And I brought sundry instances to prove, that an universal proposition, might be proven without an induction, and enumeration of all the particulars. Yea yourself here confesses, That when an universal proposition is revealed, or that revealed, from whence it may be deduced then the universal proposition may be believed, though the believer cannot make an induction of particulars. Whereupon I subsume, But in Scripture, that is revealed, from which it may be concluded by firm consequence, that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture, Ergo, by your confession it must be granted, that this universal proposition ought to be believed, That all necessary truths are contained in Scripture, though a particular induction of these truths could not be made. The Assumption is easily proven by all these Scriptures in which it is held forth, that the Scripture is sufficient In suo genere, as a rule to bring us to Salvation, which you will find accumulated by our divines, in the controversy, De perfectione Scripturae. And I instanced some of them in my last Paper, purposely to preoccupy this poor evasion of yours, though you have not had the boldness to meddle with them. Hence Austin, in Epist. 166. In Scriptures didicimus Christum, in Scriptures didicimus Ecclesiam. And, Lib. De unitate Ecclesi. cap. 3. Non audiamus, haec dice, haec dicis, sed haec dicit Dominus. Sunt certe libri dominici, quorum authoritati utrique consentimus, utrique credimus, utrique servimus, ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiaemus causam nostram. And a little after, Nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis Sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. And in cap 19 Vtrum ipsi, (Namely the Donatists,) Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarū libris canonicis ostendant. The evidence of these testimonies, made your own Stapleton, In lib. 1 De principiis fidei, cap. 24. To say, Ecct apertissime dicit Augustinus in Scriptures quaerendam esse Ecclesiam, & ex ipsis Scripturis demonstrari Ecclesiam. Hoc sane totum verissimum est. So sayeth your Stapleton. This truth is so clear that Theodoret was bold to say, Dial. 1. Noli mihi humanis ratiocinationibus obstrepere, ego enim in sola divina Scriptura acquiesco, & Dial. 3. Non adeo confidens sum ut ausim aliquid affirmare quod Scriptura silentio praeterit. And Austin, de bono Viduitatis, cap. 1. Sancta Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit. But perhaps now, you think to betake yourself to that subterfuge, which you foist into the second edition of this Objection. Giving and not granting, say you, that all things necessary to Salvation were clearly revealed in Scripture, yet doth it not follow, That all these things which the PROTESTANT Religion holds as necessary, are clearly revealed therein. But this poor evasion discovers gross ignorance, and inadverrence in you. For if you had remarked what I have said, in the explication of the terms in my First Paper, you would have seen this preoccupied. There I told you, that by The Religion of PROTESTANTS, we understand only, The True Christian Religion, as revealed in the holy Scriptures. And consequently, where ever these things are revealed, which are necessary, according to The True Christian Religion, there also the necessary points of Our Religion are revealed. And to evidence, that the Religion of PROTESTANTS, and the True Christian Religion is the same, produce if you can any one point, which we hold as necessary to Salvation, which is not necessary, according to the True Christian Religion revealed in Scripture, and I profess, I will instantly disowne it; and I know, so will all ingenuous PROTESTANTS. I Therefore warned you from the beginning, when you undertook to impugn our Religion, that you undertook the cause of an infidel, namely, to impugn the Christian Religion. Hence, some have well observed, that they who would speak properly, should not term our Religion, the PROTESTANT Religion, but the Religion of PROTESTANTS: It is not Religio PROTESTANS, but Religio PROTESTANTIUM; or the True Christian Religion professed by them, who do reject and protest against Popish errors and inventions. Since therefore, all the points that are necessary to Salvation, according to the True Christian Religion, are revealed in Scripture; as hath been confirmed by luculent testimonies, both of Scripture, and Antiquity, (for I will not be addebted to you for your Concessions,) then all the points, which the Religion of PROTESTANTS holds necessary to Salvation, are therein likewise revealed. And consequently, as you would believe all the pieces in a purse to be upright Gold, if it were attested to you, by a sufficient authority: So you may believe all things necessary to Salvation, to be contained in Scripture, this being attested by divine authority. Or if you will not acquiesce to all this evidence of reason, produce one article necessary to Salvation, or acknowledged by us to be such, which is not contained in Scripture. Let it be brought to the Touchstone and examined. But it seems, ye Jesuits are more exact in trying your pieces of Gold, then points of Religion. For your pieces of gold, must either have the Attestation of a sufficient authority, or be brought to the Touchstone. But you can take the points of your Religion Implicitly upon trust, and your interest so bribe's your judgement and affections, that you will not come to the trial, by which the cheat may be discovered.  
In your third Cavil, you had propounded sundry idle Queries, concerning the Means of interpretation of Scripture, insinua●ng That the use of these means, is inconsistent with the Scriptures perspicuity. In reply whereto, I First not only show, That the perspicuity of Scriptures, was nothing impeached by the use of means of interpretation; but also, did prove both from Scripture, and reason, the Scriptures to be perspicuous. Secondly, I remembered you, that your Romanists were as much concerned as we, in resolving the questiones Concerning the means of interpretation of Scripture, and besides that they were tied, to find out means for the sure interpretation of Canons of Councils, Bulls, Breves, & Decretals of Popes, many whereof are purpostie contrived like Apollo's dubious Oracles, to ludifie the Reader. Thirdly, I show that PROTESTANTS devised not new Means of interpretation, which were not still approven by the Christian Church, and therefore to avoid prolixity, I remitted you to Augustin, His four books, de Doctrina Christian●, and withal, to sundry famous PROTESTANT Authors, particularly, to Chamier, Whitaker, Zanchre, and Gerard, (to whom now I add, Doctor Strang, de interpretatione & perfectione Scripturae, lib. 1. cap. 8.) Where you might have found a full account, of the right means of interpreting Scripture, and of the right way of useing these means, and consequently, of the difference betwixt them that used them rightly, and others who do not use them duly. Fourthly, I resolved a Querie of yours, whether without the preaching of the Word, the means of interpretation may be used, and the true sense of Scripture attained. But of all these things in your reply, like a perfect Fuge bellum, you take no more notice, then to asperse them as long Digressions, about the rules of interpreting scripture: A rare and compendious confutation I confess. But if I did extravague in these discourses, was it not in following such a vagrant guide as you? Do you not play the Devil first to temp: me to these D. gressions, and then to accuse me for them? Yea, do you not show yourself a silly fool, to wound yourself through my sides. For if it be an impertinent Digression for me to answer your Queries, must you not be an impertinent fool to propound them? But perhaps you thought it your wisdom, rather to come off with this reflection of folly, then to adventure to grapple with these things, which would prove too hard for you. After you had waved all these particulars, lest you should seem to say nothing at all to that Section, you fall upon a word, which I spoke in answer to another of your judicious Queries. Viz. Whether these of a false Religion might duly use all the means of interpretation? To which I answered, De jure, they ought to use them, though De facto, and in sensu composito, they did not use them, which I confirmed by some Scriptures. To confute this my answer, What (say you,) if they of a false Religion say as much of as? And who questions but they may say it? Our lips are our own, (say the worst of men,) And who is Lord over us, Psal. 12 verse 4. Have we not sufficient experience of the licentious tongues of your Romanists? doth it therefore follow, that you do duly use the means of interpretation, and not we? Si accusare sufficiat quis innocens? We do not desire any man to receive our expositions, because we affirm them to be true: nor are we so brutish, as to suffer your Romish interpretations, to be obtruded upon us, on your bare affirmation. If you would come down out of the clouds, and not insist still on generals, you should find it is upon convinceing grounds, from the series of the context, other Scriptures, the Analogy of faith, etc. That we reject your Romish senses, and embrace these which are approved by PROTESTANTS. As for Example, there is a great Controversy betwixt you and us, touching the sense of these words of Christ, Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body. You will have them to be understood, in A proper and lueral sense, and by the Priests pronounceing, or rather whispering them in Latin, the Body of Christ, to be substituted under the Accidents of bread: We on the contrarie affirm, the sense of these words, as is usual in Sacramental speeches, to be Figurative; the Bread being called the Body of Christ, because it is a Sacramental signe, and exhibitive Symbol of his Body. You will find Armies of arguments brought by our Divines, particularly, By Whitaker, Chamier, Morton, Nethenus, etc. To justify our sense, and to confute yours, I shall at the time give you but a hint of this one. According to your received Romisn gloss, these words of Christ should be inexplicable false, and imply a manifest contradiction, therefore you Romish gloss must surely be false. The Sequel is clear: The Antecedent I prove. And first I say, these words of Christ should be inexplicable. Strain your wit, and squeeze your Authors, to tell me what Hoc, or the pronoun This can signify? Surely it can neither signify bread, nor the Accidents of bread, else the Proposition were not proper: For all know, that one Disparat, cannot be properly predicated of another. Nor can it signify The Body of Christ: For according to you Christ's Body, is not there until all the Words be finished. But the pronoun This, doth clearly demonstrat something. then present, when it was spoken. What therefore remains, but that with other your Authors, you betake yourself to the desperate refuge of your Individun vagum, Eus in confuso, & Contentum sub speciebus, and what is that, but something you know not what? Was Christ's understanding clouded with such confusion, that he knew not what he meant, when he said, This? But besides, when ever any thing is truly predicated of an Individuum vagum, though it be disjunctiuly enunciated of many things, yet it is determinately verified of some one thing, and , suppose the pronown Hoc. or This; were taken as an Individuu●● vagum, yet it must signify something then present, identificated with The Body of Jesus. But that is impossible, according to you, seeing Christ's Body is not present until all the words be uttered. More of the Vertigo of your authors, touching this particular, may be seen in the forementiond writers. But I not only said, that this Proposition of Christ, according to your Romish gloss, would be Inexplicable, but also False, and Imply a contradiction. For it implies a manifest contradiction, that a true affirmative proposition De praesenti, should produce its object. But this proposition, which must be true, as being Christ's, and which all see to be affirmative De praesenti, according to your Romish gloss, doth produce its object. For according to you, it substitutes the Body of Christ under the accidents of bread, either by Adduction, or Reproduction. Ergo, this proposition, according to your Romish gloss, implies a manifest Contradiction. The Major is clear, because, if a true proposition De praesenti, should produce its object, then in the justant of nature, wherein the proposition is conceived before its object, as the cause before its effect, the proposition should be true, and not true. True, ex hypothesi, for it is supposed to be a true proposition. Not true, because, not conform to its object: For it affirms its object to be De praesenti; yet in that Instant of nature, the object is not; for it is the instant of Priority before the object: And consequently, if this proposition, This is my Body, do substitute Christ's Body under the accidents of bread, His Body should be under these accidents, before it be under them. For it should be under them in the first Instant of nature, wherein this proposition is conceived, else the proposition should be false: And yet it should not be under them, because the proposition, as the productive cause of the presence of Christ, must be presupposed for One instant of nature, before its effect. But what speak I of Instants of nature? Is it not at least requited, to the truth of an Affirmative proposition de praesenti, that the object thereof, do exist in that article of time, wherein the Copula of the proposition is pronounced? But according to you, Christ Body is not under the accidents of bread, when the Copula of the proposition is pronounced: for according to you, Christ's Body is not in the Sacrament, till all the Words be ended. Therefore, the proposition according to your Gloss, cannot be true. And yet it must be true, as being the word of him who is truth itself: And consequently, it must be Ture and Not True. Your Schoolmen have perplexed themselves with these Aenigmas, but could never extricat themselves out of this labyrinth, in so much, that what one of them affirms, the other confutes. As these hints prove the falsehood of your Romish gloss, so the truth of the sense given by PROTESTANTS, is manifest from the Series of the context. For, if by the pronoun, Hoc, or This, Christ meaned the bread, than the sense of the proposition must be figurative: But by the pronoun, This, he surely understood the bread, Ergo, etc. The Major is clear, because disparats cannot be predicated of one another, but Figuratively. The Minor is easily proven: Because, what he took, blessed and did break, of that he said, This is my Body, as is clear from the Series of the context: But undoubtedly he took, blessed and broke the bread, therefore it was the bread which he did demonstrate by the pronoun, This. And consequently, the sense must be Figurative. Neither is this a late invention of PROTESTANTS. Said not Austin, Contra Adimantum, cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, Cum daret signum Corporis sui? That is, when he gave the sign and figura of his Body. And long before him, Tertullian, Lib. 4. Adversus Martionem, cap. 40. Acceptum panem & distributum Corpus suum fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, ad est, figura Corporis mei. Can Calvin, or Beza, have more luculently affirmed the meaning of Christ's proposition to be Figurative. I know your two Cardinals, Bellarmin, and Perron, have screwed up a multitude of wrested testimonies of Antiquity, as if the Ancient Church had favoured your monstrous sigment of Transubstantiation. But Spalatensis, Lib. 5. De Rep. Eccles. cap. 6. à num. 22. Ad numerum 164. (not to mention other Authors,) hath copiously examined, and fully vindicated all these testimonies, and clearly demonstrated, that the Church in the first Eight Centuries, was in the same judgement, as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, with the Reformed Churches. By this touch, the judicious Reader may discern, whether our exposition of that rext be not built upon solid grounds; The like might be showed, if our expositions and yours were compared, of other much tossed Scriptures, such as Luke, 22.32. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not Matth. 16.18. Upon this rock I will build my Church. 1. Tim. 3.15. The pillar and ground of truth. job. 21.16. Feed my sheep, etc. And this were the most compendious way, to try, whether your exposition, or ours, were the more genuine. This also was the advice of Augustine, of old, Lib. 3. Contra Maximin. Arianum, cap. 14. Nec ego Nicaenum, nec tu debes Ar●minense tanquam prajudisaturus proferre Concilium. Nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illus detineris. Seripturarum authoritatibus, non quorumcunque proprys, sed utrisque commun●bus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratic cum ratione concertes. It is true throogh prejudice, interest or blindness, men may oppose the most luculent truth, after all these means. But then the whole defect is, (as we have often advertised you,) Ex parts subjecti, on the part of the subject. And so much of your three frivolous cavils against the Scriptures perspicuity, in all things necessary to Salvation.  
In your next section, as you declined a trial by Scripture, so likewise you eat to have your Religion tried by Antiquity, and you pretend two noble shifts. The first is, that according to us, all these in the first three Centuries were fallible, and therefore, though our Religion were conform to theirs, it will not follow that it is the True Religion. I doubt, if ever any had to do with such a shameless tergiversing fellow. For First, suppose it were true, that our Divines did say that all these of the three first Centuries were Fallible, yet if you grant their Religion to be the True Religion, and I admit their Religion as to all essentials, to be a Test, whether ours be true, or not, with what face can you decline it? Know you not that Maxim of Law, Testem quem quis inducit pre se, tenetur recipere contrase. Secondly, how could you say, That we affirm, that all these of the first three Centuries were fallible, seeing in these centuries were the Apostles, whom we acknowledge to have been Infallible in their Doctrine? But Thirdly, by saying That we mantains, that all in these ages, (even excepting the Apostles, and penmen of holy writ,) were fallible, and subject to errors, you discover yourself, to be either grossly ignorant of the judgement of PROTESTANTS, or to be a base scurvy sophister, which will appear, by distinguishing two words in your assertion. For First, the particle (All,) may be taken either Collectively, or Distributively. And Secondly, Errors of Religion are of two sorts: Some in points fundamental and essential, some in points which are not of such indispensable necessity. This being premised, I propose this Distinction. If you mean, that we maintain that All in these ages Collectively taken, that is, the whole Catholic Church, may err in Fundamentals, and Essentials, it is a most absurd falsehood; for PROTESTANTS maintain no such thing. We acknowledge the promises for the perpetuity of the Church, Isa. 59 ver. 21. Matth. 28, ver, 20. etc. But if the whole Catholic Church collectively taken did err in Fundamentals in any age, than the Church for that time should utterly cease to be upon earth. It is True sundry of your Writers, either through Ignorance, or through their calumniating Genius, have charged this on PROTESTANTS, that they maintain, that the Church may utterly fail. But this is so impudent a slander, that Bellarmin himself is ashamed of it, Lib. 3. De Ecclesia Militants, cap. 13. Notandum (sayeth he,) Multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse desicere, nam Calvinus & cateri Heretici id concedunt. If therefore this be your meaning, you charge PROTESTANTS falsely. But if you only mean, that All in these ages taken Distributively. (remember that now we speak not of Apostles, or of penmen of holy writ, or of these who had an extraordinatie Prophetic spirit,) might err in things not Fundamental, this is granted. Yet this hinders not, but that the truth of our Religion, may be proven by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church. For though every one Distributively taken may err in Integrals, yet, seeing, All collectiuly taken, or the Catholic Church cannot err in Essentials, if the faith of the Catholic Church in these ages, can be found out in the undoubted writings of the Fathers in these times, then Conformity with their Religion will irrefragably prove Our Religion to be the True Religion, as to all Essentials. Yea, if from the writings of the Ancients in these ages, we can find what was the faith of any one true Particular Church, we may solidly argue thence as to the Truth of Religion in essentials. For though a true particular Church may err, yet so long as it is a True Church, it retains the essentials of faith, else it were not a true Church. This Distinction, which I have proposed, is not mine only, but of our PROTESTANT Writers, in this question, concerning The Church's infallibility. As you may see in Whitaker, De Ecclesia, quaest. 3. cap. 1. Doctor Field, His way to the Church, lib. 4. cap 2. And others. So that it is no evasion I propound to you, but the received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches; and hence the rest of this your cavil, on which you foolishly dilate, may be cut off. If we grant, say you, Any infallibility to the Church in these three Centuries, how did that gift expyre in the fourth, and after following ages? It is easily Answered: This infall blility which we grant to the Collective body of the Church, as to the Essentials and Fundamentals of faith, agrees to her in every age; else the Church in some ages should be utterly lost, But though we grant, that the whole Catholic Church cannot err in Fundamentals, be not so foolish, as to apply this to your Romish Church. You might as well say, that Italians are the collective body of mankind, as that you Romanists are the collective body of the Catholic Church. Remember Jeroms smart admonition, In Aepistola ad Evagrium. Orbis major est urbe. Only this I add, that though the Catholic Church be exempted from error in Fundamentals, in every age; yet the Church in all ages, is not blest with Equal purity, and splendour. For in some ages, the Integrals may be much more vitiated then in others. Yea, some particular Churches, may err in Fundamentals, and so cease to be True Churches, and many of these who were eminent Lights in the Church, may be smitten with these Fundamental errors, and the sincere Professors of the truth, may be reduced to a great Paucity, and through persecution, be scattered into corners, as in the days of Athanasius, Quando totus orbis miratus est se factum Arianum. Lest therefore you cavil further, at the restricting of my argument to these First three Centuries, you may remember the first occasion of it, which was this, as you will find in my Fourth Paper: I was speaking of the Ancient Apologists, in the first Three Centuries, who pleaded the truth of the Christian Religion against Heathens. And I appealed both to Their grounds, and their Religion in these days, that it might be tried, whether our Religion were not agreeable to theirs in all Essentials, and whether the solid grounds which they brought, for the truth of the Christian Religion, did not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS? This I say, was the occasion of limiting the argument to these ages; though it might have been extended further. Yea, and (as then we told,) was extended further by Bishop , and Crakanthorp, even to the Sixth Centurie; so also, is it by learned Whitaker, Contra rarionem quintam Campiani: Nay others have extended it to all ages. Nor need you carp, at the limiting of the argument to the first Three Centuries: For the faith of the Catholic Church in these Three ages, was the faith of the Catholic Church in all Ages. For there is but one Faith, and therefore, if it be proven, that our Religion, was the Religion of these ages, it doth consequently follow, that it was the faith of the Catholic Church in all ages. So that this is the most compendious way, to try, whether a Religion be the faith of the Church in all ages, by ascending to the fountain: I mean, to these first three centuries, concerning which there is least doubt made by any Party; and which was less viriated by superstition, or errors in integrals, than was the Church in some after times.  
I come now to your second Evasion, wherein you pretend, That conformity with the Ancient Church, is at least not distinct ground from conformity with the Scriptures; seeing the truth of the faith of the Ancient Church, can only be proven, by its conformity with the Scriptures. But the vanity of this subterfuge, doth easily appear. For First, whether it be a Distinct ground or not, yet if it be a Real ground, why decline you to be tried thereby? You must surely have an ill conscience, and know your wares to be sophisticat, that they cannot abide the light. Secondly, If these grounds be not distinct, how doth your Melehior Canus, In his book of common places, distinguish them, giving the first place to the Seripturs, of which he treats Lib. 2. & only the Sixth to Ancient fathers, of whom he discourseth, Lib. 7? Or how doth Bellarmin, and other your Controversists, ordinarily distinguish their arguments founded on Scripture, from the arguments founded upon Antiquity? But Thirdly, wholly to remove this cavil, I grant that the truth of Religion in any former age, may be proven from its conformity with the Scriptures, and therefore, that conformity with the holy Scriptures, is the only primary ground of discerning a True Religion from a false; whereupon, I did put it in the first place. Yet we may abstract, Pro hîc & nune, from this way of procedure, and argue from the faith of the Church in some ages, without proceeding at the time, to examine the truth of every point by the Scripture: And the rather, seeing in Scripture there are general promises of the perpetuity of the Church, and consequently of preserving in her all fundamental truths. If therefore we can have evidence, that this was the faith of the Catholic Church, I mean of the whole collective in any age, than I may conclude, this is the true faith, and the True Religion; and consequently, what is agreeable thereto, must also be the True Religion: for nothing can be consonant to truth, but truth. From this it appears, that sisting in the Religion of the Catholic Church in the Second and Third Centurie. as a Principle, upon the general promise of the Church's perpetuity, without a further progress, (for the time,) to examine the truth of every particular, it may become in some manner, a Distinct ground of argueing, from that according to which, every point is severally reduced to Scripture-tryal. Even as in Subalternas sciences, the Conclusions of the Subalternant science are made use of as Principles, without making a further progress. The Astronomer takes the Geometricians Conclusion as a Priuciple, not seeking a Demonstration thereof. So may the Divine in some cases take the faith of the Catholic Church, in the Second or Third Centurie, and argue thence as from a Principle; especially, when he hath to do with an Adversary, who may admit the faith of the Ancient Church, as a Test, and will decline the Scriptures, under pretext of obscarity. or ambiguity. Yea, (as I have said before,) A Divine may in such a case, argue from the faith of one true Particular Church. Suppose that an Original writ, were either lost, or blotted and blurred, from which there hath been several Transumpts taken; and that there were two persons pretending to have Transumpts, but each of them, questioning the fidelity of the others Transumpt. This Question could not be decided by the Original, it being supposed, either to be lost, or blotted utterly, and blurred, and neither of the two Parties willing yield to one another. But there being found another Transump, which both the Parties acknowledge, to have been the First Copy, that was taken from the Original, Can there be any way so good for deciding the Question, (next to the compareing of both the Transumpts, with the Original, if it could be had, or were clear,) as to compare the two controverted Copies, with this uncontroverted Transumpt? In this case, would not he who shunned to bring his Copy to the trial, leave a strong presumption, that his Paper were but a forged draught? Now though all the authority, which the unquestioned Transumpt hath, was derived from its conformity with the Original, yet in these circumstances, it may have the place of a Test, to distinguish betwixt true and adulterate Copies. The application is obvious. The Papists like old Heretics, accuse Scriptures as being blotted and blurred, yea as in a manner lost: The Originals, if you may be believed, being corrupted; albeit indeed Scripture is clear, and by the good hand of GOD preserved to this day. Yet seeing you sometimes seem to magnify Antiquity, as if you did acknowledge the faith of the Ancient Church, to be a faithful Transumpt from that authentic Original of the Scriptures, what more condescension, can we PROTESTANTS in this case show to you, Then seeing you will not be judged by the Scriptures, which are out Heavenly Father's authentic Testament, than I say, to acquiesce, that the cause betwixt us be tried by that Transumpt, which you seem to acknowledge? And when you decline this trial also, doth it not speak you out to be real Prevaricators and Cavillers?  
But because some may wonder whence it is, that you do not only decline a trial by Scripture, but also by Antiquity. I will here open the Mystery that lurks under it. Though you Romanists seem sometimes to magnify Fathers, Councils and Antiquity, yet there are none who set them more at nought than you, as, if you put me to it, I will make good by particular instances. And therefore laying them aside, it is only your present Romish Church, that is your sure Author-hold: And by your present Church, your Jesuited Party means only the Pope. I do not slander you: Hear your great Champion Gretser, who comes in to secure Bellarmin at a dead lift, Tom. 1. Defence. cap. 10. lib. 3. Bellarmin, De ver be Dei, colum. 1450. Quando Ecclesiam dicimus esse omnium controversiarum fidei juaicem intelligimus Pontisicem Romanum qui pre te●pore praesens naviculam militantis Ecclesiae moderatur: When we affirm (sayeth he,) the Church to be the judge of all controversies of faith, by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome, who, for the time being, Governs the ship of the Militant Church. So that there is no security for your unhappy Religion, unless ye be made Chancelours in your own Assyze. If it be asked, how shall any know that the Romish Church, is the True Church? The answer must be, because she, that is, her head the Pope, says she, is the True Church. If it be again asked, how shall it be known, that the Pope is the Head of the Church? The answer must be, because he says, he is it. But how shall it be known, that he is Infallible in so saying? The answer must be, because he says, this is his prerogative. And how shall it be known, that the Romish Religion is the only True Religion? The only plain answer is, because the Pope whose grandour is mantained thereby, says, it is the True Religion. And how shall it be known, that the Religion of PROTESTANTS, is a Wrong Religion? Because forsooth, the Pope, whose triple Crown is shaken by the Religion of Protestants, says, that it is an heretical Religion. Alace! abcel that poor simple people should be so miserably cheated and seduced. GOD I trust will err long open their eyes, to see these damnable impostures.  
You had asserted in your last, That every supernatural act of faith, must be founded on the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the Popounders of divine truths. To which in my last, I had Replied many thing; most of which (according to your custom,) you never once touch: I must therefore remind you of the heads of them. As First, you were demanded, who these Infallible Propounders are? Whether you Romanists can agree upon them? Whether you can produce grounds for their infallibility from Scripture, or Universal Tradition? I hope you will not pretend, every one of your Shavelings to be infallible. Yea, I brought luculent evidence, that both Popes, and General Councils, may err, and have erred. Secondly, I asked, whereupon the Faith of these pretended Infallible Propounders was builded, and wherein they differed from Enthusiasts? Thirdly, supposing Pope, or Council, or both had this Infalliblity; yet seeing the people receive their sentence, from the mouth of such fallible and fallacious persons as you, how can they be assured, that either you have not taken up the sense of their Decrees wrong, or that for base ends you do not falsify them? And Fourthly, how it can be known, who are your Clergy men, that are gifted with this assistance, seeing the efficacy of Sacraments, of which Ordination with you is one, dependeth on the secret intention of the Priest? But none of these do you once touch. Are not you fitter, to be a Trencher Chaplain to a Biggotted, and implicit Proselit, than a Disputant? I Might here also commit you, with the late Patrons of your traditionary Way, particularly, with Master Cressy, who in his Exomologesis, Cap. 51. Sect. 4. Acknowledges, That the pastors of the Church proceed not now as the Apostles did, with a peculiar infallible direction of the holy Spirit, but with prudential collection, not always necessary, and that to the Apostles, such an infallible certainty of means was necessary, but not so now to the Church. And in his chap. 40. Sect. 3. He acknowledges the unfortunatness of that word, infallibility, And said, that he could find no such word in any Council; and that there appeared no necessity to him, that any PROTESTANT should ever have heard that word named, let be pressed with so much earnestness; and that Master Chillingworth hath combated that word with too too much success. I Know Master Cressy, finding that this his assertion, had given offence to sundry Zelots of you Romish Church, published afterwards an explication of these words. But what an unhandsome, & disingenuous retreat he made, is judiciously discovered by Master Tillotson, In his book, Entitled, The Rule of faith part. 2. Sect. 4. Where also he shows, that the same principle of infallibility, hath been contradicted, by white, Holden, & Rushworth, the late pleaders for your traditionary way. You may see more of the Contradictions of your jesuit-party, who contend for the infallible assistance of your Propounders, and the late Patrons of your traditionary way, held forth by Master Stillingsleet, in his Appendix, to tillotson's Rule of faith, § 10. And you may try, how you can reconcile these your intestine discords, about the ground of your faith, before you expect others to close with either of you.  
But you not daring to reply, to any of these four forementioned particulars, study only (though in vain.) to extricat yourself from Two contradictions, wherein I left you enwrapped. The First was this. If all supernatural faith, be founded on the previous assurance of the Propounders infallibility, than the first assent to this infallibility, most presuppose the previous assurance of this infallibility, as being an act of faith, and not presuppose it, as being the first assent to this infallibility. To this you answer, not without your usual reproaches of ignorance, as if forsooth you were an illuminat, and profound Doctor, you answer, I say, That the prerequired knowledge of the Propounders assistance, (you mean infallible,) Is not an act of faith, but an evident assent, founded on the motives of credibility. But this miserable subterfuge, affords you no help; For First, either you mean that all the assent, which is given to the Infallibility of your Propounders, is Evident, founded upon the Motives of credibility; or beside that pretended Evident assent, you hold also, that this Infallibility is believed by an Assent of divine faith. If you mean, that it is only known by that pretended Evident Assent, than the Infallibility of your Propounders, should not at all be, De fide, or an article of faith. Consequently, it should be no Heresy, to deny or impugn the Infallibility of your Popes, or Councils, & so the very foundation of your Romish faith, should be overturned. If therefore you say, that beside this Evident assent, the Infallibility of your Propounders is also believed by an assent of divine faith; then either that Assent of faith, is resolved into the previous pretended Evident assent, or not. If it be resolved into it, than your Assent of faith should be Divine faith, Ex hypothesi, for such you suppose it to be; and yet not Divine faith, as being ultimately resolved into that pretended Evident Assent, and having for its Formal Object these Motives of Credibility, which according to you are Evident, and so not a proper Formal Object for an assent of Faith, but in very deed, as shill after appear, they are but fallacious grounds of this pretended Infallibility. If therefore again, to evite this Contradiction, you say, that this assent of Divine faith, is not resolved into that Previous evident assent, than that previous Evident assent, contributs nothing to clear the main difficulty wherewith I urged you, which was, to hold forth the Formal object, which moves you to give the first Assent of divine Faith, to the Infallibility of your Propounders, which I call upon you to do, if you can. But I believe you will find, that no ground of such an Assent of divine faith, can be assigned without contradicting either yourself, or Scripture, or evident reason. Let but the Credentials of your Propounders be impartially examined, and it will appear, that the Faith that you give to their infallibility, deserves not the name of a prudential Humane faith, let be of a Divine faith. Any judicious man, who is versed in your Controversy Writers, may see all the starting holes to which you can rune. But I will wait till I see, to which of them you do betake yourself, lest you should say, that I fight with an Adversary of my own devising. Now, only I shall desire you to consider this Demonstration, à posteriori. Your Propounders have certainly erred De fact. and Dogmatically, both in Cathedra, & Extre Cathedram, as I show in my Sixth Paper; therefore it is impossible to assign a solid ground, why their Infallibility should be believed by a Divine faith, unless your divine faith be of such a nature, that by it, you may assent unto falsehoods. But Secondly, I add this that the whole foundation of your subterfuge, is a gross falsehood, namely, that there are Motives of credibility, which do evidently conclude the infallibility of your Propounders. Produce if you can these Motives, and frame your arguments from them; and I undertake, through the grace of GOD, (Sub periculo causae,) to discover the falsehood and fallacy of them. In the mean time, lest you run from the point, let me remember you, that the Question betwixt us, is, whether there be such Motives of credibility, which do Evidently prove your Propounders to be Infallible? And therefore take heed you digress not to speak of the Motives, which persuade the Credibility of the Christian Religion; For the Christian Religion may be Credible, though we have no previous assurance, that your Propounders are Infallible. Can I find an evident demonstration, of the Infallibility of any Propounder, I should instantly captivat my understanding to such a Person. Demonstrat therefore from your Motives of credibility, that your Propounders are Infallible, and produce a solid Formal Object of the first Assent of faith thereto, and I shall ingenuously acknowledge, that you have made your escape from the Contradiction objected to you. But if you do not demonstrat their Infallibility, as I am sure you cannot, be you as ingenuous on the other hand to acknowledge, that you are shut up in a Contradiction, as in iron chains; and that thither you are led by the Principles of your Religion. From these things, the impertinency of your example, taken from Attrition and Contrition, may appear, First, because it is clear from Scripture, that Attrition doth usualy go before Contrition. But that an assurance of the Infallibility of your Propounders, must go before every act of Divine Faith, can no way be proven, either by Scripture, Reason, or your Motives of credibility, as shall be made evident, Solutione argument or 〈◊〉? Next, because Attrition, and Contrition, have distinct and assignable Formal objects, as is both confessed by yourself, and might be luculently also cleared from Scripture. But the Formal object, of this first pretended Assent of divine faith, to the Infallibility of your Propounders, is not assignable, as hath been showed already. It might here be a divertisement to the Reader, to give an account of the Vertigo of your Authors, concerning these Motives of credibility. They who are curious, may find a touch of their contrary opinions in your Cardinal De Lugo, tract. De fide Disp. 5 Sect. 1.2.3. But at this time also, I have purposely waved the absurdities, which our Divines have deduced from your Romish Doctrine, concerning these Motives of credibility; Because, I would keep you close to the point. And therefore, I shall demand no more of you, but that you demonstrate the Infallibility of your Propounders, from these Motives of credibility, which till you do, you remain shut up within the lines of that objected Contradiction.  
I Now proceed to the other difficulty objected to you, in expeding yourself from which you are as unhappy, For evidenceing whereof, there needs no more be said, but to propose the Aenigma, which you pretended to enervat; for you craftily wrap it up in silence. The Argument did run thus: If our faith must be built upon the Precognition of the Infallible assistance of your Propounders, the either this their pretended Infallibility, can be proven or not. If not, than the whole Romish Faith is built upon a Fancy, which cannot be proven. If it can, than First you were required to produce your Arguments for proving it. And Secondly, you were pursued by this Dilemma. If the Infallibility of your Propounders can be proven, then either by a Writen or Unwriten Word. Not by a Writen Word, seeing the sense of it cannot be known, according to you, until first the Infallibility of the Propounder, and Interpreter be known; but now that is supposed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very point in controversy. Not can it be proven by an Unwriten Word: Both because you had asserted before, That a point of Religion to be True, and to be conform to the written word, are Synommas; And because there is as much need of an Infallible Propounder, that we may be assured of the truth, and true meaning of an Unwriten word, as of that which is written. If therefore, we cannot know the sense of the Writen word, till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility, neither can the truth, or the true sense of the Unwritten word be known, till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility; and consequently, when the thing to be proven is his Infallibility, it cannot be proven at all, either by a written, or an unwriten word. This Argument you dared not to propound, and make a formal answer thereunto. But all you say to this Suppressed Argument, is, that when you affirmed, That a point of Religion to be true, and to be conform to the written word of GOD, were Synonima's, you spoke it only Ad Hominem. This is all your Reply, and suppose it were true, let any who hath sense judge whether you have evacuated the Argument. For you touch but one part of the confirmation, of one branch of the Dilemma, which is abundantly proven by another reason, which might suffice, suppose that which you touch were wholly laid aside. You are far from the gallant resolution of Alexander, who said, Nola furari Victoriam. Nay you are so base, that when you cannot solve an Argument, you wrap it up from the knowledge of the Reader, and having given a touch of that, without which the Argument abides in its entire force, you have the confidence to give out, that you have confuted the whole Argument. This is not the first experience, I have of your jesuitical ingenuity. But I must add, that even that which you have said cannot be admitted, as if the Equipollencie of the two forementioned Propositions, had only been asserted by you Ad Hominem: And the rather, because what you say in this, is agreeable to the grounds which you lay down in your First Paper, which there, Interminis, you affirm, should be agreed unto by all. Now the chief scope of the First Paper, and Syllogism, is to hold out, that the True Religion hath grounds to prove itself, to be conform to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And therefore, both in my answer to your First Paper, and in my Answer to your Third, wherein you had asserted the Equipollencie of these Propositions, ● drew an Argument against your Romish unwriten Traditions, to which then you durst make no Reply; albeit now (as if what you had then written, had been forgotten,) you would flinsh from what you had formerly said, upon this pretext, as if it had been spoken Ad Hominem. If you had said, that you had spoken that only Pro tempore, from your jesuitical principle of equivecation, when you meaned nothing so, I could indeed have believed you.  
Though you have bewrayed as much baseness, as I believe, ever man did, in so much writing, yet you have the boldness to traduce some of our Divines, (not telling whom,) as citeing the Objections of your Authors for their Assertions. But, Turpe est Doctori cum Culpa redarguit ipsum.  
Hath not the strength of your Romish Writers lain in misrepresenting both the lives and writings of Reformed Divines? Yea. your baseness in this hath stretched itself beyond them. How grossly have you corrupted and falsifyed the writings, both of Ancient and Modern Authors, as hath been demonstrated by Doctor james, In his Treatise of the corruptions of Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, by the Pastors, Prelates, and Pillars of the Church of Rom●, and by Cocus in his Censura veterum Scriptorum, Beside many others?  
You close all with a Tale of an Old wife. And I confess all you have said may well be reckoned Inter Aniles fabulas. Yet you have the boldness again to accuse me of Ignorance, because I cannot homologat your absurd assertion, That before we believe a Divine truth, there must preceded a knowledge that God speaks by the Propounders. Had you so often charged another with Ignorance, you might perhaps have heard from him or now, Sus Minervam. I doubt truly if ever your dsperat Romish cause. met with a more Blocksh Advecat then yourself. If I know that GOD speaks by such ● man, must I not Simul & semel, believe it to be truth which he speaks? How then were you so stupid, as to affirm that the knowledge that GOD speaks by a man, must preceded the be●●●f of the truth spoken? Were you not more cautions before, ●hen you only required the previous knowledge of the Propounders assistance In actu primo? But now your words would seem to require the previous knowledge of GOD'S assistance In actu secundo. For in propriety of speech, GOD speaks not by a man, but when he assists him In actu secundo. Is this the nature of man's intellect, to assent to a proposition, which hath no evidence in itself, without any reason? Why then demand you an assent from me, to your proposition concerning this Infallible assistance, (which I am sure is not Per se nota,) when neither can a reason be extorted from you to prove it, not can you solve the objections brought against it? Is there no ground upon which a Hearer may be convinced, that this is the genuine sense of Scripture, but only the authority of the speaker? Surely than nothing spoken by you, or your fellow Jesuits and Friars, can be received as a Divine truth, for you pretend no Infallibility: Nay your fallacies are become so notorious to the World, that it hath passed into a proverb A Friar, a liar. But perhaps you mean your Popes or Councils by your Propounders. Yet besides that your people do not hear them immediately, and their sentences may be vitiated in the conveyances by the hands of fallible persons, besides this, (I say,) must not your Popes and Councils, have a reason that moved them to own rather this sense of Scripture, than the opposite? Or else they must be perfect Enthusiasts. If they have a reason, why may not the same reason that moved them, move the people also, when it is sufficiently proposed to them? Let the indifferent Reader now observe to what fluctuating uncertaintes you expose your hearers when you say, that their faith must be resolved upon the authority of the Speaker, whether you mean Pope or Council or both, for I suppose you cannot determinately tell which of the three. Now how many things are here to be cleared, before the faith of the poor people can be at a stand? As First, that these whom you call Popes, are true Popes and successors to Peter, and your Councils true and legitimat General Councils. Secondly, that these Popes and Councils have an Infallible authority. Thirdly, That this which you give out is the true and genuine sense of the Popes or Councils. All which, while the World stands, you will never be able solidly to prove: And I do appeal you, if you can, to do it.  
But I must here reveal another prodigious Mystery of your Romanists. Namely, that what ever is proposed, not only by your Popes and Councils, but also by your inferior Clergymen, though by your own Confession Fallible, yet the poor People, who cannot examine by themselves the truth or falsehood of what is proposed, ought not only to believe upon the authority of the said Fallible Clergymen, but also Do merit by believing, though the thing believed be Erroneous, and Heretical. Hear this from your Great Casuist, Cardinal Talet, Lib. 4. De Instruct. Saterd. cap. 3. Si rusticus (sayeth he,) circa articulos credat suo Episcopo proponenti aliquod dogma haereticum, meretur in credendo lieet sit error, quia tenetur credere donce si constet esse contra Ecclesiam. I will english it, If a country man (sayeth he,) believe his Bishop, propounding some heretical doctrine about the articles, he meriteth by believing though it be an error, because he is bound to believe, until it manifestly appear, that it is against the Church. What a damnable Religion must this be, according to which men merit Heaven by believing lies? If this doctrine of Cardinal Tolet be true, that people are bound to believe your Fallible Clergymen, even speaking lies, and may Merit thereby; How dare you conclude, that our Faith to unquestionable Divine truths is no Supernatural faith, because our Preachers do not arrogat an Infallibility to themselves? Is it better, for a Romanist to believe a lie, then for a PROTESTANT to believe a Divine truth? Think you still to abuse the World with such prodigious impostures?  
As for your ludicrous Example of an Old Wife: We bless God, there are old Wiwes, young Boys, and Girls amongst us, who could instruct all old deceiver like you, in the true grounds of Religion. Did not Priscilla a poor Wife, instruct Apollo's in the mysteries of Christianity, of whose Infallibility Apollos had no previous assurance? Yet from the Scripture she convinced him, Act. 18.26. So that from this your Example, though brought in by you only as a foolish jeer, all that you have said may be redargued. If there may be a ground to assent to divine truths proposed by a Poor Wife, such as Priscilla, of whose Infallibility there is no previous assurance, than it is a falsehood which you affirm, that the Faith of divine truths must only be founded upon the Authority of the Speaker. But the first appears to be true, from the Case of Priscilla and Apollo's. A poor Priscilla may hold forth convincing and luculent grounds of what she asserts from the Scripture, when a Priest, A jesuit, a Cardinal, a Pope, an Annas, or Cajaphas, may obtrude on the consciences of others erroneous and groundless fancies. To this purpose I might produce many testimonies, from your own most famous Writers, as of Gerson, Panermitan, etc. But I shall at the time content myself with one, from joannes Picus Mirandulanus, De Ordine credendi, Theor 16. (Which though I have at the second hand, the author not being by me, yet have I it from so many good Writers, that I doubt not of the truth of it,) Quin imo, (sayeth he,) simplici potius rustice & infanti & anicula quam Pontifiti Maxim, & mille Episcopis credendum, si contra Evangetium isti & illi pro Erangelio verba facereut.  
I Have been more copious in this Reply, than your Scurvy Paper did deserve: yet if in this I have superogated, it is without the least tincture of Popery. You but play the fool in upbraiding me with boasting, or gloriation, upon the account of the frequent losses which you are left at. For I reckon it no point of honour, either to deal with, or to vanquish such an insignificant persons, as hitherto you have discovered yourself by your Papers. I have rather so far endeavoured to deny myself, as to be at the pains to give a check to an arrogant but an empty Caviller against the truth. But because Cepious Answers do oppress your dry and sterile brain, therefore I have subjoined a Succinct answer, confuting all your Seven Papers in two words. And if you find not yourself comperent to answer this Long Paper, in all the particulars thereof, without your usual Tergiversations, you may deal with this Succinct One. In the mean time let this suffice.  
Aberdene October 31. 1666. john Menzeis,  
POSTSCRIPT  
A Short Answer in two words to all Master Dempster the jesuit, alias Rind or Logan, his seven Papers.  
Nego Minorem Or, Nego Conclusionem.  
Aberdene October 31. 1666. john Menzeis.  
The Reason why the return of this Paper hath been so long delayed, it, because, how soon I read your Seventh Paper, I found that it ran upon the old trifling strain, and therefore, I threw it by me for sundry weeks: For it was likesome to me to be still examining your Titivilitia and scurvy Tautologies. Now therefore, either come to the point and answer Categeries, without your tergiversations, or else, get you gone for ever.   

The Jesuits eight Paper. Reply to a seventh Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, wherein is shown, that the pretended conformity of Protestant Religion with Scripture, is a mere imaginary and groundless conformity. 6. November 1666.  
This Paper was not delivered to Master JOHN MENZEIS, until November 9 1666.  
YOUR Seventh Paper did come to my hands the fourth of November, and I do not wonder of your long silence, of near three months, for it is patched up of so various and copious Digressions, copied out, as it seems, of Controversy books; that you will scarce find one of twenty, that will take the pains to read only over: And to make it grow, you have adjoined a long and tedious discourse, about Real presence, which appearingly is the substance of all you taught your Scholars this last Year.  
But all this your painful labour for so many months is lost, since as always I have protested to you, that I take no notice of things out of the way: Neither will begiune any other thing, before we have fully ended the main point.  
This debate was occasioned of a continual Railing, made by you in the Pulpit against Catholic Religion, but with such ingenuity, out of that your Chair of Verity, that in place of Catholic Dogmes to be impugned, you did often substitute and propone, in a ridiculous manner to the people Problematick opinions, holden by some Scholastickes and Casuists, as manifestly appeared out of the conference we had by mouth. Whether this did proceed out of gross Ignorance, or Malice, or out of both, I remit to yourself.  
Seeing that you did show so great fervour in scaring your Auditors from Catholic Religion, you were desired to confirm them in their own Religion, by producing some solid, but special ground and principle, whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion. And though in the beginning, under the pretext that you had only the Defenders part, you stood stiff, not to be obliged to this. Yet because, you saw that it could not consist with the reputation of a man in your place, to play altogether the Dumb, in a matter of Religion of so great concernment, as is the putting in question, whether the PROTESTANT Religion be a True Religion or not, lest this declineing should be imputed either to your ignorance, or to the want of positive grounds, after that with defuse digressions of all sorts, you did run yourself as it were out of breath, At long long length, you were forced to have your recouse to the Old jock trot, that your PROTESTANT Authors teaches you, to wit, that your Religion is proven to be true by this Medium or principle, because it is grounded upon Scripture, and conform to the true sense of the letter of Scripture, As containing perspicuously all things necessary for man's Salvation. This then being by your own confession, the chief and most plausible ground for the truth of your Religion, you are desired to lay aside all other things, & hold you at this precisly, until you make it good and proportion at to confirm your own PROTESTANTS, in their Religion.  
You say ●●en that your Religion is proven to be a True Religion, because it is grounded upon Scripture, and conform to the true sense of the letter of Scripture. But it cannot be shown that it is conform to the true sense of the letter of Scripture, excep first it be shown that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Ergo, to make this good, you must first produce some special ground or principle, whereby a judicious man may be reasonably induced to think that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture, that is to say, the sense intended by the holy Ghost. For as it is impossible that a thing be conform to a true sense, except it be supponed that there be a true sense, so it is impossible to show or prove a thing to be conform to the true sense, except it be first shown and proven that there is a true sense.  
Al then that is required of you, is, that you produce some special ground or principle, to make it appear, that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture, since all the rest depends upon this only one thing, and that the ground which you produce to prove this, be such, as cannot equally serve to prove a false Religion, acknowledged by yourself for a false Religion, to have the true sense of the letter of Scripture. And this incumbes upon you, if you will vindicat your Religion from this foul note, that there can be shown no difference betwixt it and a false Religion; And consequently, that it is impossible, that your Religion can be shown or proven to be a True Religion. And it is expected that you will perform this, with a clear Substantious, Laconic, and School-way, laying altogether aside your diffuse reviling Pulpit way.  
It is fatal to you, to close your Paper with bragging, and praising yourself, and extolling your own answers, and withal, to undervailne all that is brought against you, but this as other things do not reach to the main point.   

Mr. JOHN MENZIES Answer to the jesuits eight Paper.  
Some Animadversions upon Master Dempster, alias Rind or Logan the jesuit his eight Paper, wherein he so shamlesly tergiverseth, that he answers not to one word of that which was replied to him.  
HOW now you Thersites? Have you so shamlesly deserted the Scene? Is your Syllogism which Seven times you had repeated in Folio now relinquished, without proving either Major, Minor, or justifying the Form thereof? Had you nothing at all to say for your Cavils, about Acatalogue of necessaries, the Rules of interpretation of Scripture, the Infallibility of your Propounders, or your Motives of credibility, nor yet the ingenuity, to acknowledge yourself to be overcome by reason? Are all your whisper, why the truth of Religion may not be examined, By its conformity with the faith of the most Ancient Church silenced, and yet dare you not commit your cause to the trial? Is it a sufficient confutation of what was replied to you, to say, that the Prolixity of the Reply would outwearie the patience of the Reader? Would such a compliment have been taken from Whitaker, and Chamier as a sufficient confutation of Bellarmin's Vast volumes? What a lazy Drone are you, who could hardly digest the pains of reading two poor sheets of Paper? Had I not so far condescended to your dulness, as to give you a confutation of all your Seven Papers in two words? Can I be more Laconic? Did I not put it in your option, either to deal with the Large Paper, or with these Two Words? Can you neither read nor confute Two Words? Are not you fit to be a Neat-Herd, than a Disputant? Do you not deserve that very character, which Mel●hior Canus puts upon the author of your Golden Legend, Lib. 11. Loc. Com. cap. 6. Where he calls him, Hominem ferrei eris & plumbei cerdis, a man of a brazen face, and a leaden heart, that is, both shamless and witless?  
Do you not nobly act the part of a Champion for your Romish Cause, who in stead of a consutation of a Polemic discourse, striking at the foundation of your Papal Superstition, do substitute a calumnious reflection upon the first occasion of the debate: Who is now guilty of the impertinent Digression, you or I, the Reader may judge. All the colour you could put upon this shameless and cowardly tergiversing, is, That it seems, say you, These large discourses of mine are copied out of controversy Writers. But why would not you copy an Answer thereto out of your controversy Writers? Why at least do you not name The Authors with whom I had made so bold? Especially I having in my last given a particular instance of the Plagiary trade of Jesuits, and appealed you, if you could, to convict me of the like crime. If you put me to it, I will rip up yet more of their sores of this nature. Can the confutation of all your Papers in Two Words, be copied from any Author? But I had so browbeaten this cavil before, that like a self condemned Malefactor, who, (to use Tertullia's phrase), is, Acorde suo fugitivus, you dare not now positively affirm it, only say you, It seems. But I will deal more squarely with you. You not only seem, but really are an effronted calumniator. If you take ill with this freedom, learn henceforth to affirm no more than you are able to prove.  
Had it not been to clear a little of the matter of Fact, against these your lying representations, of the first occasion of this debate, I had not denzied a return to this your impertinet Paper, wherein you have not answered one word that was replied to you. But I am the rather moved to examine these your calumnies, because it is long since I heard, that Scurvy Lybels to this purpose, were disseminated by persons of your profession, and now I find, that by this your Paper, you do homologate the same reproaches. Yet no to notice these diffamatory Pasquil's, which no man durst own, I shall at the time, only discover the falsehood of some few of your allegeances in this your Eight Paper.  
And First, you say, That this debate was occasioned by our continual railing against your pretended Catholic Religion. As if it were our custom, to charge your Religion falsely with these things which you do not maintain. A great crime I acknowedge, if it were a truth. But why did you not for the satisfaction of the Reader, and our conviction, instance some of these falsehoods? Do you not hereby manifest the calumniating genius, by which you have been acted all along? Know therefore that we PROTESTANTS hold it not lawful to lie for GOD. Job. 13.7. The truth of GOD needs not men's lies to support it. Did I see that the PROTESTANT cause could not be mantained without calumnies and falsehoods, I should instantly disowne it, as not being of GOD. I reckone it my mercy, that I have been helped in some measure, to give a faithful testimony against the Abominations of Popery, and will account it my duty so to do while I live. I have indeed said it from Pulpit, and I hope I have also made it good, that your Romish Doctors have corrupted much, both of the Dogmaticals, and Practicals of Christianity. And what I have said herein, I shall be ready, through the grace of GOD, to maintain, not only against such an Ignoramus as you, but the whole unhallowed crew of Jesuits. This hath been often charged upon you, and demonstrated against you by our Divines. But because I see you are not for large Volumes, I shall remit you at present, only to a little, but learned tractare to this purpose, written by Doctor Jeremy Taylor, Entitled, A Dissuasive from Popery. But what? Doth a Jesuit accuse us of Railing? Doth not the World know, that  lying and equivocation, are the Piae frauds, the holy (I should have said Hellish) Cheers whereby their cause is mantained? Have they ever been able to wipe off those stains, which Watson their own Romish secular Priest fixed upon their society, in so much, that he is not afraid to say, that Lucian Machiavelli, yea and Don Lucifer might go to school and learn Satanical practices from your Jesuits. And as for you, is it not too too apparent by all these your Papers, that you serve for nothing unless it be to rail and lie like a Shimet? At arguing have you not proven, according to the Proverb, Quaesi asinus ad lyram? Remember therefore that smart admonition, Matth 7.5 Thou Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of there own eye, then shall thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye.  
You are pleased, Secondly, to say, That in stead of impugning your Catholic dogmes, (as you term them,) We propound to the people, and that in a radiculous manner, (so gravely forsooth do you occuse us,) Problematick points out of your Casuists and Schoolmen. If you jesuits were not Persons Effrontis impr●bitatis & linguae effravis, habituated in confident asserting of lies, would you not have examined the truth of this report, before you had given it under your hand? Whether we behave ourselves ridiculously in Pulpit, grave Auditors can witness. Indeed if the Supremacy of your Pope, and the infallibility of your Church, if your Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the Mass, it your Adoring of Images, and invocating of Saints and Angels, if your Purgatory, and Praying for the Dead, etc. If these I say, and such as these, be the Problematick points you speak of: Them I confess we do publicly propound and solidly confute. If these be only Problems, which a man may innocently affirm or deny, why for opposing these, do you Romanists anathematise PROTESTANT'S? Why have you brunt so many of them alive, and cruelly embrued your hands in the blood of so many thousands of them? Sometimes (I deny not,) occasions may occur of speaking concerning the particular tenets of some of your Doctors. But then judcious Hearers can bear us witness, (for we teach nothing in a corner,) that we no otherways represent these, then as the judgement of such Doctors. This appeared when I was confuting from Pulpit, that impious tenet (which I suppose is the Problem you hint at,) of many of your Doctors, That a sinner is not bound by the law of GOD, immediately after he hath sinued to repent. For in Pulpit I did only charge it upon many of your Doctors. But though we be so ingenuous in representing the tenets of your Doctors, I shall desire you to consider, what a stain and reflection these impious tenets of particular Doctors among you leave upon your Romish Church Are they not published with the approbation of your Authorised Licencers of books as containing nothing Contrary to the Catholic Faith? Are either Authors or Licencers of the books censured by your Church? Have not your Expurgatoris indices deleted much better stuff in the writings boon of Ancient and Modern Authors, whereof you may find many examples in Doctor james, his excellent book of The corruption of Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, part. 4? But the impious tenets or your Casuists and Schoolmen, stand uncensured with the approbation of your Authorised Licencers, to the eternal ignominy of your Church.  
But Thirdly, it appeared, say you, By the Conference betwixt us, that we often propounded in Pulpit, problematick points in stead of your Dogms. How so I pray you? Was there nothing spoken of in that conference, but of School-Problems? Did I not conclude the impiety of your Romish Religion, because it destroys all certainty of divine faith from your Florentine and Tridentine Canons, which suspend the efficacy of Sacraments, from the intention of the Administrator? For all certainty of divine faith according to you, Is grounded upon the infallible assistance of your clergy. But if Ordination, which is one of your Romish Sacraments, depend upon the intention of the Ordainer, you can have no certainty of faith, who are your Clergy men, or who have this pretended Infallible assistance. For how can you be certain of other men's intentions? To this you had not the confidence to make any Reply. Can you say that this is a mere Problem? Are the Canons of Councils problems with you? Is it a Problem among you, whether that be an impious Religion which destroys all certainty of faith?  
But perhaps you will say, There was another question tossed, whether a man after he hath sinned be bound presently to repent. I confess, and the sober Christian may judge, how much that man differs from an Atheist, who affirms this to be a Problematick point. Yet to put a stop to your lying misrepresentations, concerning this particular. I must crave leave to do these two things, I shall first give a true account, how that Question concerning Repentance, came to be moved at the Conference; and in Order to this, I must give a touch of the occasion of the Conference sit self. Secondly, I shall examine a little, whether that point may justly be reckoned among Problems, and how far it may be charged upon your Church of Rome. You may readily exclaim on these discourses, as Digressions, but I am drawn to them by your Calumnies.  
For the First, the real occasion of that Conference, and of moving that Question at the Conference, was this. In April last, I received two challenges from a Gentleman of your profession. The First was, that I had wronged your Authors, by affirming some days before in a Sermon, concerning Repentance, that many of your Doctors did maintain, That when people sin, they are not bound immediately to repent. Yea, the Gentleman was so confident, as to promise by the Messenger whom he sent to me, that he would turn PROTESTANT, if I would make good that my Assertion: To whom I answered, that I was sure of a convert if the Gentleman would stand to his promise, and if he would come to my Study, his eyes should be judge, whether my Assertion were true by reading their own Authors. Some days after the Gentleman came to me, not to have the truth of his former challenge examined, but with a New provocation to me, and to my Colegue Master MELDRUM who then was with me, to debate at his Lodging with a Catholic scholar, (as his phrase was,) concerning the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS. We told him, we knew how conferences of that nature had been misrepresented by Papists, and therefore to obviate such misrepresentations, we condescended with him upon some Conditions of the meeting, which you know were violated by your Party. When we came, after we had regretted the violation of promise made to us, I told, I had received the Two foresaid Challenges, and desired you who there appeared as their Champion, First to answer whether I had wronged your Authors in the forementioned Assertion concerning Repentance, and then we should willingly disput the point of Religion, not against you only, but against the whole Conclave of Rome, if they had been there present. To the First you refused to give an Answer; and as to the Second, you said, You came only to impugn the Religion of PROTESTANTS, but not at all to answer arguments against your Romish Religion. But it was Replied to you, that our Religion was not only the truth of GOD, but also was established by the Law of the Land, and therefore, we could not suffer it only to be questioned in such a public way. But would you answer us Six arguments against Your Religion, we should answer you other Six arguments against Ours. Or would you answer us Two, we should answer you other Two. But you stiffly denied to answer at all, till at length by the importunity of your friends you were moved to condescend to answer. Yet as to the Matter of fact, Concerning the Doctrine of Repentance, you utterly refused to answer at all, unless I would frame it in an Argument against Your Religion. Wherefore to gain time, and to satisfy the Gentleman, who had been my Accuser, I framed an argument in more general terms, concerning the Doctrine of Repentance, than I had spoken thereof in Pulpit, hoping to have had liberty thereafter, to propound Other arguments of more general concernment against Your Religion.  
The argument touching Repentance ran thus. The religion which teacheth that a man when he hath sinned, is not bound presently to repent, is impious. But the Popish religion teacheth that a man when he hath sinned, is not bound presently to repent, Ergo the Popish religion is impious. You admitted the Minor, and denied the Major, That it was an impious religion, which so taught. Whereupon I took all the Auditors to witness, and in special the Gentleman who had been my Accuser, that you admitted this to be the doctrine of the Romish Church, That a man who hath sinned, is not bound presently to repent. And consequently, that I had spoken truth, when I affirmed from Pulpit, that many of Your Romish Doctors taught this. But now, you being ashamed, that you should have admitted such a Doctrine, (which all sober Persons are ready to cry down as impious,) to be the doctrine, of the Church of Rome, you have devised this after-evasion, to term it a Problematick point. Whether it ought to be looked upon as a problem, I may speak a little anon.  
Now let the Reader observe: This question concerning Repentance, was only moved by me to vindicat myself from the accusation of the Gentleman who had provoked me to the Disput; hoping to have had occasion for Other Arguments afterwards. And therefore, when you had admitted the Assumption, that is was the doctrine of Your Romish Church, I would have left that argument, as having obtained all by it which I intended. Yea, I did propound the argument in larger terms than I had spoken of that matter in the Pulpit, only to extort an Answer from you. So that whether it be a Problematick point or not, you could conclude nothing from it, as to the ordinary strain of our preaching, seeing you refused to speak to it in these terms wherein we delivered it in Pulpit. Nay more whoever will term this point a Problem, yet you are not In bonâ fide to do it, for you did simply and without limitation at the Conference admit the Assumption, which did assert this to be the Doctrine of your Church. This I hope may suffice concerning the occasion of the Conference, and the moving of that question at it.  
I come now to consider a little of the Point itself, whether it ought to be reckoned as a Problem, and whether it be espoused by many of your Doctors, and how far it may be charged upon Your Church: In order to which I shall say but Two things.  
The First is, that this is surely the received Doctrine of many of your Chief Doctors in the Present Romish Church, That a man when he hath sinned is not tied by the command of GOD, presently to repent. For clearing this I shall not 〈◊〉 your puny and obscure Writers, but as many of your Grandees as I hope shall suffice, to justify what I have said from Pulpit. I begin with your voluminous Suarez. in 3 part Tom. 4. disp 15. sect 5 I add to him his contemporary jesuit of no less renown, Vasquiz in 3. part. Tom. 4. quaest. 86. Dub. 5. With whom you may join another of your Champions, Gregory de Valentia, Tom. 4. disp. 7. quest. 8. punct. 4. and Aegidius Coninck disp 3 de tanit. 〈◊〉 3. as also your famous Bishop of the Canaries, Mcl●hior Canns Relect de Paenit. part. 4. Yea, and from all these, you may second to your eminent Cardiua● de Lugo. tract. de pavit. disp 7. sect. 11 §. 1. num. 196. And if you would go yet higher, your Casuist Navarre In Enchirid. cap. 1. num. 27. Is not only for it himself, but also citys for the same your Rope Adrian the sixth. What should I blot Paper with the names of Bican, Meratins, Bonacivae, Layman & c? Take that one general testimony of De Lugo, in the place cited, Sententia har, sayeth he, Communis est jam omnibus th●ologis uno vel altero recentiore except. This doctrine is now common to all Divines except it be one or two late Writers. Yea divers of the forecited Authors, and others of the like stamp have gone a greater length in this unhappy doctrine, than I charged upon you. For they not only teach, That a sinner is not bound to repent immediately after his trespass, but also in many Remarkable eireumstances, when GOD seems to be signally calling for Repentance. As First, That a man is not bound to repent, when he seriously calls his sin to remembrance. Nor Secondly, When a grievous calamity is upon him, or the Country he lives in. Nor Thirdly, on holy and festival days, all these and much more you will find in Vasquez, Quest. 86. dub. 6. For after the enumeration of these, and other weighty cases at length, he peremptorly concludes, That the precept of Repentance never obliges Per se, that is, but by Accident, Except in the article of death. Yea there are of your Doctors, who go yet a further length, and Do deny that a sinner by divine precept is bound to repent at all, even in the article of Death, of which a little hereafter. What Christian ears can hear of these things and not tingle? May not this suffice to justify the truth of my Assertion in Pulpit, viz, That many of your chief Doctors maintain, that a man is not bound immediately after he hath sinned to repent.  
But I add in the next place, that your great Doctors seem to lay more weight upon this point, then upon a mere Problem, yea and that Your Church cannot clear her innocence as to this matter. For your Cardinal de Lugo, speaking of this Doctrine in the place forecited, calls it, Communem sensum omnium fidelium, The commone sense of all Believers. Do your Authors speak so of mere Problems? Nay the chief argument whereby the forecited Authors confirm this there tenet, is, from the Universal practice of your Romish Church. Because, sayeth Lugo, no penitent De dilatione penitentiae se unquam accusat, nec ullus Confessarius de hoc paenitentem interrogat: And he adds this reason, quia siz, nemo in praxi existimat esse novam culpam actualem ex dilatione paenitentiae. Hereupon the same Cardinal concludes the contrary doctrine to be Injurious to your whole Romish Church, both Pastors, and People. Because it charges them with no small guiltiness, seeing neither Delinquents in their Confessions, nor Confessors in their examinations take any notice of the Delay of repentance. I shall give you the words of your Cardinal, Minus digne sentiunt de Ecclesiae corpore cum velint ab universis Ecclesiae non selum subditis, sed Prelatis ex ignorantia omitti debitum. And this was one ground, whereupon in the conference I did charge Your Romish Church with this doctrine, when you would not speak to it under these restrictions, with which I had spoken of it in the Pulpit. And if herein I have trespassed in charging it upon Your Church, you may see, that not so much I, as your great Cardinal is to blame for it, and other your Authors, whose chief argument to confirm this doctrine, is taken A praxi Ecclesia. If this be the judgement of Your Church, why give you it out for A Problem? If it be not the judgement of Your Church, then how comes it that there is no notice taken of the delay of Repentance, in your Penitential court of Conscience either by Priest or People as your great Authors do testify? But that you may see that I deal not with you merely upon the testimonies of your Schoolmen and Casuists: Doth not your Council of Trent sess. 14. cap. 4. Manifestly declare, that Attrition with Sacerdotal absolution, without Contrition is sufficient, yea the words of the Council are so clear, sayeth Aegidius Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp. 3. dub. 1. num. 5. Us sine aperta violentia non possint aliter explicari. Therefore according to your Romish Tridentine faith, a man may be saved eternally without Contrition. Now let the world judge, whether Our Religion or Yours have the greatest tendency to Holiness. We say that an adult Sinner cannot be saved without Contrition; you say he may be saved with Attrition and sacerdotal absolution. We say that a man how soon he sins, Is bound to repent; Most of the doctors of your Present Romish Church, say, That a man is not so much as bound presently to Attrition, far less to Contrition: Yea your own greatest Clerks testify that in your Confessions, there is no notice taken of the Delay of repentance, either by Priest, or Penitent. Would not the serious consideration of this one particular, make any sober person whose mind is not prepossessed with prejudice, abhor Your Papal Religion?  
But it may be Objected in your behalf, That some of your old Doctors, such as Guliel: Parisiensis, Johannes Major, etc. Did maintain that a sinner was presently bound to repent. I grant it was so, but this makes nothing against that which I have said. Who knows not, that your Romish Church like an old Whore, doth still wax worse and worse? How often have our Divines demonstrated, that your Romish Church is much more corrupt, and gross in her Tenets, since the Council of Trent then before? Do not we know how often you set at nought Old Doctors, when they agree not with the principles of your Present Papal faction? Hence your Jesuit Escobar, Tom. 1. theol. moral. in praeloq. cap. 2. num 8. frequenter accidit, (sayeth he,) ut quae opinio paucis ab hinc annis in ●su non erat, mode communi consensu recipiatur, & è contra. Yea though you do vainly brage of your Unity, how few points of controversy are there betwixt you and us, wherein you are not sub-divyded amongst yourselves? You may find this, learnedly made out by Doctor Morton, in his Appeal for PROTESTANTS, out of the confession of Roman Doctors. I will give you but one Instance at the present. Your Papal indulgences are one of your now received Romish articles, and yet some of your Ancient Doctors mantained them to be but Pias frauds, mere impostures. So our of your Aquinas, testifieth Gregory de Valentia lib. de indulg. cap. 2.  
It may be Objected secondly, That your Jesuit Escobar hath disputed may safely go away, he is not bound to do it, but may without sin kill the man who intends to strick him, though but lightly: or if the Priest be consulted by another that over-reaches in his passion, he may flatter him, declaring with the same Tolet. Lib. 4. cap. ●3. num. 4. That if a man be in a great passion, & so transported, that he considers not what he says, if in that case he doth blaspheme, his blasphemy is not mortal sin. So may the Priest soothe them who commit horrid crimes in their drunkenness with the foresaid Cardival, Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 10. num. 3. That if a man be beastly drunk, and then commit fornieation, that formeation is not sin. Yea he may with the same Cardinal, lib. 5. cap. 13. num. 2. Declare, that if a man desires carnal pollution, that he may evite carnal temptations, or for his health, it were no sin. Time would fail me in reckoning out such Probable, nay Damnable Doctrines of your Casuists, according to which, your Confessors can determine exceeding many cases suitable to the inclination of the party with whom they have to do, either according to their own opinion, or according to the opinion of some other Grave Doctor. And what ever is delivered according to a probable opinion, may be warrantably practised, though there be another more probable. Quaelibet opinio probabilis tutam reddit conse●entiam in operando, sayeth your Escobar, Tom. 1. Theol. Moral. lib. 2. Sect. 1 cap. 2. num. 22. Now, shall your Casuists be permitted, to introduce such unheard of impieties into the World, by the pretended authority of Out grave Doctor, without check or control? Shall their Problematick decisions, warrant such shavelings as you, to encourage lewd persons to murder their Neighbour, blaspheme GOD, violate women's chastity, and cut off Princes, (for to that purpose also they have many Problematick decisions,) and when we oppose these impieties, shall we be rated as ridiculous Railers? Doth your Church of Rome think to wash her hands in innocency, as if she were not guilty of these impious decisions, because they are not ratified by the decree of a General Council? What, I pray you, bath she decreed against them? Your Religion, at least, is such, with which all these impieties are well consistent. There is nothing in your Religion repugnant to them. But besides, are not these Casuistick tractats, written by your gravest Doctors in the face of the Sun, under the Pope's nose? Is not this pernicious doctrine of Probables publicly avouched and known among you? Yea, are not these books approven by your authorised Licencers, who are entrusted to look, Ne fides Ecclesiae detrimenti aliquid patiatur? Your Church therefore will never be able to vindicat herself, either before GOD, or rational Men, from being an abettor of these impieties. Nay, this leaves an undeniable conviction upon the consciences of your own authors, in so much, that Dominicus a Soto cited by Doctor Taylor, in his Dissuaesive, cap. 2. sect. 1. (I am so fat from stealing, as often times do your Jesuits, that I ingenuously tell you when I have not a book by me,) sayeth, Non ilico ut ●●mo se reum sentit culpae, paenitentiae lege paenitere constringitur. Haec profecto conclusie more & usu Ecclesiae satis videtur constabilita. Where he charges your Church with this Prophans' doctrine, which hardens men in impenitency. But of this enough for the time.  
After your impertinent and calumnious Digression, concerning the first occasion of our Debate, and your Problematick points, (for my work in all these eight Papers hath been, to follow a roving Vagrant from one impertinency to another,) you claver to as little purpose concerning the sense of holy Scripture. Before say you, that our Religion be proven from Scripture, it must be first proven that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture. But First, Ought you not remember that in this written debate, you do sustain the part of the Opponent? might it not therefore be better retorred upon you, thus. Before you prove that the PROTESTANTS have not the True Religion, you ought first to prove that they have not the true sense of Scripture? And may it not be a convinceing argument Ad Hominem against you, that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture, and consequently, the True Religion, seeing in all these Eight Papers, you who appeared as the Romish Champion, to disprove the Religion of PROTESTANTS, have not been able to produce one Medium to prove the falsehood of their Religion, or of their sense of holy Scripture. But it seems that you would willingly forget that you are the Opponent. I wonder nothing, that you who turn the weighty points of the Law to Problems, should make a Problem of this matter of fact, how evident so ever it be. So miserably have you discharged the Opponents office, that you may truly be ashamed to own it. But Secondly. Can I make fairer proffers to you then I have done; Have I not offered to disput, whether PROTESTANTS have the True Religion, and the true sense of Scripture, both by Intrinsic Arguments from the Series of the context of Scripture, from parallel places, and the analogy of faith; as also, by a more Extrinsic test, namely, the conformity of Religion with the faith of the most Ancient Christian Church? But as a perfect Coward, who disinherited your cause, you durst adventure on neither of these. Nay, all your cavils which once you started against both these grounds, such as a catalogue of necessaries, rules of interpretation of Scripture, etc. I have so convinceingly confuted, that you have not dated once to mention them again in this your last Paper. Yea Thirdly, Flave I not gone a further length, and though I was only the Defendant, yet being outwearied by your cowardliness. Have I not demonstrated that in sundry chief points of controversy, such as the Perspicuity and perfection of Scripture, the fallibility of Popes and Councils, and in the matter of transubstantiation, that the PROTESTANTS had the right and true sense of Scripture, and that you Romanssts were in the trespass? But you as a Catholic Doctor have one Catholicon, by which you coufute all that your Adversary objects, namely, by calling it a Digression, for with that Reply, you have satisfied yourself throughout all your Papers. Only as to the last Specimen which I gave you, concerning Transubstantiation, you think you come off with honour, by saying, That it savours of what I taught my Scholars this last year. Are not you a brave Champion indeed, who are as afraid of an Argument that hath been handled in the Schools, as you would be of a Crocodile? What sport would your men have made, had our Whitaker, junius, Chamier, and Danaaus, declined to examine Beauties arguments, because he had handled them before in that College where he was Professor? But whereas you say, That the Argument which I brought against your transubstantiation, seems to have been the sum of all that I taught in the School this last year, you shall know, that I have not been accustomed to such laziness, as to drone whole years like you upon one Syllogism. As in these forementioned particulars, I have demonstrated that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture, and not you, the same might be shown in all the rest of the points of controversy betwixt you and us, and hath been abundantly done by our Divines. But to propose more Arguments to you, is but Margaritas porco projicere. For it would seem you dare grapple with none of them. Fourthly, I must advertise you of a Radical error, which leads you into many more. For you seem still to suppose, that who ever are a true Church, must have one general ground, from which the truth of all the points of Religion, which such a society do own, may be demonstrated, without an examination of particulars. And this, if I mistake not, is your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leads you into all the rest of your errors. And therefore you still wave the examination of particulars, and call for such a general ground. But in this you show extreme baseness, that you neither prove the necessity of such a Principle, nor yet produce that Principle, by which your and our Religion is to be examined. Only you insist still upon one general false Hypothesis, as if it were an undeniable Axiom, and a Datum. Whereas in very truth, a true Church may maintain the fundamentals of Christianity, and yet alas! have the Tares of some errors mingled with the Wheat, as is largely demonstrated by our Divines, in that Question, Num Ecclesia possit errare. And therefore, there is not one General Ground to be expected, proving that all the points of Religion mantained by such a society are truth, without examining particulars. And this may be strongly confirmed Ad Hominem against you: For if there were any such Commone Ground, it would be the Infallibility of your Propounders, but not this as I have proven in my former Papers. Nay, I have so sound cudgeled this your Romish principle in my Last, that you durst not once mention it in this your Eight Paper. How ever if there be any ground, which you suppose to prove the truth of Religion, as a Test which none can justly decline, I appeal you to produce it, and I undertake by the help of GOD to show, that either it is a false ground, or else, that it agrees to the PROTESTANT Religion. Fifthly, this Assertion of yours, That before we c●in prove the truth of our Religion from Scripture, we ought first to prove that we have the true sense of Scripture, had need of a very favourable and benign interpretation, else it is perfect nonsense, and a very contradiction. For if you mean by our having the true sense of Scripture, that our Religion is contained in Scripture, as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost; then if we must prove, that we have the true sense of Scripture, before we prove that we have the True Religion, we must prove we have the true Religion, before we prove that we have the true Religion: A noble stick of Romish nonsense. Sixthly, how easy were it to demonstrate against you Romanists, that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture, seeing in most of all the Positives of our Religion, you do agree with us; as, that there is a GOD, that he is to be adored, and that there are three Persons, etc. Consequently, The PROTESTANTS sense of Scripture must be the true sense, else your Religion cannot be true. You must either acknowledge that we have the true sense of Scripture, or condemn your own Religion. The chief controversy that remains betwixt you and us, is, concerning your supernumerary Additions, as, whether not only GOD is to be adored, but also Images, and Crosses, and not only GOD is to be invocated, but also Saints, and Angels, etc. That is, whether there be so many more supernumerary senses of Scripture, besides those which PROTESTANTS maintain, and you Papists dare not deny: Whether I say, besides these, there be other senses of Scripture, mantained by you Romanists, and denied by us. Ought not you then to prove these your supernumerary senses? And are not we sufficiently warranted to adhere to the Negative, except there be solid grounds for these Superadded sexses, which I believe, neither you, nor the whole salb: of Jesuits shall be able to show, though you get a superaddition of all Lucifer's Acumen. But Seventhly and Lastly, Seeing nothing will satisfy you, unless I, though only the Defendant, do also prove against you the Negative, that is, that not only Our sense of Scripture is true, but also, that these Your superadded and supernumerary senses are not true; therefore, to draw you, if it be possible our of your lurking holes, I will try you by this Argument. The sense of Scripture given by your present Romish Church, in many things contradicts the sense given by the Ancient Romish Church, Ergo, the sense put upon Scripture by your Present Romish Church, in many things cannot be true. The Sequel is clear, because two contradictories cannot be true. If therefore, you confess that the Ancient Romish Church had the true sense of Scripture, which ye must do, or else destroy the great foundation of your Religion, namely, the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome in all ages, then wherein you contradict the Ancient Romish Church, therein surely you deviat from the true sense of Scripture. It remains therefore only, that I confirm the Antecedent, which I do by a few clear Instances.  
Instance first, Your present Romish Church mantains that Images are to be adored. Not so the Ancient Romish Church. As appears by the Verdict of Pope Gregory the first, concerning the deed of Serenus, Bishop of Massils', for breaking the Images which he saw abused to Idolatry, Lib. 9 epist. 9 Et quideus quia eas adorari vetuisses emnino laudamus. Hereupon your Cassander, in Consult. art. 21. De picturis, sayeth he, Quae fuerit mens & sententia Rom ivae Ecclesiae adhuc aetate Gregorii satis ex ejus scriptis manifest 'em est, viz. Ideo hiberi picturas, non quidem ut colantur & adorentur, sed ut imperiti picturis inspiciendis haud aliter as literis legendis rerum gestarum admonerentur. Yea the Council of Eliberis, cox. 36. More ancient, as is supposed, than the Nicen, expressly prohibited the drawing of pictures in Churches. But to manifest how little regard you Romanists have to Antiquity, when it plays not to your Tune, your Melchior Canus, lib. 5. loc. Cont. cap. 4. Speaking of this Ancient Canon, says, Lex illa non imprudenter modo, verum eti●●● impie a concilio Elibertino est lata de tollendis imaginibus.  
Inst. 2. Your present Romish Church pantainet that prodigious and bloody tenet of Iransubstantiation in the Sacranent. Not so the Ancient Romish Church. As appearet by the with●g of Gelasius Bishop of Rome contra Nestor. Et Eutych. in. tom 4. biblioth Patrum. where expressly he says, Non desinit substantia panis & vini. This testimony is so luculent, that your Cardinals Bellarmine, and Barronius, would question whether that Tractat were written by Gelasius Bishop of Rome, although it pass under his name in Bibliotheca Patrum, and would ascrive it to another Gelasius Cyzicenus, or Caesariensis. But you may see these allegeances learnedly consured by Doctor john Forbes of Corse, in his justruc. historico. theol. lib. 11. cap. 16. And giving but not granting, that there allegeances were true, yet that Gelasius Cyzicenus as also Caesariensis, are acknowledged to be Catholic authors, and more ancient than Gelasins Bishop of Rome. And the same which Gelasius asserts of the tem ●oi●g of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, is affirmed by other ancient and Catholic Authors, particularly, by T●endoret dialog. 2. Hence your own Scotus, if Bellarmine may be credited, Lab. 3. ‛ De Eu●har. cap. 23. Acknowledged that Transubstantiation was no article of saith, before the late Lateran Council, under Innocent the th●d, Anno. 1215.  
Inst. 3. Your present Romish Church mantaines, the publick●solemne and ordinary celebration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under one kind. Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appears by Pope Leo the first, who in his Se●m. 4. de quadragesim: condemns the partaking of the Bread wi●● out die Cup, as a Manichean abomination. Hence your Cassan●er in consult, art. 21, De administratione sacro sancti sacraments Eucharistiassatis compertum est Vniversalem Christs Ecclesiam in hanc usque diem, Occidentaelem vero, seu Romanam mille ampi●n● à Christ, annis, in solcr. ni praesertim & ordinaria hujus Sacraments dess ensatione utrainque paris & vins speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christ's mer●br is exh●lu●sse, ●d quod ex ●●umeris veterum Scriptorum tam Graecorum: quam latinerum testimon●● manisestum est. Bus seeing I mentioned Pope Leo's sermons, let non-member you that Ancient Bishops of Rome, such as Lce and Gregory, etc. were Preaching Bishops; not so your Present Popes. Yea your Bellarmin, to apolog z● for these your Idol shepherds, hath not spared to say, Lib. 3. De Pont. Rom. cap 24. Non tenentur Pontifices per se concionars— Satis est st curent per alios ista prastari. If they Preach only by Proxies, take heed they go not to Heaven, only by prexies also. Have you not heard how your Espencaus, and others of the more moderate sort among you, have bitterly lamented this profane and lazy desuetud of preaching in your Popes.  
Inst. 4. Your present Romish Church mantaines, the Pope's universal suprcamacie and his Title of universal Bishop. Not so the Ancient Romish Church. As appears by Pope Gregorte the first, his many invectives against that title, as a title of Novelty, Error, Impiery, Blasphemy, etc. I give you but two testimonies from him. I be one is, In lib. 6. Aepist. 30. Ego fidenter dico, quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. The other is, In lib. 4. Aepist 36. Nullus decessorum meorum hoc prophano vocabulo universalis Episcopi uti consensit. Thus your very Popedom itself, whose vitals seem to consist in this Universal supremacy, is condemned by the Ancient Church of Rome. Hence Cyprian with eighty and seven Bishops in an African council, sayeth, Neque quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore collegas suos ad obsequends necessitatem adigu: Where he calls it a tyrannical terror, for one Bishop to impose on others.  
Inst. 5. Your present Romish Church mantaines, the Apocryphal books to be canonical, and of equal authority with the undoubted Seriptures of GOD. Not so the Ancient Romish Church. As any ears by lerome and Gregory, if your own Occam may be credited, In Dialog part 3. lib. 3. can. 16. Secundum Hieronymum. sayeth he, Et Gregorium liber ludith Tobiae & Maccabiorum, Ecclesiasticus, & liber sapientiae non sunt recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fids. This same you will find copi●●sl. de●●onstrated by Doctor Cousin in his Scholastical history of the canon of Scripture.  
Inst. 6. You Jesuits, who are the prevalent faction at the present in your Romish Church, and your Canonists maintain the dominion and jurisdiction of your Pape over Princes. So did not the Ancient Romish Church. As appears by Pope Gregory the first, who thus writer to the Emperor Maurice, lib. 2. epist. 61. Sacerdotes meos tuae manus commisi.— Utrobique ergo quae debui exsolvi, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro DEO quod sensi minime tacui. Know you not Bernard's inference from the Apostles word, Rom. 13.1. (Let every Soul be subject to the higher Poriers,) writing to a great man of your Romish Church, Siomnis anima tum vestra, quis vos excipit ex universitate, si quis tentat excipere tentat decipere. And have you not heard of Chrysostoms' enumeration long before him, In epist. ad Rom. cap. 13. hom. 23. Sive Apostolus sis, sive Propheta, sive Evangelista, sive Sacerdos subditus sis.  
Inst. 7. Your present Romish Church mantaines Papal indulgences, for easing souls under the pains of Purgatory. Not so the Ancient Romish Church. For there is no mention of such indulgences in all Antiquity. Nay so novel is that invention, that they are not mentioned either by Gratian, or Lombard, who were so very diligent in gathering up all your Romish chaff and stubble. Hence your Durand in 4. sent. disp. 20. quaest. 3. §. 4. Sayeth, De indulgentiis pauca dici pissunt per certitudinem, quia nec Scriptura express de eyes loquitur.— Sancti etiam Ambrose, Hil. rius, Augustinus, Hieronimus, minime loquuntur de indulgentia, And your Aiphonsus à Castro, lib. 8. de Haeres. Tit. Indulgentiae. ●mer omnes res, (sayeth●●,) De quilus in hoc opere disputamus, nulla est qu in minus aperte s●●crae literae preacquaint, & de qua minus vetusti scriptores dixe●int. And your Rassensis, contra Lutherum, art. 18. Quis jam mirari potest, quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit indulgenti trum 〈◊〉? Where he plainly confesses, that there was no use for these Indulgerces in the prin●inve Church. Yea, your Agrippa, de vanitate seien. cap. 61. Is bold to dore●mine the first broacher of this impierie, namely, Bomsare the eight, who lived a thousand and three hundred years after Christ. He was the first, sayeth Agrippa, who extended Indulgences to Purgatory. I know Bellarmine, Lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 3. and other Your Romish Authors, that they might seem to lay some claim to Antiquity, allege, that Gregory the first give indulgences In diebus stationum. And for this they cue Aquinas and Altisiodorensis. But you may see this allegiance judiciously confuted by Doctor John Forbes, in his Instruct historico-theol. lib. 12. cap. 8. §. 13. For though it were as they affirm, it would fall short of Primitive Antiquity; Gregory living about six hundred years after Christ. But no such thing is affirmed by Gregory himself in all his writings, or by any contemporary Author, yea, or by any credible Historian, for the space of other six hundred years thereafter. What credit then is to be given to two of your Superstitious-schoolmen, who lived above six hundred years after Gregory? Especially seeing to these, other Schoolmen of eminent fame testifying the contrary, are opposed by our Authors, as particularly, by Doctor Morton, in his Appeal lib. 1. cap. 2. sect. 20. and by Gerard, tom. 5. loc. de Eccles. cap. 11. sect. 6. §. 206. your great Autoninus, whom also youn have Sainted, is cited Part. 1. sum. titul. 10. cap. 3. saying, De ind dgentiys nibil express habemus, nec in scriptures, necex dictis antiqu rum doctorum. Chemnitius produceth the like testimonies out of Magister Augelus, or as some writ him Angularis, and Sylvester Prieras, which Bellarmine in his Reply to Chemnitius testimonies Lib. 2. the indulg. cap. 17. doth quite and quietly omit. They that●vo ●● infer any thing conceraing Indulgences, as extended to Purgatory, from the Stations used in the Aucient Church, discover them elves to be grossly agnorant of the nature of Stations amonest the Ancients, as may be seen in Doctor John Forbes, his Inst●uc. hist●● 〈…〉 cit. §. 14.  
Should I enumerate more Irslances. wherein your Present Romish Church is found 〈…〉 the Ancient Romish Church, and to other Ancient 〈…〉, I should perhaps ●tempr your patience too much, for 〈◊〉 to be very sher●o●●●thed. Only now from these to 〈◊〉 let me renew my Argument this. If the Ancient Romish Church And the tr●e sense of holy Scripture, as you dare not deny, then surdly your Present Romish Church in many things hath not the true sonse of Scripture: Seeing the sense of your present ROMISH Church, is contradictory in many things to the the sense of the Ancient Romish Church; and two controdictories cannot be true. Consequently therefore, seeing our PROTESTANT Churches do agree with the Ancient Romish, and other Catholic churches, in these things wherein they are contradicted by you, consequently, I say, we Protestants must have the true sense of holy Scripture, in these Negatives also, Quod erat demonstrandun. Perhaps you may lay aside all these things, as imperinent Digressions, as you have done other things before. But let an impartial Reader compare your Papers and mine, & have the umpirege betwixt us.  
You clamour greatly, that my last Paper was not returned sooner to you: As if I had no work to do in School, or Pulpit, but to revise your Pasquil's. GOD knows, whether your raw Rhapsodies require much time to confute them. I confess neither Quakers Sermons, not your Papers require much Study. Albeit you, as seems, to counterfie a piece of more quick dispacth, have dated most of all your Papers some days before they came to my hand. But I should advise you, if you would have your lines of any significancy, to take some more time to them. Fistina lente. Have you not heard, how that Zeuxes the curious Painter, b●i●g demanded, why he took so much time in drawing his draughts, answered, Pingo Aeternitati. If I be justly  for any thing, in this exchange of Papers with you, it is, that ever I should have denzied an answer since the first, to such tantolig zing babbling. But seeing you seem only to contend for the last wo●d how impertinens so ever, I can easily indnige that to an empty vain glorious Rabula. Yet to let you know, that the wh●le last Paper remains unanswered, I will subj●ine yet again, the former socci●ct confutation of all your Eight Papers in two words, with which alone you may deals, if this ●arg●t discourse o● too burdensome to your lazy head.  
Aberdene january, 31, 1667. john Menzeis.  
A succinct Confutation of all Master Dempster the jesuit, his eight Papers in two words.  
Nego Minorem, Or, Nego Conclusionem.  
Aberdene january, 31. 1667. john Menzeis.  
Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acta;  
Corruet & mundi desinet esse caput.   

The jesuits ninth Paper.  
Answer to an eight Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS, wherein is confirmed, that the pretended conformity of Protestant Religion with Scripture, is a mere imaginar and groundless conformity. 8. February, 1667.  
YOur Papers carieing the date of the thirtyone of jannary came to my hands the sixth of February, wherein you complain that 〈◊〉 the pretext of prolixity of your Papers, does not answer to the contents of them, 〈◊〉 your thou do not fail to answer to the I omes of Bellarmine, notwithstanding of their great vastues. But it is not the Prolixity that makes your Papers to be slighted, but the Barrenness and superfluity of them, being stuffed with all sort of Digressions, and diverticles out of the way. Mend yourself in this, & bring only things that are proportionat, to show a solid difference betwixt the Protestant Religion, & afalse Religion, which is the only thing controverted with you from the beginning, and you shall be fully answered, though you should writ whole Tomes, for you know, how often it hath been protested, that there would be taken no notice at all of any thing you bring out of the line. And to speak only of the superflaous excursiores that you use in the same very Last Paper. What makes it to ●● our purpose, your Digressions about Images, about Transs bstantiation, about Communion under one kind, about The Pope's Supremacy, about Apocryphal books, about Indulgences, Purgatory, & c? Likewise, what makes it to our purpose, your long and tedious discourse, whereby you labour to justify your proceeding in that Conserence, which we had be mouth, since you should remit all that thing to the judgement of these illustrious persons that were then present, and let them judge, whether you did feebly, and cowaraly act your part, and seem to compeare there only to game time. Likewise, in what school did you learn this civil title wherewith you honour me, calling me a Neat-herd rather nor a Disputant, that I am a man of ● br●sen face and a leaden heart, that I am both shameless, and as ●lesse, that I am a Lazy drone, & c? But this proceeds, because my Popers which you verbally vilify, calling them Pasquil's and not w.r. ●ie to be answered, yet you sinned they gall you, and seeing yourself not s●●ff●●ent with reputation to answer, to supply this desiciency, you seek help from the desusion of Bile, that it may subministrat to you such uncomely and ume sonable words. But let us come to the matter itself.  
In my first Paper, and in all others since there was nothing urged up●r you, but only, that since you 〈◊〉 gerinrailing against Catholic Religion, you would produce s●●●e ground to show the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion, and whereby it may be distinguished from a false Religion, that be this means, you might bathe confirm PROTESTANTS in their Religion, and ●ime others to embrace the same. But hitherto, in so many Papers, all that can be extorted out of you, is, that your PROTESTANT Religion is proven to be a true Religion, be this Medium, because it is grounded upon the word of GOD, and conform to the true serse of the letter of Scripture, a reason indeed most solid and convincent, if it were true. But this pretended conformity of PROTESTANT Religion with Scripture, was shown this way to you, to be a mere imaginar and groundless conformity, because, as it is impossible, a thing to be conform to a true sense, except it be supponed to be a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conform to a true sense, except it be first shown and proven that there is a true sense: Ergo, you cannot prove your Religion to be true, because it is conform to the true serse of the letter of Scripture, except first you bring some pregnant reason, whereby the understandings of men may be convinced, that you have upon your side the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Now, since all depends upon this one point, you were desired to apply yourself wholly to satisfy this only, and to do in a substantious and school way, laying aside for a while your diffuse, railing Pulpit way. But let us now examine the noble answers that you give in this your last Paper.  
The first answer is not direct, but rather a declining of the difficulty, under pretext that it makes a Non-sese, to say, That before a Religion can be shown or proven to be true, it must first be proven, that there is the true seat of the letter of Scripture upon their part who professes such a Religion, because the true sense of the letter of Scripture, and the truth of Religion, are one and the self same thing, and so ●● would follow, that a thing were proven before it were proven, which is a gross Nonsense. But this subtlety, in the which you seem to take some complesance, and put great force, serves only to discover gross Ignorance. For First, he this you show yourself altogether ignorant of the nature of Formal Praecisions, who have virtue, where they intervene to make as●●fficient distinction, betwixt the Medium and the Proble●me. None, you show yourself Ignorant of the 〈…〉 be no Objective difference betwixt true Religion, and the truths contained under the letter of Scripture. But their two are separable, Since all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be, and yet not componit any Religion at all, to wit, if there be no obligation imposed upon us to believe them, or if GOD had not decreed it, nor made the faith and belief of these things  to obtain our Salvation Lastly, giving & not granting, that this your speculation had some solidity, yet it cannot serve to better your cause, since all this just as it lies, may be wuh as great reason assumed be a false Religion, for a scouge and refuge of their ignorance, when they are pressed to assign some ground, wherely it may appear, that they have the true sense of the letter of Scripture upon their side, or bring some disparity betwixt you and them.  
Your second answer, to prove that the true sense of the letter of Scripture is upon your side, is, Because your sense is conform to the sense of the Fathers, that lived in the first three Centuries. But first in this you resile from your foundator Calvin, who as you know disclaims the Fathers in many things, taxing them of errors, and hitherto your other reformers harped always upon this string, that all doctrines, even of the Fathers, should be examined be the sell Scripture as the only rule admitting no wise the doctrine of the Fathers themselves, but in so far as they did agree with Scripture. But now since you invert altogether this order, you give occasion to suspect that you are hatching Some new Religion of your own, leaving their principles. Again this conformtiy cannot serve your purpose, except first you show that the Fathers of the first three Centuries, did in the books that are now extant, teach all points that are  to Salvation. And this must be proven, either be some tectin  drawn either out of Scripture, or out of themselves, or else we will have nothing for this, but only your bare saying,  
In the closing of your Paper. beside your ordinary bragging, whereby you do over value all your own things and undervalue all things brought against you, you play the Prophet in Rhyme.  

Roma diu titubans, variis erroribus acts,  
Corruet, & mandi desinet esse caput.   
Bo sie yat yis your prophecy, be not lyk your Patriarche Lutheris prophesy, who when he leapt out: of the church, did brage, that with tuo yeiris Preaching, he would abolische and eliminat all Popery out of the world, sa yat efteryir tua yeiris yair would be no moir in the world, nather Pop, nor Cardinalis, nor Monkis, nor Nuns, nor Maze, nor Belis etc.  
This Paper was not delivered to Master JOHN MENZEIS, many days after it was dated, but to excuse this the following Postscript, was subjoined to the Paper with an other hand.  
POSTSCRIPT,  
Tho this Paper came from the author, the day efter it was dated, it could not be sent sooner to Master JOHN MENZEIS, in regard the Person to whom it was addressed was not in Town.   

Master JOHN MENZEIS his Answer to the Jesuits ninth Paper.  
Some Reflections, upon Master Dempster the jesuit, his ninth Paper, wherein he scarce touches what hath been Replied to him: and yet foolishly imagines that he hath confuted, the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with the holy Scripture.  
DID ever Nature produce such a ludibrious trifling tergiversing Caviller? Is not the great controversy betwixt you and me, whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS, or your Popish Religion, be the Christian Religion? How then were you not ashamed, when I had demonstrated the falsehood of many of the chief articles of your Religion, such as the Adoration of Images, Transubstantiation. Communion under one kind, The Pope's supremacy, the holding of Apocryphal books for canonical Scriptrue, the Jurisdiction of Popes over Princes, your Papal Indulgences as extended to Purgatory, and consequently, that PROTESTANTS who contradict you in all these particulars, have the truth on their side, how then I say were you not ashamed to make no other Reply to all these things? But only to say, What make these things to the purpose? Is it nothing to the purpose, to prove the Fundamentals of your Religion to be falsehoods, and that the truth of GOD is mantained by the PROTESTANTS against your Popish Church? Is not your Religion so unhappy, that if it be convicted of one Falsehood, the whole fabric and systeme thereof is overturned? The Infallibility of your Church being a Fundamental point with you, and yet when the falsehood of so many points of your Religion is demonstrated, What is that to the purpose say you. Do not such Papers deserve as Hierome said, Alversus Vigilantium, Indignationem scribentis, rather to be answered with contempt and disdain, then with any serious confutation?  
Are you not as ludibrious in your next Period? Did not I in my last expostulat sharply with you, that in stead of making a polemic Reply to my Seventh Paper, (to which you answered not one word,) you did substitut a Railing Digression, concerning the occasion of this Debate, and of our verbal conterence, and so did put upon me a necessity of confuting your Calumnies concerning that Matter of Fact? How then have you a face to charge me, as if I had of my own accord, and free choice, fallen upon that Digression? But though conscience move you not to answer to the arguments, proving the falsehood of your Religion, (for perhaps an ill cause, and your Ignorance, stand as invincible impediments in your way,) yet ought you not in common honesty, to have vindicated yourself from the Falsehoods charged upon you in that Matter of Fact? Is it enough for you, to say, To what purpose are these discourses, and ought not the matter of that conference be left to the judgement of the Auditors, Who, (if you may be credited,) did see my feebleness? Am I from the purpose, when I confute the lies of your Paper? If you judge it not to the purpose, to vindicat yourself from so many Falsehoods, let you be stigmatised for the man you are? If you would have had the matter of that conference, remirted only to the judgement of the Auditors, (among whom you had a company of judicious proselyts of the female sex,) why did you fall upon a Calumnious representation of it in your Last? Why were diffamatory pasquils stuffed with reproaches, long ago disseminated through the Country? May it not seem strange, that a person who hath given such shameful demonstrations of His feebleness in nine Papers, should have the confidence to reproach another with Feebleness? Loripedem derideat rectus. But what occasion gave you in that conference, to try either the feebleness or gallantry of any? Was any thing heard from you? And if it should have been heard, what noble stuff it should have contained, these your Nine Papers may testify. We should have had an Informal Syllogism repeated Ad nauseam, without probation of Major, or Minor, or rectifying the Form thereof. Would such a formidable Achilles have affrighted a poor School Boy? Was there not an Argument propounded to you concluding the impiety of your Religion, because it destroyed all Certainty of faith, which you dared not once to examine? And when you declined to answer thereto, was there not cause Ex justa indignatione, (which you may reproach as Feebleness,) to refuse to hear you? And in that which you were drawn with much importunity to answer, with what credit came you off either of yourself, or your Church, I am content that such of the hearers as had capacity may judge.  
How comoe it, that you touch not at all, the foul stain which I shaw your Doctors leave upon your Romish Church, by their Impious Doctrine of Probables? How is it that you do not at least turn thi● off as you have done the rest, with your usual tergiversing Querie, To what purpose is all this discourse? Are you utterly silent as to this matter, because you had occasioned this discourse by challenging us for proposing before our Auditors your Problematick Doctrines? But than you should have keeped silence concerning the former particulars also; for to them likewise were we led by your impertinencies. Or doth your silence proceed from the conviction of conscience, that you know not how these impieties could be justified, like a School Boy who skips over the word in his lesson which he cannot read? If this be the account of your silence, I should not blame you so much, only I could wish that in your old days, you might learn the ingenuity of acknowledging error to be error, when it is convincingly demonstrated to you.  
Yet notwithstading all these tergiversing shifts, and silent transitions, you have the confidence to avouch Your readiness to answer whole Tomes; It is not a strange thing to see a Thraso, and a Thersites joined in one person. Who will believe, that you who have sucoumbed these Eight or Nine times, in answering a poor sheet or two, (for in all of them you have tergiversed, and to some not answered one word at all,) that you are in such a Capacity to deal with Volumes? Look bacl on the Papers which you have received, and take a view of the Fallacies charged upon you, as also, how many Chief articles of your Religion I have impugned, and all to his hour unanswered: When you have discharged yourself of that work, which already lies upon you, you may purchase some more credit to your empty brags. But I must correct myself, I confess you have invented a compendious Method of confuting both sheets and volumes, by your usual Querie, To what purpose are these discourses? If you please, you may cause add this your invention to the next addition of Pancirolli, nova reperta. Yet whether that compendious confutation, look like the Reply of a Disputant, or of that which you are not willing to hear, yourself may judge?  
Your Last apology for not examining my Papers, taken from the Prolixity of them, seems now too slender and pellucid to your own self, therefore you are pleased to strengthen it, by accusing my Papers of Barrenness and Superfluity; how well these your Rhetorications cohere together, others may judge, if my Papers be guilty of Barrenness, then have they too little matter in them, if of Superfluity, then have they too much, if to reconcile this repugnant indytment, you say, that these Papers have much matter, but little to the purpose, you must remember, that this may be more easily affirmed then proven; withal I appeal you to instance any thing in my Papers, which hath not a tendency to confute you and your Romish Religion, and consequently to establish our, or, that hath not a genuine rise from something in your Papers. And are not these the measures by which the Pcrtinencie of my Replies to you are to be judged?  
Among the many doc ments, of prodigious impudency, which you have given in your Papers, I could not but smile at one, how ye could say, That your Papers galled me, because I could not answer them; have I not rather been too superstinious in examming every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these your despicable Pasquil's, which truly are unworthy of one glance of a serious persons eye? But what I have done was to check the vain petulancy of your party, who are ready to make Eliphantem exmus●â. All the galling I have, is that I should have to do with a Tristing, Tergiversing, Riviling Civiller, and this indeed hath extorred from me some sharp pressions, if peradventure thereby you might have been quickened to love your trifling, and tergiversing strain. But I have so much comassion for you, that I am ashamed in your behalf, that in every now Paper, you should give new confirmations of these character 〈◊〉 you extort from me. Amend your fashiones, and I will mitig●●● s●yl●. Are you not sensible that your Papers are not only b●r●●n of matter, but full of nasty and scurvy language, such as Midde●, Jecktrot, scouge etc. And for your trespasses in Orthogra● 〈◊〉 and Syllabic●●ions, were not, that I take you to be Sexagen rius, you might goes to School again. Whether therefore you deserve th●● character which Hiercm gives to Vigilantius in that forecited Epiflle others may judge, Est quidem, (sayeth he,) Et verbis & scientia & sermore inconditus. ne vera quidem potest defendere, sed propter homines saeculi & mullerculas oner atas peccatis, semper discentes, & nunqu●m ad scientiam veritatis pervenientis, un lucubratiuncula illius naeniis responde●.  
After that by these forementioned whimsies, you have waved most of the matter in my last Paper, then say you like a Material Disputant indeed, Let us come to the matter. But 〈…〉 For 〈…〉 some great matter. I 〈…〉 the Ghost of your old Syllogism, or the same Rhapsody, which you had in your Last Paper, concerning The sense of holy Scripture, repeated in terminis, as if you thought to fright us with the frequent apparitions of this Spectre. All the sense which I can gather out of the heap of confused expressions which you have jumbled together, is as I told in my Last, That before PROTESTANTS prove their Religion to be true, or conform to the true sense of Scripture, they must first prove that they have the true sense of Scripture. To which, it might be sufficient for me now to tell you, that to this your allegiance I have given Seven answers in my Last, and you never resumed but One of them, namely the Fifth, which is but hypotheticallie expressed, to draw from you a clear explication of your meaning. Till therefore you do the rest of your work, I need give no further Reply.  
Yet I shall at this time propose these Considerations to you. And First, you must suffer me to advertise you, that you represent the Case betwixt you and me very deceitflly, as if the Case were, whether I can prove the Religion of PROTESTANTS to be the true Religion? whereas indeed, The present case, is, whether you can prove that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is not the True Religion; In evidence hereof, in your first Paper you propose a Syllogism, to impugn the Religion of PROTESTANTS, concluding, that the PROTESTANTS Religion cannot be the True Religion. Beside other defects both in the Matter and Form of your Syllogism, I denied the Minor thereof, which to this day you could never be able to prove, and ther●ote sin li●g that you are not able to impugn the Religion of PROTESTANTS, you would craftily alter the Scene, and of Opponent t●rne Responden. But you must not ●o easily escape. Yet to let you know that i● is not from weakness of our cause that I kept you to your work, I offered ●o you to turn Opponent, if you will but ingenuously acknowledge that you are not able to impugn our Religion. But Secondly, I must i● form you, that this your ●oo Cavil, which it is like you have learned from some o● your Masters, is an Old Heathenish objection brought against he●rath of the Christian Religion, as you may find in Chrysost. hom. 33. in actae. Apost. Venit (sayeth he,) Gentilis & dicit vellem siers Christianus, sed nescio quod dogma eligam: singuli dicunt ego verum dico: cuicredam niscio, cum Scripturarum sim ignarus & ills idem ●trinque pratexunt Is not this your very Objection in the mouth of the Pagan, or rather the Pagans objection in your mouth? But how answered chrysostom? Not as a Romanist, or a jesuit would have done today: we have an Infallible propounder, a Pope that cannot err, in determining articles of faith. chrysostom had not learned These Romish principles, nay, but be Answers like a PROTESTANT thus, Sea cum Scripture simplices sint & vera, facile tibi fuerit judicurs. Siguso illis consentit Christianus est. But chrysostom brings in the Heathin instancing again like a jesuit. Quod si ventens ille dicat hoc habers scripturam, tu autem aliud dicas altter sciz enarrando scriptu as mentem earum pro te trabens, and still he answers like a PROTESTANT, Tu dic mihi, mentem ne habes & judicium. But yet the pagan Replies again like a Romanist, Quomode inquies passum judicurs vestra ●rsciens? Discipulus fieri vellem, cum autem me dactorem facis. But chrysostom holds on in the same way, Empiurus vestem quamvis artis texio is imperi●●sis, hac verba non decis, nescio emere, illudunt ●●ihi sed fa●is omnia ●t dasias. Where you may see the same cavil moved against the Christian Religion by a Heathen, and chrysostom who well understond the principles of Christianity, never made use of your Romish principles, but still asserted the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessary, and that a judgement of discretion was allowed to private persons, and therefore a little after concludes, Itaque ne c●villemur, ne pratex us quaramus, has enim facilia sunt. But Thirdly you may consider this Argument, if the PROTESTANTS Religion have all the solid grounds to prove its conformity with the true sense of the holy Scripture, which the true Christian Religion hath, then surely the PROTESTANTS Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the true sense of holy Scripture, but the first is true, Ergo, etc. The Sequel of the Major you dare not but admit, unless you mine infidel, and deny that the true Christian Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the Scripture. And for the probation of the Assumption, you cannot but allow me that measure against you, which you allow yourself against me, and therefore, I appeal you to produce any solid ground, which the True Christian Religion hath, which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth; Yea, or any solid ground, which you R●●anists can pretend to, for confirmation of your Religion, which we want. You have never adventured to name any, but the pretended Infallibility of your Propounders. But this we have so battered to you, that now you have stolen from it, not daring to mention it again in any of these your Two last Papers. Nay Fourthly, I must remember you of a Dilemma ad Hominem, against you Romanists, which you might have gathered from my last. If we deviat from the sense of holy Scripture, than it must be either in our Affirmatives, or in our Negatives, Not in our Affirmatives, you and we agreeing in most of these; Therefore, either in these we have the true sense, else you have it not: Nor in our Negatives, else your contradictory Affirmatives should be true. But I proved in my Last, that in many of these you do manifestly err, as contradicting the Ancient Romish Church, particularly in your Adoration of Twages. Transubstansiation, Communion under one kind, The Poper suprexmatie the Canonical authority of Apocry; ha' books, The jurisdiction of the Pope over secular Prints & your papal Indulginces at extended to Purgarotse. And I am ready to prove the falsehood of the rest of your Super-induced articles, when ever you have the confidence to come to a particular trial. But I am utterly discouraged, from multiplying more instances against a tergiversing fellow, who is neither moved by credit, nor conscience, to examine what is replied to him. Fifthly seeing you eat to tell a ground, by which the truth of Religion is to be tried lest the Balfardie of your Religion should be proven, I will give you a solid ground from a person of great fame in your Romish Gourc●● though a Grecian by extract: This is Goorgius Scholarius, who pleaded for the interest of the Latin Church, in the matter of the Procession of the holy Ghost from the Father, and the Son, at the Council of Florence. Now this Scholarius, tom. 4. Conciliorum in Orat. 3. ad Concil. Florent, proposes these rules for determining controversies in Religion. Et primo quidem (sayeth he,) non decet velle omnia disertis verbis è scriptura desumere, cum & multos. haereticos scimus pratextu hoc usos. Sed si quid verbis ita prolatis sit consequens, adaeque erit honorandum; similiter quod veris & confessis fuerit repugnans & contrarium nullo modo est admittendum; deinde eorum quae obscurius dicta sunt, sumendae sunt è scriptura ipsa veluti magistra explicationes, per ea quae uspians clarius illa disserit. Where this learned Author, holds these four choice Positions, for discerning betwixt truth and error in Religion, to all which we PROTESTANTS do cordially agree. The First is, That all divine truth are not revealed in so many words in Scripture. Secondly, that some divine truths are plainly set down, Diserris verbis, and what by firm consequence is deduced from these, aught to be believed, and received with the same respect, as these which are delivered In terminis. Thirdly whatsoever is repugnant to these truths which are plainly, Diserris verbis, set down or confessed upon all hands, aught to be rejected as erroneous. Fourthly, that these things which are more obscurely treated of in Scripture, are to receive their explications from other clear Scripture, as the Mistress of our faith. These grounds so laid down, he afterwards accon moda●s to his present Hypothesis for deciding the controversy betwixt the Latin and Greek Church, concerning the procession of the holy Ghost, and may by the same measure be applied to the controversies betwixt us PROTESTANTS and You Romanists. If therefore, you will dire to adventure upon the trial of particular controversies betwixt you and us, according to this standard, I trust you shall see (if prejudice do not blind you,) that all the points of the Religion of PROTESTANTS, are either revealed in Scripture plainly, and In terminis, or the by solid consequence, are deduceable from these which are revealed In terminis. And on the contrary, that your Supe irauce Romish article, wherein we differ from you, are neither In terminis in Scripture, nor yet by solid consequence deduceable from these things which are clearly revealed in Scripture, but on the contrary, are repugnant thereunto. I hope therefore, the intelligen Reader will observe, that if you descend not to a particular trial, it is not, because a ground was not assigned to you, from discerning truth in Religion from error, but from diffidence of your desperate cause. Only that you do not return to your usual trifling Cavil, that Heretics. and those of a false Religion, may pretend the same grounds for justifying their Heresies, let me tell you, that Heretics may indeed pretend a patrociny from these grounds, which upon examination will overturn their cause. And therefore, what I say to you, I say the same of all other Heretics, Socinians, Pelagians, Nestorians, A●●baptists, Antinomians, etc. That if they will come to a particular discuss, according to these premised rules, what ever their pretences be, it shall appear, that their Heresies are neither In terminis contained in Scripture, nor yet are deduceable by solid reason from these things which are clearly revealed, but are repugnant thereunto. Sixthly, I answer Directly to this your Cavil by this Distinction. If you mean that PROTESTANTS, or whatsoever society acclaiming the True Religion, before they prove the truth of their Religion, or the conformity thereof to the true sense of Scripture, must first produce one ground, proving all the senses which they give in Scripture In cumulo to be true, without a particular examination of the several senses and points of Religion mantained by them, that I say is a gross falsehood and mistake; For a Society may profess the true Religion, and maintain all the essentials the cof, and yet as I told n my last, have some errors mingled in with these 〈◊〉, as our Divines have demonstrated in the Question, Nom Ecclesi● possit errare? Therefore, if this be your m●●ning, it concerns you to have proven it, for I do, and in my Last I imply did deny it. But if you only mean, that PROTESTANTS or others acclaiming the truth of Religion, must either have the essentials, and all truths in their Religion, plainly, and In terminis revealed in Scripture, or else solidly deduceable upon a particular discuss from these things that are so plainly revealed, I grant it freely, that it ought, and must be so. And therefore, it you will come to the examination of particular Articles, I engage to disclaim the Religion of PROTESTANTS, if it be not found to be so, and shall only demand but the like ingenuity, readiness, and engagement from you, that you will renounce your Romish superstition, if is neither be In terminis in Scripture, nor solidly deduceable from these things which are there plainly revealed. If there be not enough said to put an end to your general whifling Cavils, let these who are not fascinated by prejudice judge? Is it not time after the exchange of nine Papers, to come once to the matter, for you are not as yet come to it?  
The rest of your Paper, you pretend to spend in examining the Answers given by me, to this your forementioned Cavil, Concerning the sense of holy Scripture. But it would seem, you had been either dreaming, or drunk when you wrote this for you bring me in only making Two answers, whereas indeed I have made Seven, & of the two which you mention only one of them is to be found in my Last Paper. But however, I will try how you behave yourself in examining these. That which you say is my First Answer, is indeed my Fifth, as you will find when you awake from your sleep, and look on my Paper. But before I take in your Reply. I will first propose my former Answer, not in your words, for I seldom find them faithful, but in my own, as I proposed them in my Last: My words then were these. This Assertion of yours, that before we can prove the truth of our Religion from the Scripture, we must first prove this we have the true sense of the Scripture bad need of a verse favourable and benigns interpretation, else it is perfect Nonsense, and a very contradiction. For if you mean, by our having the true sense of Scripture, that our Religion is contained in Scripture, as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost, then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture, before we prove that we have the True Religion, we must prove that we have the True Religion, before we prove that we have the True Religion. These were my words, and if the inference be not solid upon the Supposition laid down therein, these who have common sense may judge. Yet to this you have made Three Replies, but each of them more ludibrious than another.  
Your First Reply, is a pedantic whifle about formal Praecisions; you say. That I show myself to be altogether ignorant of the nature of formal praecisions, which have virtue, where they interverne to make a sufficient distinction betwixt the Medium and the Problem. For all your pretended skill of these Pracisions, there are school. Boys with us, who could adventure to the lists with you concerning them. Yet I confess in some sense, you may commence Doctor in the matter of Praecisions; For you have a notable faculty of praescinding from the purpose. But if you had said any thing to the point, you should have showed, that there intervenes a Formal Praecisions, sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and Problem, betwixt these two, V.Z. That our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost. And this, That our Religion is the true Religion. Can you either conceive or conclude, that our Religion is contained in the Scripture, as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost, and not conceive Ipso Facto, and Formaliter, that it is the True Religion? Especially, seeing from the beginning of your Papers you have acknowledged. That a Religion to be a True Religion, and to be conforms to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's. You may try in the next how you can prove this, for you still leave the greatest part of your work behind you. But in the Second place from this pedantic notion, you proceed to a more absurd position, as if here There were an objective distinction betwixt the Medium and the Problem, still out of your Modesty, Vphraiding me with Ignorance. For say you, The True Religion and truths contained under the letter of Scripture, are separable one from another; because all the truths of Scripture, may be, & yet not compound any Religion at all to wit, if there had been no obligation imposed upon us to believe them. And hereupon. You conclude me ignorant of the nature of True Religion. A greater cry me I confess, than the ignorance of the nature of formal Praecisions. Only you had need to guard well, that this your insolent accusation do not recoil upon your own head. For First, were you not sophisticating Ab Ignoratiore Elenchi, you should have concluded, that our Religion may be contained in the Scripture as the true sense hereof, and yet make up no Religion at all. But who sees not this to be a manifest contradiction? And yet these were the two which you ought to prove to be separable, for that was the Supposition whereon my Inference was builded. But Secondly, what ignorance and absurdity do you bewray, when you say, That all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be, and yet make up no Religion at all. I will instance to you a few Scripture truths, which it is impossible they should be, and not make up a Religion. Matth. 4.10. It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. John 20.31. These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and believing, ye might have life through his name. 1. John 3.23. This is his commandment, that ye should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. These Scripture truths cannot be, unless they concur to make up a Religion; and the reason is evident, which also destroys your fond Supposition, and pretended reason to the contrarie, because, they include in them a Form all obligation of worshipping GOD, and believing in order to the obtaining or Salvation. Do not you the refore bewray brutish ignorance of Scripture, and of Religion when you say, That all truths contained in the Scripture may be without an obligation to believe them, and so compound no Religion at all. For it is one Scripture Truth, that we are commanded, and obliged in Scripture, to believe these truths, in order to the obtaining of Salvation. Your Third Reply is nothing less ludibrious than the former Two, in which you say, That what was said in that answer of mire to you, may be said by persons of another Religion, alswell as by us, And who doubts but Heretics may justly repel your Nonese●se? May not Heretics be otherwise solidly confuted, albeit they laugh at your ridiculous Cavils? I hope these transient to ches may suffice to discover, with how little success you have dealt with that Fifth Answer of mine which you call the first, For I judge it unbeseeming for me, in handling so weighty a controversy as this, Whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Papists be the true Christian Religion, to dilate upon Pedantic notions, more proper for Schoolboys then Divines. But suppose you had discussed it utterly, there remain other Six answers, which you have never once touched.  
I proceed now to that which you call my Second Answer, wherein you bring me in, answering, That it appears that we have the true sense of Scripture, because our sense is conform to the sense of the Fathers of the first three Centuries. I know not whether to call this a Delirium, or a Dream. For in that Eight and Last Paper of mine, to which only you now answer, there is no mention of the Fathers in the First three Centuries. I had indeed upon another occasion in some former Papers, offered to examine the truth of Religion, by conformity to the faith of the Church in these three Centuries, and had so confuted all your objections against that Test, that in your Last you had made no Reply thereto. Wherefore in My last, I only insinuated some challenges for your ●ergiversing, & speaking nothing to that particular, but brought not in this Directly as an Answer to this Cavil of yours. But though you in your Reply stagger like a Drunkenman, going back and fore, leaping from one Paper to another, yet, because in a Former Paper, I was willing to have tried whether our Religion or yours be the true Catholic Religion, By examining the conformity thereof with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three hundred years, I do stand to it, and shall examine what you Reply hereto,  
First then, you say, That I resile from Calvine our foundator, who disclaimed the Fathers in many things, and taxed them of erroes, and so did other Reformers harp upon this string, that the doctrines of the Fathers should be examined be the Scriptures. But First, how call you Calvine our foundator? Were not ZUINGLIUS, LUTHER, OECOLAMPAIUS, MELANCHTON, etc. Prior to CALVINE? Were not HIIROM of Prague, and JOHN HUS (whom your Council of Constance did treacherously murder) before these? And WICKLEF before them? And the Waldenses prior to him? Of whom your Friar Reyner, cited by Morney in Myster. Iniq. edit. 2. pag. 731. gave this testimony, That the Waldenses continued from the days of Pope Sylvester. yea some say, (sayeth Reyner,) from the Apostles days. How absord than are you to call Calvine our foundator? Nay, come to the Trial, and if our Religion be found of latter standing, then since the days of the Apostles, I will disclaim it. For I assent to Tertullian, lib. 4. contra Martion. cap. 5. Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio, quod ab Apostolis. But Secondly, why charge you Calvine, as taxing the Fathers with some errors? Who have been more liberal in the Censures of the Fathers than you Romanists? Take a few instances, Bell. lib. 1. De Beatitud. Sanct. cap. 6. after he had objected to himself the testimonies of justine Martyr, Irenaus, Epiphanius, etc. answers, Eorum sententiam non video, quo pacto possimus ab errore defendere. Maldonat the jesuit, expounding these words, Matt. 16.18. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, says, quorum verborum sensus non mihi videtur esse, quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse me memini Authores putant. And on these words, Matth. 11.11. He that is least in the kingdom of Heaven, is greater than john the Baptist. After he had brought many expositions of Ancients, at length concludes, Libere fatebor in nulla prorsus earum meum qualecunque ingenium acquiescere. Melchior Canus, in lib. 7. loc. come. cap. 1. num. 3. affirms, that though all the Fathers with one mouth conclude the Virgin Mary to be guilty of Original sin, yet, that is an argument of little weight, and that the contrary is piously defended in the Church. Hear his own words, Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidere, uno ore asseverarunt Beatam Virginem in peccato Originali conceptam, & cum nullus sanctorum contravenerit, infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur, quin potius contraria sententia & probabiliter & pie in Ecclesia defenditur. You may see multitudes of more instances of your Romanists contemning and condemning of Fathers, in Dallaus de usu Patrum, lib. 2. cap. 6. and in Doctor james, his Treatise of the corruption of Scripture, Council, and Fathers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, Part. 4. I shall only now add two more out of learned Dallaeus. The One, is of your jesuit Brisacerius, who in a Disput against Collaghanus a jansenist. When the jansenist had objected many of the authorities of Ancients, the jesuit called the authorities of Councils and Fathers, Regulas mortuas quaunllum alium vigorems habent, quam quem iis dat viventis ac praesentis Ecclesiae approbatie vel interpretatio. That is, Dead rules which have no further significancy or worth, than they receive from the approbation of the present living Church: that is, the Pope, as they know, who are acquaint with your jesuit-dialect. Yea the same jesuit yet more ignominiously calls the Authorities of Fathers, Vitulinos franos, that is, bridles wherewith only brutes, such as Bullocks and young Hiefers suffer themselves to be muzzled up. The other Testimony shall be that of Cornelius Mussus, Bishop of Bitonto, one of the famous Prelates of your Council of Trent, in epist. ad Rom. cap. 14. Ego (sayeth he,) ut ingenue fatear, plus uni Summe Pontifici credorem in his quae fidei mysteria tangunt, quam mille Augustinis, Hieronimis, Gregoriis, nedicam Richardis, Scotis, Gulielmis. Crede enim & scie quod Summus Pontifex in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest, quoniam authoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pontifice residet. Did ever Protestants speak so disdainfully or contemptuously of Ancient Fathers? by which it may appear, that you Romanists use the Fathers as Merchants do their casting Counters, which sometime stand for pounds, sometime for shillings, sometimes for pennies, and sometime for nothing, as they serve their interest. But Thirdly, wherein have I resiled from Calvine and other Reformers? Did Calvine look upon Fathers as persons obnoxious to error? So do I And so did Father's judge of themselves, as Austin witnesss Epist. 19 ad Hieron. Hence is that of your Melchier Canus, lib. 7. cap. 3. num. 4. Hanc falicitatem Deus in solis divinis voluminibus inesse voluit, ut in iis non esset quicquam erroris, cateroquin nemo quant umvis eruditus & sanctus non interdum hallucinatur, non alicubi cacutit, non quandoque labitur. Doth Calvine or other Reformers, say, that the doctrine of Ancients is to be examined by the Scriptures? Never said I any thing to the contrary, nay, I cordially subscribe to that apostolic Anathema, If an Angel, let be a Father, shall teach any other Gospel to us, let him be accursed. Yet notwithstanding all this, our Reformed Divines, have often offered to disput against you Romanists, the controversies of Religion out of the Fathers. Did I not show you this before from , Whitaker, and Crakanthorp? And how often doth learned Calvine, in his Institutions confute you Romanists from Antiquity, as your transubstantiation, Lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 14. Your Communion under one kind, Ibid. §. 47. 48. 49. 50. The necessity of Auricular confession, Lib. 3. cap. 4. §. 7. Your Papal Indulgences, Lib. 3. cap. 5. §. 3. & 4. The Pope's supremacy over the whole Catholic Church, Lib. 4. cap. 7. §. 3. 4. 5. etc. Yea, and not to insist in reckoning out particulars, when he is treating of Councils and their authority, Lib. 4. cap. 9 §. 1. Veneror Councilia, (sayeth he,) ex animo, suoque in honore apud omnes esse cupio, and a little after, Sicuti ad plenam doctrinae nostrae approbationem & totius Papismi eversionem, abunde verbo DEI instructi sumus, ut nihil praeterea requirere magnopere opus sit: ita si res flagitet, magna ex parte quod satis sit ad utrumque vetera Concilia nobis subministrant; where Judicious Calvine affirms, that out of Ancient Councils, both the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be confirmed, & the Papal superstition confuted. From all this, may it not appear how ludibriously you say, that I seem to be hatching a New Religion of my own? Am I not offering to defend the received Religion of PROTESTANTS, and to have the truth thereof tried By its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Primitive Church? Is the Ancient Religion, a New Religion? Is the Religion both of Ancients and PROTESTANTS, a Religion peculiar to me? Will you not blush, that such foolish Nonsense should have droped from you?  
But you have another trifling Shift, Before (say you,) That conformity with the faith of the Ancient (hurch, in the first three Centuries, be admitted as a Test, by which the truth of Religion may be discerned, it ought to be proven, that all the necessaries of the Christian Religion, are contained in their writings, which are now extant. But First, may it not with better reason be resorted on you, that before you had rejected it from being a Test, you ought first to have proven, that there were some necessaries, and essentials of the Christian Religion not where to be found in any of the writings of these three ages? If any be wanting, produce them, and your evidence of their absolute necessity? If you can produce no necessary article that is wanting, why decline you the trial? But the truth is, you Romanists, maintain such a desperate cause, that if either Scripture or Antiquity be Umpyre, you must surely be condemned. There is no way to get a favourable Interloquitur for you, but by setting up your Infallible Propounders, that is, your own selves, to be Supreme judges to the whole World. If such a Religion be not to be suspected, let the World judge. But Secondly, do not you Romanists boast bigly sometimes of Universal traditions? And here by the way, I tell you, I shall never decline to have all the Essentials of Religion tried by the famous rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis, in Commonitorio primo, contra Haereses, cap. 3. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus est creditum. But if any of the necessaries, or essentials of Christianity, are not to be found in the writings of the Three first Centuries, how shall we have a Perpetual and universal tradition for these, seeing the current is supposed to be broken off at the fountain, for three hundred years thereafter? Must we take the voice of your Present Church as an Oracle, to tell us what was believed by the Church so many ages ago, though there be no record left, that such a thing was ever believed? We must examine her Credentials, before we become so implicit to her, in matters of Fact. But Thirdly, If any of the Necessaries of Christian Religion, be altogether wanting in the writings of Ancients of these ages, how did your Gualterius the Jesuit undertake to prove the truth of your Religion, by the testimonies of the Church in all ages? It is true, he was most unhappy in his undertaking, in so much that Chillingworth in his Defence of Doctor Potter part. 1. cap. 2. §. 119. affirms that he heard an able man of your Religion say, That Gualterius had not produced one pertinet testimony in the first three Centuries. The like may be said of joannes Andreas Coppenstenius a Predicant, in his Historical supplement to Bellarmine, who undertakes the like, but with as little success. Yet do not such undertake suppose that all necessary and essential truths of Religion may be found in the writings of these times? Sed laterem lavo, I do but lose my travel, what wonder to see a Thief decline the Court and jury? He knows upon trial he must be condemned. I have pressed you to come to be examined either by Scripture or Antiquity, or both, or to produce any other solid way, of discerning a true Religion from a false, but you decline all. Have I not just cause therefore, to discharge finally with such a babbling Lucifuga?  
After I had signed my last Paper, that known Distich dropped from my pen in a Postscript.  
Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acta,  
Corruct & mundi desinet esse caput.  
At this you behoved to have a fling, though you scarce said any thing to the controversal points of the Paper. Bot sie (say you,) yat yiss your Prophecy, be not lyk your Patriarche Lutheris Prophecy, who when he leapt out of the Church did brage yat with the yeiriss Preaching he would abolische and eliminat all Poprie out of the world, sa yat ester yir tua yeiris yair would be no mor in the world nather Pop, nor Cardinalis, nor Monkis, nor Nuns, nor Maze, nor Belis, etc. I have set down your own words, with your own spelling, that the Reader, may discern what a Famous Clerk you are? But here I must Querie you in a few particulars, and First, how call you this my Prophecy? Are they not the lines of a German Prince? Were they not sent to Pope Gregory the ninth, by Frederick the second the Emperor, who felt the heavy hand of your usurping Popes, as other Princes have done. Secondly, how call you Luther our Patriarch? We indeed honour Luther and Calvine as precious servants of GOD. But we make neither of them Pope, or Patriarch, or Master of Sentences. Non sumus jurati in verba Magistri. Our faith is pinned to no man's slieve. Though you be implicit Slaves to the Pope, yet we to no man. Thirdly, what Church I pray you do you mean, when you say that Luther did leap out of the Church? Is it the Catholic or universal Church? But when I pray you did the Roman Church become the Catholic, a part become the whole? Are not the Grecian, Russian, abyssine, &c, Churches, parts of the Catholic? Yea, have not you of the Papal faction rend yourselves from the Catholic Church? Have not you revived the Schism of the Donatists? As they limited the Catholic Church to afric, do not you limit it to the See of Rome? Is not subjection to the Pope, as universal Bishop an Essential of your Religion? Was ever that an Essential of Religion in the Ancient Church? Yea, or in the Roman, till of late, especially in your jesuit-sense, as if the Pope had supreme jurisdiction on Earth, even above General Councils? Surely your Councils of Constance, and Basile, were of another opinion, who not only determined the Council to have jurisdiction over the Pope, but also the Council of Basile, Sess. 45. in decreto. 5. conclusionum, is bold thus to affirm, Nec unquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit Summum Pontificem in his quae fidem concernunt judicio Conciliorū universalium esse subjectum. And yet contrary to the judgement Peritorum omnium, of all understanding Christians, for the space of a thousand and four hundred years after CHRIST, (if your Fathers of Basile be to be trusted,) your late Lateran Conventicle under Pope Leo the tenth, Sess. 11. hath defined on the contrary, the Pope to have jurisdiction above General Councils. Do you not by this your Schism, cut off yourselves from the Body of the Catholic Church, both of the Present, and Former ages? Do you not oblige other Christian Churches, to refuse Communion with you, lest they should be involved in your Schism, and rend themselves with you, from the Communion of all Christian Churches, who acknowledge not the usurped supremacy of your Pope? If therefore you say, that by the Church, you mean only the Particular Roman Church, then why call you the Roman Church the Church, as if there were no Church in the World but she? Why do you say that Luther did leap out of her? Was he not driven out by Excommunication, as learned Doctor Morton in his grand Imposture of the church of Rome, cap. 15. Sect. 13. 14. 15. 16. hath copiously demonstrated, in so much that your own Thuan, as cited by the same Doctor Morton, spares not to say, Non defuerunt qui jam tum culpam in Leonem Papam rejicerent. That there wanted not among yourselves, who laid the blame on Pope Leo the tenth. But may not a man be a member of the Catholic Church, though not of your Roman? How often have PROTESTANTS declared, that they only refuse communion with you, in so far as you reject the truth? Embrace the truth, and lay by your supercilious Schism, and we are ready to join in communion with you. But Fourthly, why do you not cite some Author for this Apocryphal prophecy, which you impose on Luther, That he would root out Popery out of the World in two years? Is it not observable, that in all these your Nine Papers, these two citations of Luther and Calvine, are the first citations of any Authors that we have met with from you, and you cite them at large, without mentioning Book, Chapter, or Page? And I verily look upon this which you allege of Luther, as an egregious calumny. For I have some of Luther's works by me, and many grave Authors writing of him: But that I neither find in his own Works, nor yet that is affirmed of him, by any Credible Historian. It is true, your Bellarmine, (from whom it seems you have borrowed this fiction,) In lib. 4. De Ecclesia Militante, cap. 15. affirms that your Lying Cochlaeus reported such a false prophecy of Luther, But who knows not that Bell ●rmine and other your Controversists are ready to scratch up the dirt, which lying & calumniating adversaries have thrown upon our Reformed Divines, and that Cochlaeus in particular, hath laboured to traduce Luther most calumniously, even as that Runnagad Bolsecus hath most impudently reproached Master Calvine? Who but an Ignorant, or one possessed with Malice, will give credit to Cochlaeus in this martyr, who is known to have been a most viruleut Adversary of Luther's? Am I the first who have given such a character of your Cochlaeus? Hear what learned and modest Whitaker said of him, when he is pondering the same allegiance of Bellarmine out of Cochlaeus; Controvers. de Ecclesia, quaest. 5. cap. 13. Respondeo, (sayeth he,) nullam fidem adhibendam esse Cochlaeo, homini mendacissimo, nec ullam habendam esse illius rationem, fuit enim homo nullius fidei. That is in English, I answer, that no faith is to be given to Cochlaeus, a person exceedingly addicted to lying, neither is any account to be made of his testimony, for he was a man of no faith. But I shall now only remit you to a Lutheran Gerard, in loc. come. loc. de Eccles. cap. 11. sect. 12. §. 290. where you will find both this Objection of Bellarmine, and that Cochlaeanum mendacium, (as Gerard terms it,) that Lie of Cochlaeus concerning Luther copiously confuted. But though it pleaseth GOD in the depth of his Judgements, to permit your Papal usurpation to continue for a time, as he hath permitted the Delusions and Usorpations of the Mahumetane faction; Yet your Bellarmine acknowledges, that Luther gave a blow to the Papacy, which it never recovered. Lib 3. De Romano Pontif. cap. 21. Ab eo tempore (sayeth he,) quo per vos Papa Antichristus esse caepit non modo non crevit, sed semper decrevit ejus imperium. Hence this Distich was written of him, 
And again, 


Vir sine vi ferri, vi verbi & inermibus armis,  
Vir sine re, sine spe, contudit orbis opes.  
Lutherus decimum confecit strage Leonem,  
De clava noli quaerere, penna fuit.     
And yet further. 


Roma Orbem domuit, Romam sibi Papa subegit,  
Viribus illa suis, fraudibus iste suis.  
Quantum isto major Lutherus, major & illa  
Orbem urbemque uno qui domuit calamo.      
As for predictions of Rom's overthrow, I may remit you to more Canonic Prophecies thereof, then that of Frederick. You may, if you will, take one, from Revel. 14.8. Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all Nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. You may take another, from Revel. 17.16. The ten horns which thou saw upon the beast, shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her fl●sh, and burn her with fire. You may add a third, from Revel. 18.2. And the Angel cried mighty lie with a strong voice, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Go not to say that these are but our Lutheran comments, to expound Babylon by Rome. Did not Hierome so expound it, Epist. ad Algasiam quaest. 11. & epist. ad Asellam. And Austin, lib. 18. the civet. DEI cap. 22. and Tertull. lib. contra Indaeos. cap. 9 and Eusebius lib. 2. hist. eccles. cap. 14? Yea there is such evidence for this exposition, that your own Barronius, Sixtus Senensis, Ribera, and others have acknowledged Rome to be Babylon. Nor can this denomination be limited to Heathenish Rome, for not only is Rome called Babylon by Tertullian, who lived under the Heathenish Emperors, but also by Hierome, Esebius, Austin, and many others cited by your own Ribera, who lived under Christian Emperors. But I shall not now enter on that controversy. Only let me remember you of Lactantius boldness, Lib. 7. Instit. cap. 15. Romanum nomen, horret animus dicere, sed dicam quia futurum est, tolletur de Terra. Is it not the refore the concernment of you Romanists, to hearken to that advyce which Hierome long ago tendered concerning this matter, Lib. 2. Adversus jovinianum, speaking of Rome, Maledictionem quam urbi Salvator in Apocalypsi comminatus est potes effugere per paenitentiam, habens Ninivitarum exemplum. But seeing you are so good at descanting upon Poetic Rhythms, I will give you another, which I assure you is no more mine then the other, but what truth it contains the World may judge.  
O Roma, à Roma, quantum mutata vetustâ es?  
Nunc caput es scelerum quae caput orbis eras.  
Fifthly and Lastly, if ever Luther uttered such a speech as you allege, (wherein we are not concerned,) yet can I not be induced to believe that he did it in such a ludibrious manner as you have expressed it. For you would insinuat, that he had foretold, That within two years there should be no more Pope, or Mass, or any other relict of your Papal superstition. Yet you have foolishly heaped up so many Negatives, that what you intent for a Negative becomes an Affirmative, and so you destroy your own Scope. Indeed your Bellarmine, in setting down this calumny of Cochlaus had more wit, then to heap such a multitude of Negatives, as you have done. But as for you, as you began ludibriously, so you end, Dignum talli patella operculum.  
If Hierome thought he had condescended fare, in bestowing one lucubration against such a Trifler as Vigilantius, have not I supererogated above measurein allowing nine Papers upon you, who deserve more the Title of Dormitantius, than that Adversary of Hieromes? Now therefore I do finally discharge with you, except you come to the purpose. Yet to reduce you to that, from which you have digressed in your Last eight Papers, I subjoin again the confutation of all the nine, in two words.  
Aberdene May 10. 1667. john Menzeis.  
POSTSCRIPT.  
A succinct confutation of Master Dempster the jesuit his nine Papers, in two words.  
Nego Minorem, Or, Nego Conclusionem.  
Aberdene May 10. 1667. John Menzeis.   

The Jesuits tenth Paper. Answer to a ninth Paper of Master JOHN MENZEIS, wherein is confirmed, that the pretended conformity of PROTESTANT Religion with Scripture, is a mere imaginar, and groundless conformity. 14. May, 1667.  
This Paper was delivered to Master JOHN MENZEIS, on May 15.  
I Received the twelfth of May your ninth Paper, and it seems that you have made an obstinate resolution, that since you cannot bear out your cause with solid reasons, that in supple of this, and to bl●nd simple People, you will carry it out by a Bastard sort of eloquence, that is, by a multitude of words, that either wants a sufficient signification corresponding to them, or else, are about objects altogether disparat and out of line. You carp at that which I said, that the cause wherefore I did not answer to all things contained in your Papers, was not the prolixity of them, but barrenness and superfluity of them. This you say is a contradiction, for if they be barren, how are they superfluous? But I tell you over again, that there is no contradiction in affirming your Papers, to be both barren of stuff that makes to the purpose, or to our present controversy, and stuffed with superfluous digressions out of purpose. And with this occasion I call to your mind other sort of Contradictions upon your part. For when you was urged to give some ground whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion. Your answer was, that Religion is not an indivisible truth, but a complex of many, and so, that ye were not obliged to prove in general the truths of your Religion, but that you would descend to all the particulars, and to this effect, you brought an example of a purse, holding an hundred pieces of gold in it, which must be all applied to the touch stone, one be one. But afterwards, when you assigning for the ground of the truth of your Religion, the perspicuity of Scripture in all particular points that you hold as necessary to salvation, you were desired to give a list of all these particular points, that so they might be tried, whether the perspicuity of Scripture did shine brightly over them all, here you disclaimed your former example of the purse, alleging that you was not obliged to descend to particulars. Is not this to breath out of the same mouth, both heat and cold? Likewise you are always pretending, that you are a mere Defendant and not Opugnant, and yet your Papers contains almost nothing else but Impugnations of Catholic doctrines, which make nothing to our present controversy. Neither will it avail to say, that the Defendant may Retort arguments, because the retortion of arguments in our present controversy, doth only serve to condemn your own Religion, of falsehood and error; For giving and not granting, that you had all the grounds for the truth of your Religion, which Catholics have for the truth of theirs, (though it be most false,) and that this is all that you pretend by your retortions, yet it cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion, because, you violently putting out the Catholic Religion, under pretext that it was false and erroneous, were obliged to bring in another which was better & consequently that had better grounds. And if you did proceed reasonably, this only were sufficient to close your mouth, and to make you lay aside all such superfluous digressions, and to insist only in bringing such solid reasons, that could not be applied to any Religion that you esteem to ●e erroneous.  
I purposely omit as I have professed always to do all your digressions that makes nothing to our present purpose. As that misapplyed discourse of Saint chrysostom with the Pagans, since just as it lies, and as it is cited by you, it may be assumed by any new Upstart Sectary if they were cited before your assembly, & asked in what Scripture he did found his error. And though you call it a trisling cavil, to object so often to you, that all you bring to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion, may be with as great reason assumed to prove a false Religion to be true, yet you must know that is no trisling matter, but a main point, and an argument both of the weakness of your Religion, and of your insufficiency to maintain it, for since you can bring nothing that is sufficient to distinguish your Religion from a false religion, it remains alwise in that state as hath been often told you, that a man is in, who is affirmed indeed to be an honest man, but such an honest man that there is no difference betwixt him and a knave. Likewise I omit here that long discourse whereby you disclaim Calvine as the author of your Religion, and claims to john Hus and the Albigenses, at last to be upon your side, though the world knows, that they● were not of your Religion Likewise I slight your long patrociny that you make to defend your patriarch Luther; that he did not leap out of the Catholic Church, but only out of the Romish Church, though if you had done completely this defence, you should have shown what Visible Church was then in the World to the which he did adhere, and with which he did keep external communion when he left the Roman Church.  
Good Sir leaving all your Patergas, remember that the occasion of this debate, was your continual railing in Pulpit against Catholic Dectrines, and being desired to give some good solid ground, for the truth of your own religion, whereby both your own might be confirmed and others induced to embrace it. You did very stoutly undertake the bussines, & did bragingly protest that ye would maintain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion against whomsoever, before whomesoever, or in whatsoever place or time, but when it came to the purpose and you were desired to produce your grounds and reasons, whereby it might be mantained to be a true religion. Your first refuge was, that you as the Defendant, was not obliged to produce any ground, but all the burden incumbed on me as the Opponent, to prove that you had no grounds. And in this, you behaved yourself just as if one should come as sent from the Council, to impone upon the L. Provest and venerable Council of Aberdene, a charge to apprehend a person as suspect of Disloyalty to his Prince, and the L. Provest, desiring to see his Commission, he should reply, that he was not obliged to show his Commission, but that the Provest would prove that he had no Commission, and that his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no commission. So you have undertaken to mantain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion, and being demanded, that you show your grounds, whereby the truth of it may be mantained, you reply, that you are not obliged to produce grounds, but that another should prove that you have no grounds, not considering that religion is a positive thing, and a complex of positive dogms: and so cannot be mantained to be true, but by producing of positive grounds, and the shifting to produce them, will make all to give sentence, that it is destitute of solid grounds.  
Your next refuge was, that your Religion was proven to be true, because it was conform to Scripture, that is to say, to the true sense of the letter of Scripture. Now this pretended conformity, was proven to be merely imaginary and groundless, because, as it is impossible that a thing can be conform to a true sense, except it be supponed that there is existent a true sense: so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conform to a true sense, exceept it be proven that there is a true sense. Now you were desired to lay aside your diffused Pulpit railing style, and by a judicious and school way, to produce some soiled ground, whereby men's understanding might be convinced, that PROTESTANT Religion hath the true sense of the letter by the holy Ghost, of the letter of Scripture. To this you answered, first, that it makes a Nonsense, to say, that a Religion cannot be proven to be conform to the true sense of the letter of scripture, except it be proven that there is a true sense. Now I ask you, where lies here a nonserse, or point me out any thing here that is not most clear? Indeed you, in place of this my proposition, did substitute one of your own, and with your own words, and I willingly grant to you, that yours makes a Nonsense. Next, you seem to chasse, because I taxed your discourse to be founded upon gross ignorance, both about the nature of Formal Precisions, and about the nature of True Religion; and to this you reply first, that to speak to you of Formal Precisions is a Pedantic thing. But is it possible, that you who professeth yourself to be a Divine, should so slight Precisions, since they are the very quintessence of all superior sciences, and Aristotle might teach you, that there is no science of particulars, but in so far, as the are reduced to some commone abstraction or Precision, and that every science hath his own particular abstraction, whereby it is both constitute and distinguished from all other sciences. Next, you remit me to your Schoolboys, who will teach me the nature of Formal Precisions. I am glad that Scholars are so learned, but if it be so, they out-shut their Master, and knows more nor their Master, at least shows to know; as appears in this same answer that you make here, For I telling you, That the objective grounds of precisions, is separability, and that this is to be sound betwixt truths revealed in Scripture, and True Religion, and that on both parts; because True Religion is separable from conformity with Scripture, Since there was true religion in the World, before there was any Scripture written: And on the other part, All the truths revealed in Scripture, might be, though they componed no Religion, to wit, If GOD had so revealed them, that he had not imposed an Obligation upon us to believe them, as he might have done, or wherefore might he not have done it? Now to impugn this, you bring texts of Scripture, to prove that De Facto, this obligation to believe is not separate. I speak of Separability, and what GOD might have done, and you argue against Actual separation, as if I had said, that De Facto, there is no obligation to believe things revealed in Scripture. Are you not ashamed of such ignorant mistaking? Or, were not well applied to you, those civil terms that yourself use in this Paper, to wit, that you behoved to be drunk, or dreaming when their things escaped your pen? Likewise how gross mistaking is it, to say, That I granted, that a Religion to be true, and to be conform to Scripture are Synonima's; whereas I said only this Ad Hominem, and to argue you out of your own principles, who admits no rule of divine truth, but the written word. And in this you imitat many other of your Champions, who as I told you else where, did cite for positive doctrine of Fathers and Scholasticks the objections they made against themselves.  
Your second answer is, that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture, is proven to be a true sense, because it coincids with the sense that the fathers gives. And you are to be praised, for the recanting of your former confining of this to the Fathers of the first three Centuries, but withal, you should have shown, how fare, and to how many more ages you do now extend your former confining. And who would not smile to hear you recur to the Fathers, who takes all authority from them, holding them for men as obnoxious to errors as yourselves are? And when you are pressed with their authorities against you, you run back to Scripture alone, saying, that you will admit them only in so fare as they agree to scripture, that is to say, to the arbitrary glosses that you give to the letter of Scripture.  
At length you have taken a compendious way to end all Controversy, and to take away all doubt concerning the truth of your Religion, making this offer: that you will be content to disclaim PROTESTANT Religion, if there can be brought any one article of it, which you will not show to be contained either clearly and in terms in some place of Scripture, or else by a solid consequence, that it is deduceable out of verities clearly & in terms revealed in Scripture. This is your offer, and I hope you mean that falling, you will make this recantation publicly and with some solemnity. Now I out of the love, I carry to this your conversion, accepts your offer, and not to burden you with many things, I propone for the present this one article, whereby you hold that there are only Two Sacraments, desiring you to assign either a place of Scripture, where this is clearly and in terms revealed, or assign some verity clearly and in terms revealed, out of the which this article by a solid consequence may be deduced. But remember, that the question is not, Whether there be two Sacraments, but all the question is about this exclusive particle, only two Sacraments. Likewise be pleased to remember, that the deduction must besolid, according to your own word that you use, and it is not sufficiently proven to be solid, because you call it solid, or, because you say, it will appear solid to all those, Whose eyes the God of this World hath not blinded, which is your ordinar expression in such like matters.   

Master JOHN MENZEIS Answer to the jesuits tenth Paper.  
Some Observes upon Master Dempster the Jesuit, his tenth Paper, wherein he vainly imagines, that he hath confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with the Scriptures, and yet hath said nothing, either to weaken the Religion of PROTESTANTS, or to establish the ruining Religion of Papists.  
I Know not if ye do blush, but I am truly ashamed in your behalf, that so much of my work should have stood, rather in discovering and confuting your Calumnies, and Prevarications in matter of Fact, then in examining your Arguments. This your Tenth Paper comes short of none of the former, as to this kind of stuff. For in it I desiderat nothing of a jesuit, but the Acumen, whereof these Children of Pride do arrogantly boast, though often times on very slender grounds, whereof your Empty Papers may be a luculent demonstration.  
Towards the close of your Tenth Paper, you at length seem to agree, (but with how little ingennity, may hereafter appear,) to have one Particular controversy betwixt us and you examined: namely, concerning the Number of Sacraments. I have such an appetite, once to try your behaviour on a Particular Controversy, that I shall not insist in ripping up all the Trespasses of your Tenth Paper. Yet some Specimen of them I must give, lest you should say that I do charge you unjustly, or lest the credulity of a simple Reader should be abused by your bold Asseverations.  
Should I but give a complete Index of your shameless Omissions, it might satisfy the Reader that your Pasquil deserves nor the name of an Answer to my ninth Paper. I shall hint only at a few, whereof I doubt if a Person of ingenuity would have been guilty.  
As First, I show from chrysostom, that your Objection concerning the sense of holy Scripture (which hath been the substance of your two former Papers,) was an old rotten Cavil of Heathens against the Christian Religion; and that chrysostom of old did answer thereunto, as we PROTESTANTS do now a days to you Jesuits. But this you say, You purposely omit as a Digression, making nothing to our present purpose. Is it nothing to our present purpose, that you have nothing to object against our Religion, but Heathenish cavils against the Christian Religion? Is it nothing to the purpose, that chrysostom answered these Cavils, as we PROTESTANTS do you Jesuits? Doth not this demonstrat a consonancy betwixt Our Religion, and the Old Christian Religion; betwixt our principles, and the principles of chrysostom, and consequently of other Ancient Fathers? But to salve this your absurd omission, you exercise your calumniating vein, saying, That I misapply Chrsostome, and what I cite from him may be assumed by any Sectary. Is it enough for you to say that I misapplyed him? Ought you not to have discovered my Trespass? Did I not give you the Formalia verba of the Father? Should I regard your revilings, who spare not to say, that Chrysoslomes' answer to the Pagans Objection may be assumed by any Sectary? Is not this an evidence, that chrysostom, were he alive to day, should be a Sectary with you, and of the Religion of PROTESTANTS? But Secondly, because you still clamoured (though without cause,) That there is no assignable ground of the conformity of the Religion 〈◊〉 PROTESTANTS had solid grounds to prove its conformity 〈◊〉 the Scripture. One argument was proposed in a Syllogisticke frame, the Medium whereof was, that the Religion of PROTESTANTS had all the solid grounds which the True Christian Religion hath. The other Argument was drawn up by way of Dilemma, because if our Religion deviat from the sense of Scripture, then must it either be in our Positives, or in our Negatives, but in neither, as I did demonstrate. Yet neither of these Arguments do you once touch. Had you intended a Paper correspondent to your Inscription, To prove the conformity of our Religion with scripture to be imaginary, & groundless, ought you not to have examined and discussed these Arguments? How would your men laugh at one who would set down a magnific title, promising a confutation of all Beauties' arguments, and yet in the body of the discourse, touch none of them? Is the strength of imagination so strong with you, as to imagine, that you have proven the conformity of the Protestant Religion with Scripture to be imaginary and groundless, when you dare not once touch the Arguments which are brought to prove the conformity of the PROTESTANT Religion with the Scriptures to be real? Have you not need to be sent to Pythagoras' School, to be taught to be mute, until you learn to speak to purpose? But Thirdly, I did not only prove, that the Religion of PROTESTANTS had grounds to prove its conformity with the Scriptures, but also, to stop the mouth of a Caviller, I declared to you what was that ground, and I took it from Georgius Scholarius, his Third Oration in the Council of Florence, and did appeal thereunto for the decision of all controversies betwixt us and you. But you never once touched this ground. How then could you imagine, that you had confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with Scripture? Doth the Devil abuse the imaginations of Jesuited Heretics, as somesay, that he doth the fancy's of Witches, making them imagine that they do the thing of which they only dreamt? Fourthly, did I not give a Direct Answer to your Objection by a formal distinction? If any thing should have been taken notice of, ought not this? Yet ye wholly overleap it. A goodly Dispistant indeed. Fifthly, I refuted some new Cavils, which you started to prove, That the truth of Religion, ought not to be tried by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church, in the first three Centuries. But you found my Replies thereto so thorny, that you have not dared to meddle with them. Only you have an impudent Calumny concerning that matter, which I may afterwards touch. Sixthly, whereas as you had accused Calvine, and our Reformers, as contemners of Antiquity, I show not only, that Calvine had confuted your Religion from Antiquity, but also, that Antiquity is more contemned by you Romanists, then ever it was by the Reformed Churches. I brought many Instances hereof from Bellarmine, Maldonate, Melchior Canus, Brisacerius, and Cornelius Mussus, but all these you smother in silence. Thus have I given an overly touch of some few of your Omissions. Whoso will be at pains to compare my ninth Paper with your Tenth, will find you guilty of many more. Only now let me ask, are these the Digressions, the Parergas, and the Superfluities which you talk of in my Paper? Do not every one of those touch the Cause? Have they not a genuine rise from Your Papers? Who that regarded either truth, or his own reputation, would have overleaped all those? You have made great haste to transmit your Papers to me, but you have still left your work behind you. I have gotten Ten Papers from you, but not One Answer. Take a view of your Omissions, and you will find all My Papers unanswered. Your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your after thoughts have need to be set on work to supply your Omissions.  
In the next place, I shall glean up some of your Unfaithful misrepresentations, in doing whereof, I shall not need to stand to the precise Method of your Rapsodick Paper. And first, you have such a shameless fore head, as to say, That I had recanted the confining of my discourse, concerning the conformity of our Religion with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries. This is that Calumny of yours, at which I was hinting in your Fifth Omission. How could you hatch such a manifest unteach? Let all the jesuits in Europe play the Critics on My Papers, and see if I have recanted one Syllable that ever I avouched in any of them. I told indeed in my Last, that you like a● Dreamer ●ha● substituted that, Concerning conformity with the Fathers of the first three Centuries, as a Second Answer which I had given in my Eight Paper, to your Cavil, concerning the sense of Scripture; whereas in all that Eight Paper of mine, there was no express mention at all of the Fathers of the first three Centuries. Is my discovery of your Mistake, a recanting of aught that ever I had said concerning the Fathers of the first three Centuries? Do you not behave yourself like a Dreamer, when you substitute Quid pro quo? Any hint I had in my Eight Paper at that Matter, was to challenge you, that though in your Eight Paper, you had been reduced Ad metam silentii in that point, all the Cavils mentioned in your Seventh, being so fully confuted, that you had nothing to Reply in your Eight, yet you durst not adventure to have the truth of Religion examined, By its conformtie with the faith of the most Ancient Church. In my Ninth, I did expressly confute some New Cavils, which upon further deliberation you had started in your Ninth, against the trial of Religion, By the conformity thereof, with the faith of the Ancient Church, in the first three Centuries. So fare was I from recanting or refusing to admit that as a discretive Test, for trying the truth of Religion. Surely the first 300. years, were the flower of the Primitive Church, Hence is that testimony which Egesippus in Euseb. lib. 3. hist. Eccles. cap. 29. gives to the Church in those days. Ad ca tempora Virgo pura & incorrupta mansit Ecclesia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Church then had continued a pure and a chaste Virgin. Shall you never have the ingenuity, to Recant such impudent Calumnies? But I nothing wonder, that you cannot be induced, to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformity with the Church in these Centuries. For as a Learned Divine hath observed: In these ages most of your present R●mish tenets were unknown to the Wold, Your Papal Indulgences were then unhatched: Purgatory fire was then unkindled to make your kitchen's smoke: The Mass was then vumoulded: Transubstantiation unbaked: The Treasury of Merits was then unmiuted: The Pope's transcendent power was uncreated: ecclesiastics were unexempted: And deposing of Kings was then undreamed of: The Lay People were not cozened then of the Cup, Communion under one kind only, was not then in kind: It was not then known, that Liturgies and Prayers were publicly made in an unknown tongue: They did not then worship or adore any wooden or breaden God: They worshipped that which they knew, and that in Spirit and in truth. Thus Simon Birkbeck in his Tractat, entitled the Protestants Evidence. Sect. 3. pag. 18. Edit. 3. By which you may perceive, That it is no new sect of my own that I am hatching, when I appeal to the Religion of the Church in the Three first Centuries, as you foolishly whisper in your Ninth Paper.  
But because, you use these invidious words, of Confining my discourse to the three first Centuries: You may remember, that in my Seventh Paper, I cleared that the First Restriction of my Argument to the Three first Centuries, for proving the truth of our Religion and the falsehood of yours, was occasioned by the discourse I was then upon, concerning the Ancient Apologists in these Centuries; And that my argument might have been extended further, as in such like exigences it had been further extended by Juell, Whit●ker, Crak●nthorp, and other learned PROTESTANTS. Now only I tell you, that if you have the confidence to try the truth or falsehood of Religion, By the consonancy thereof with or dissonancy to the faith of the Catholic Church in the first three Centuries, you shall find that I never intended so to astrict myself to these ages, as not to go further. After we have gotten the verdict of the First three Centuries, I shall not then decline to trace you successively through all succeeding ages to this day. And I am confident upon a through discuss it will appear that Your present Romish Faith, as to all its Essentials, was never the faith of the Catholic Church in any age, let be in All. And upon the conttarie, neither you, nor any of your Adherents shall be able to prove, that our Religion differs in Its Essentials, from the faith of the Catholic Church in any age. Now in such an enquiry, can we fall upon a more convenient Method, then to begin at the fountain, I mean at the most pure, Ancient and (according to Egesippus Elegy,) Virgin Church, in the First three Centuries. If our Religion be found conform thereto in all Its Essentials (as I am confident it shall) then sure it is conform to the True Catholic Religion in all ages. If yours be found dissonant thereto (as I doubt not but it will,) then sure it is dissonant to the Christian Religion, in all ages. For there is but one faith, Eph. 4.5. and one True Religion.  
But Secondly, you have the boldness to upbraid me with Two contradictions. Only before I propose them, I must mind you, that neither of these pretended Contradictions are in my Ninth Paper, to which you now answer. So glad it seems you have been of any thing to fill up the room, wherein you should have answered that Ninth Paper. If my Former Papers were guilty of these Contradictions, were you not very obtuse who did not discover them more timely? Yet let the unpartial Reader judge of these Contradictions.  
The first alleged contradiction is, That upon the one hand, I should have affirmed Religion to be a complex of many truths, which are to be severally tried, as the several pieces of gold in a purse, and that I would descend to the several particulars, yea, and that all points necessary to salvation, were contained perspicuously in Scripture: Yet when you called me, to give a list of all these particular points, than I disclaimed my former example of a purse, and alleged that I was not obliged to descend to particulars. I see now I was in no mistake, when I said, that you walked by that Machiavillian principle, Calumniare audacter etc. Resume all my Papers, and see if ever I refused to descend to a trial of any particular Controversy betwixt you and us? Yea, have I not all this time been pressing you to this, and you dared not to peep out of your lurking holes? Have I not passed through many of the Controversies in particular, to which you have not adventured to make any Reply? Produce the page or leaf in any of my Papers, where ever I disclaimed that forementioned example, Of trying the several pieces of gold by the touch stone, yea, or one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that once I gave you under my hand? But I shall ingenuoussy tell the truth of that which you so deceitfully misrepresent, and when I have done, contradict me if you can. I said indeed, That Religion is a complen of many truths, and to prove them all, as matters are now stated bemint us and you Remanists, were to write a body of controversies. But yet that I should never decline to examine any of those with you. And I have further said, that all the necessary points of Christian Religion, were contained perspicuously in the Scriptures. But when you in stead of coming to a discuss of particular points, only started that old thread bare Cavil, Concerning a precise catalogue of necessary points, I show That it was but a mere tergiversing shift in you, and demonstrated by many reasons, which you was never able to answer, That there was no necessity lying upon me, in order to the decision of the main controversy, at present betwixt us, to determine a precise Catalogue of necessary truths. You may call in for your assistance, the rest of your Society, and try if you can find a real Contradiction in all this. Indeed if I had promised to give you a Catalogue of points necessary to Salvation, and hereafter had refused to give it; o● if since I declared a readiness to debate with you any point in Controversy, betwixt the Reformed Churches and the Church of Rome. I had declined to perform my promise; you might have accused me of inconsistency with myself: Or if having affirmed, that all things necessary to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture, I had denied any article of faith necessary to Salvation, to be contained clearly in Scripture, you might have charged me with a Contradiction. But you and your Associates may canvas what I have said again and again, and try if you can find either a Contradiction, or that I have declined any thing that is necessary for the decision of the present Controve sie. Cannot all the points in Controversy betwixt the Reformed Churches and Pomanists, be particularly examined without Desyning a precise catalogue of truths, simply necessary to Salvation? Have I ever said, that every one of your Romish errors is Fundamental? Or, that no points of truth are clearly revealed in Scripture, but only Fundamentals, or such, the explicit belief whereof is absolutely necessary to Salvation? Nay, I tell you, that on main reason, why I did, and do forebear, for the time to pitch upon such a Catalogue, was, because I stand now to justify the Religion of PROTESTANTS against your Cavils. But the Reformed Churches, in their Harmony of Confessions, have not, so fare as I have observed, determined that Precise Catalogue of necessaries. So that in pirching upon such a Catalogue, at the time, I should leave my work to follow a tergiversing vagrant. Yea some of our Divines, particularly, acute Chillingworth in his book, entitled, The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation, part. 1. cap, 3 §. 13. Affirms that more may be necessary to the Salration of some then of others. And therefore to call for a precise catalogue of points necessary to the Salvation of every one, were, as if one should call for a Dial to serve all Meridian's, or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her Changes. You may likewise remember, that I show in my Sixth and Seventh Papers, that Romanists are no less concerned to give a Catalogue of necessaries, nor exposed to fewer difficulties in doing it, than we, and that in this matter, your Authors have been often Non-plussed by PROTESTANT Divines. For you have made points Necessary, which the Ancient and Catholic Church, never held as Necessary. And so have separated yourselves from the Catholic Church of JESUS CHRIST. But to let you see, that I am still ready to perform what ever I undertook: pitch you upon any point controverted betwixt the Reformed churches and You, whether belonging to the Essentials or Integrals of Religion, that is, whether simply necessary to Salvation or not, and you shall find, that I shall never decline the discuss thereof with you, or any of your Romish Synagogue.  
But let us take a view of the other pretended Contradiction, which you object. Namely, That I affirm that I do sustain in this debate the part of the Defendant, and that yet the greatest part of my Papers contain impugnations of your Romish Doctrines. And is not your shame so much the greater, that I have impugned so many of your Doctrines, and you durst never adventure to vindicat one of them? If most of my Papers contain impugnations of your Religion, how did you before allege that I declined to come to particulars? Should not alyat have a good memory? But is there any apparent Contradiction in that which you object? It might perhaps be disputed, whether it be proper for a Respondent to use Contra-argumentations, but who ever said that it was a Contradiction? May not I as a Respondent hold you to your work to prove the Negatum, and yet Exsuperabundanti, reach forth a blow against you by Retortion? Nay yourself perceived that this would be reponed to you, therefore say you, That retortion doth not serve the turn in the present case betwixt us, because it is not enough, that PROTESTANTS have all the grounds for their Religion which Romanists have for theirs, seeing PROTESTANTS have rejected the Romish Religion, and the grounds thereof. But this is like the rest of your cobwebs, for though a valid Retortion doth not always suffice to establish positively the Hypothesis of the Respondent; yet it conduces to stop the mouth of the cavilling Opponent. And besides, you Romanists do often pretend to Grounds, which do not compet to you, as to a Conformity with Scripture, and with primitive antiquity. Shall conformity with Scripture and Antiquity, cease to be grounds, by which the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be demonstrated, because you Romanists do falsely pretend thereunto? How often hath this been hammered upon you, that conformity with the Law may prove luculently one to be an Honestman, though a Knave pretend thereunto? Excellently said Austin, Lib. 3. the Baptisms, contra Donatistas', cap. 19 Haeretici Scripturas tenent ad speciem non ad veritatem,— and again, Ad imagines phantasmatum suorum convertunt omnia Sacramenta & verba librorum sanctorum. Nec tamen quia illae imagines falsae sunt, & doctrinae Daemoniorum propterea illa Sacramenta, & divind eloquia sic exhonoranda sunt ut illorum esse putentur. The sum of this choice testimony of Austin, is, that Scriptures must not be laid aside, as no being grounds of the True Religion, because Heretics boldly, though falsely pretended thereunto. By this time you may see, that notwithstanding all your Jesuit breeding, you may go to School again, and searne what a Contradiction is.  
I come now to take some notice, how you behave yourself, in vindicating your poor cavil, Concerning the sense of Scripture. Suffer me therefore to lay before you some Instances of your weakeness herein. As First, You now acknowledge, that in the sense wherein I proposed your objection in my nynth Paper, it is perfect Nonsense. But in my Ninth Paper, I gave no other sense of it, than I had given before in my Eight Paper. Nay in my Ninth Paper, I did repeat In terminis what I had said in my Eight, to make you sensible of your ludibrious whifle, concerning Formal precisions: But notwithstanding the sense which I had given of your objection in my eight paper, you mantained it to be Good sense, & that there interveened a sufficient distinction betwixt the Medium & the Problem; But now without any variation since it is become perfect Nonsense, according to your own acknowledgement. If this be your skill of Formal precisions, wherein you glory, to turn Sense to Nonsense, neither I, nor others, will much-envy your Acumen. Secondly therefore, to make some sense of this your cavil, you exhibit it thus to us, A Religion cannot be proven to be conform to the true sense of the letter of scripture, except it be first proven that there is a true sense. And you cry out, Where lies there any nonsense here? And you call on us to point you out any thing which is not clear. But I do yet desiderat both clearness and truth in this your Assertion, as it is now proposed by you. I say First, I desiderat Clearness, for hereby you would seem to question, Whether scripture had a true sense? As if the GOD of Truth could not speak Sense, or had delivered Nonsense in the holy Scriptures. Yet I have more charity to you, then to think that you are come to that height of profane Scepticism. This only I have said, to show that the Sense of your words appears not so clear; and that they might suffer such a Blasphemous construction. But I am apt to conceive, that the thing which you would have said, was, That before we PROTESTANTS prove our Religion to be conform to the scriptures, it must be proven, that the sense which we give of scripture is true. But, (besides all which hath been said in my two former Papers to this, most of which to this hour remains unanswered,) I now say, that I desiderat the Truth of this, Assertion, even as thus expressed. For a Proposition may be so suculent, that the words being understood, the understanding, if it be sound, cannot but presently take up the sense thereof without any antecedent proof: Else in proving the true sense of any Proposition, we should run In infinitum. And therefore, that a Religion may be proven to be conform to the sense of the letter of the Scripture, it is only requisite, that the sense of the letter of Scripture be either in itself luculent, obvious and clear, the words being once understood; or if it be not so obvious and clear, that in that case, it be proven. This I freely grant, and shall never decline in the handling of any controverted point with you. But Thirdly, in stead of proving that there doth intervene a Formal precision, sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and the Problem in your Proposition, as it was glossed upon by me in my Eight Paper, which was the thing incumbent to you, you only fall out upon a commendation of Formal Precisions, together with some scoffing jeers against me and my Scholars, which discover more of your folly, then injure either of us. I meddle not with such eccentric foolries. Neither do I deny, but Divines may make use of Precisions as occasion serves. But to turn so grave a Theologick debate into a Logical scuffle, about Formal precisions, savoures at best, but of a Pedantic spirit: Especially, when it appears that it is brought in only to cloak that which now you confess to be a Nonsense. Fourthly, after this whifle about Formal Precisions, you bewray gross inadvertency, about your Objective precisions, and separability betwixt all the truths contained in scripture and true Religion. Because, say you, all the truths in Scripture might have been revealed, and no obligation laid upon us to believe them. And in this you blame me, That I only proved by the Scripture-instances which I brought that there is no actual separation betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture, and the true Religion, but did not prove them insenarable. But if you look again to my Paper, you will find that your inadvertency is only to be blamed. For I did prove the absolute inseparability. betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion. Which again I thus demonstrate, according to the grounds laid down in my Last. If all the truths in Scripture cannot be without an obligation to believe them, in order to the obtaining of Salvation, then All the truths of Scripture cannot be, except they compound a Religion. But the first is true, therefore also the last. The Sequel of the Major is clear, because this is the only pretence, upon which you suppose that all Scripture Truths may be, and yet compound no Religion, because they may be, and yet no obligation be laid upon us to believe them. If therefore they cannot be, except an obligation be laid on us to believe them, then surely they cannot be, except they compound a Religion. It remains therefore only that we prove the Assumption, that they all cannot be revealed without an obligation to believe them, and this is clear from the Scriptures cited in my Last Paper, because this is one of the Truths, in those Scriptures, that we are obliged to believe these Truths. And I cited purposely these Scriptures to prove this? And therefore it is impossible that all Scripture truths can be, and we not be obliged to believe them. For this is one Scripture truth, that we are obliged to believe the Truths revealed in Holy Scripture. What now I have demonstrated more prolixlie I set down clearly enough, though more succinctly, in my Last: Albeit it seems you have been so taken up with your Precifive airy Notions, that you have not understood the Paper which was sent to you. But to prevent your further mistake in this, I think it fit to let you know, that I distinguish betwixt these two. I do indeed confess, that a Religion may be, though nothing be committed to Writing: And this was the case of the Ancient Church before Moses: But this concerns not our present debate. But the thing I deny, is, That all the truths contained in Scripture, way be, and yet make no Religion at all. And this I hope now I have demonstrated against you, both in this and in the former Paper: Though your Notional precisions have made either your sight or your judgement Preseind from the Paper, which you should have examined, and consequently, from the purpose. By these hints you may consider, whether you have added any strength to your insignificant Objection, Concerning the sense of Scripture.  
But because you are still harping upon this Cavil, About the sense of the Scriptures. It would appear that you Look upon Scripture as so obscure, as not able to be a ground for decision of controversies in Religion, unless there be some infallible visible-judge. I shall desire you to consider how different you are in your apprehersions, as to this matter, from the Ancient Church, in which the decision of Controversies in Religion was committed, sometime to Secular persons, yea, sometime to Heathens, which yourself will confess not to be Infallible. Have you not read that writing, which passeth under the name of Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, in which there is a dispute betwixt Sabellius, Photinus, and Arius upon the one side, and Athanasius on the other, concerning the Trinity, and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ? and Probus a Heathen is constituted judge to determine betwixt them, not according to his own fancy, but according to the proofs which they should produce from the Scriptures, and after hearing of both, he gives sentence for the Truth. This dispute you will find set forth among Cassander's works, from Page 460. and the sentence of Probus the Judge, page 506. etc. I do not say that this Conference was real, for the Collocutors were not contemporary: Yet the Learned and Ancient Author of this Dialogue, who by some is supposed to be Pope Galosius, doth clearly insinuate, that the most sublime Mysteries of Christianity are so luculently revealed in Scripture, that a mere pagan may find out the true sense of Scripture concerning them. Have you nor t●ad in Epiphanius, haeres. 66. how that Archelaus, an Orthodox Bishop, had a dispute against the pernicious Heretic Manet in Caschara a City of Mesopotamia, and how by common consent they ●●b●●ic●ed unto Four Heathen Judges, to Marcipus a Phil soph, to Claudius a Physician, to Aegialous a Gramariare, and to Clerb●lus a Sophister, who after hearing adjudged the Victory to Archelaus. And this was no fiction, but a real deed. What should I tell you, how Laurentius a secular person was Arbiter, in a dispute betwixt Augustine and Pascortius an Arian, as appears by Austine●, Aepist. 178? Or how Marcellinus a Tribune did preside by the appointment of Honorius the Emperor, at a conference betwixt the Orthodox and the Donatists, as Augustine holds forth Tom. 7. in Brevic. Collatine? Do not all these make it evident, that the Ancient Church did not apprehend such impossibility of finding out the true sense of Scripture, without the previous decision of an Infallible visible judge? How did Christ command us to Search the Scriptures, John 5.39. if their sense be unsearchable? Is not this on controversy in Religion, whether there be a necessity of an Infallible visible judge and Propounder, and who he is? And who I pray you shall determine this, if not the Scriptures? If you have an Infallible Propounder, without whose decision the sense of Scripture cannot be attained, how injurious is he to the Christian World, who will not put forth a clear Comment, upon the Whole Scriptures, for the final decision of all Controversies? Why doth he not at least give a Decision, concerning these inrestine debates among yourselves, as betwixt your Dominicans and Jesuits, etc. Are you so fare deluded, as not to know, that this Fable of Infallibility, is the cunning imposture, whereby men of your employment, have laboured of a long time to cheat the World? But now these of the traditionary way, among you begin to perceive that the World is too wise to be still cheered by that one Trick, therefore they are betaking themselves to another Method, but as fallacious as the former.  
You have a Querie, which you expect that I should notice. You desire to know, When Luther leapt out of the Church of Rome, (as you phrase is,) if there was any Church on earth, with whom he had visible Communion. May ye not be ashamed to move such a Question to me? I having convicted you of so many Falsehoods, and Foolries concerning your last discourse of Luther's separation from Rome, and of a Lying Prophecy, which you following Bellarmine, and Cachlaeus imposed on him, to none of which you have answered one word. But though you snake away in the d●●ke when you are Non-plussed, and though your scutvie behaviour merit no Answer, yet for the satisfaction of others into whose hands these Papers may fall, I Answer there was a Church on Earth with which Luther had visible communion. For clearing whereof: By having visible communion, I understand that there was a visible society, who did profess the same Religion which Luther did, as to all the essentials thereof. If you ask, what that Church was? I answer, the Catholic visible Church. And do not wonder, that I speak of a Catholic Church as distinct from your Roman. There was a Catholic Church before there was a Church at Rome, and the Church of Rome in her greatest integrity was but a part of the Catholic. When therefore Luther departed from the present Apostatick Church of Rome because of her imperious usurpation upon the Catholic Church, he retained Communion with the rest of the body, who did never submit to her usurpations. For when Luther did broke off from Rome, there remained four gaeat Christian Patriarchships disunited from Rome, viz, of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and jerusalem. Whatsoever Christians therefore under any of these Patriarchships, or in other remote Nations, have not ruinated any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion, and are united to the True Catholck head of the Church, the LORD JESUS CHRIST, PROTESTANTS do profess Communion with all these. I do not deny, but there may be some differences betwixt us, and other Churches, as to some Integrals of Religion: But diversity of Integrals makes no different Religions, so long as the Essentials remain the same. You may learn, if you know not, from Hoornbeck, (beside others,) in his Summa controversiarum lib. 11 de Graecis, pag. 978. etc. Edit. 2. how josephus Patriarch of Constantinople, sent Demetrius a Deacon of that Church to Wittenberg, in the year 1559. to inquire into the state of the PROTESTANT Churches, and how Demetrius after an half years abode at Wittenberg, carried with him to the Patriarch a c●pi● of the Augustan Confession, translated into Greek by Philip Melanchton, under the name of Paulus D●lscins. You may also learn from the forecited Author, how Hieremia● another Patriarch who afterward sat in the same Chair, kept correspondence by letters with the PROTESTANT Divines at Tubing, from the year 1574. for a long time thereafter. And though they had there own debates about some particular points, (which your Stanislaus Socolovius labours invidiously to exaggerate,) ye both the Patriarch himself doth give GOD solemn thanks, That, the doctrine of the PROTESTANTS was in so many things consonant to the doctrine of the Greek Church. And likewise Johannes Zygowalas, a person of great account with the Patriarch, in his letter which he wrote to Martin Cruzius in the year 1576. declares, that it may be evident, that the Greek Church and PROTESTANTS do agree In continuis & causam fides praecipue continentibus articulis, or in the most important articles of the Christian faith; and that in other things they may easily come to agreement, and the rather, (as Stilling fleet in his Rational account of the PROTESTANT Religion, part. 2. cap. 8. §. 15. relates out of the same letter from David Chytraeus, de statu Eccles. Orient.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, Since neither party doth agree with the Bishop of old Rome, or with the church which joins with him, but both do oppose the evil customs brought in by him. Have you not heard, how cyril Patriarch of Alexandria wrote to George Abbat Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1616. and did commend to him a Student Metrophanes Chrysopulus, to be bred in the Universities of England, and to be farther instructed in our Religion? And accordingly the said Metrophanes did avoid Romish Superstition, and always join with the worship of the Church of England; as is testified by Doctor Morton in his Grand imposture of the Church of Rome, cap. 14. sect. 3. The Letters exchanged betwixt the Patriarch, and the Archbishop, you may find published in Ephraim Pagitts Christianography, edit. 3. part. 3. You may read also in the forecited book of Hoornbeck, of the respect which Meletius Patriach of Contstantinople had for the PROTESTANT Churches, and of his aversation of the Bishop of Rom's usurpation. But above all, memorable is the Confession of saith put forth by Cyrillus Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the year 1631. in the name of the Greek Church, exactly conform to our Reformed Religion, for which your bloody Jesuits did persecute that Holy Matyr to the death. I know that this his Confession, was afterward distallowed by Cyrill Berrhoeus, and Parthenius, two factious and bloody men, who by ill means got into the same Chair, whom Hoornbeck spares not to call, Pseudo-patriarches. But besides that, they shortly suffered for their villainies, being disgracefully, as the same Author testifies, ejected from their Patriarchships, the Lord also stirred up another Parthenius in the same Chair, to vindicat the fame and cause of Cyrillus Lucaris. The aversation which the Greek Church have of you Romanists, is sufficiently known to the World. At the time, that one Testimony of your Prateolus, in Elench. haeres. lib. 7. tit. de Graecis pag. 202. might suffice. Where he says of the Grecians, Summum Pontificem Christi Vicarium, omnesque Latinos pro excommunicatis habent, that is, They look upon the Pope of Rome, and all these of the Latin Church who adhere to him as persons excommunicated. To which you may join that of Alphonsus à Castro, lib. 6. de Haeres. tit. de Eucharistia. haeres. 2. Where he not only testifieth, that the Greeks do anathematise Latino's omnes, all who are of your Latin Church; but also that they Will not permit your Priests to consecrat on their Altars, or if they do it at any time with out their knowledge or consent, they wash their Altars, before they cōsecrat on them, as judging them polluted by your Priests. Nay further, Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography, Part. 1. cap. 4. branches forth the agreement of the Greek Church, and many other Oriental Churches with the PROTESTANT Churches, in the chief heads wherein we differ from the Papists. But because some Heresies, destroying the Foundations of Christianity, are objected to these Churches, such as the Denial of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, to the Greek Church; and Nestorianism to these under the Patriarch of Mosal; and Eutychianism to many others; I shall remit you to see what is particularly said for the vindication of the Greek Church, by Doctor Field, in his way to the Church, Lib. 3. cap. 1. Where he undertakes to show both from Greek and Romish Doctors, of great fame, I hat the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Church, touching the procession of the holy Ghost, is merely verbal. Yea, and he endeavoures to clear many other Oriental and African Churches, from Nestorianism and Eutychianism. The same also is confirmed by Ephraim Pagit, in his Christianography, part. 1. cap. 10. where he likewise undertakes to prove, that these Churches are not Heretical, but Orthodox in the main. But concerning the vindication of the Greek Church in particular, at least from a Fundamental error, touching The procession of the holy Ghost, I shall refer you to learned Stilling fleet, in his Rational account of the PROTESTANT Religion, part. 1. cap. 1. I know your Cardinal Barronius, in the end of the Sixth tom of his Annals, labours to persuade the World that an Embassy was sent to Pope Clement the eight, from Gabriel Patriarch of Alexandria, submitting himself and all the Churches under his jurisdiction, both in Egypt, and Abassia, to the Pope. But as learned Breerwood observes, in his Inquirie about the diversity of Languages & Religiones, Cap. 22. this upon examination was found to be a mere Trick of imposture. Yea, this cheat is acknowledged not only by your Historian Thuan, lib. 114. ad annum 1595. but also by Thomas a Jesus, the Carmelit, De conversione omnium gentium, lib. 7. cap. 6. pag. 364. Have you no way to persuade the World of the Catholicism of your Church, but by such Impostures? I might besides remember you of the Waldenses, and Albigenses, a people nearer hand, who professed as to Substantials the same Religion with PROTESTANTS long before Luther. Yet we never looked on them or Luther or Calvine, as the Authors of our Religion, as you do rantingly talk. For it derives its Original from Christ alone and his Apostles. Prove it to be of meaner or latter extract, and I will disowne it. I know the Waldenses were loaded with grievous aspersions, by the Zealots of the Romish faction, as if they had been Arrians, Manichees, Necromancers, and what not. But they are abundantly vindicated from these Calamnies by learned Divines, out of the writings of Authors, who cannot be suspected to have been too favourable to them. I shall only at the time remember you of that known testimony of the Inquisitor Reyner concerning them, Quod coram hominibus just vivant, & bene omnia de Deo credant, & omnes articulos qui in symbolo continentur. Solum Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant & oderunt. That is, They live justly before men, they believe all things well concerning GOD, and all the Articles of the Creed. Only they hate and blaspeme the Church of Rome. You may judge of the rest of the Calumnies thrown upon th●m, by these two chief ones, whereof learned Prideaux, lect. 9 De visibilitate Ecclesiae, § 11. gives this account. They were (sayeth he,) charged as maintaining with the Manichees, Due Principia, Two beginnings of things, GOD and the Devil, because forsooth they mantained that the Emperor was independent from the Pope. They were likewise (sayeth he,) charged with Arriantsme, because they denied Crustam in Christum esse transubstantiatam, That a crust of bread was transubstantiated into Christ in the Sacrament. You may see a large vindication of them in Vsser, De successione Ecclesiarum in Occidente ab Apostol●rum temperibus ad nostram aetatem, cap. 6 8.10. Let it suffice at the time, to remember you that he citys cap. 10. pag. 373. edit. 2. luculent testimonies out of Paradius Annals of Burgundy, and Girardus French History, that because of their freedom, in reproving the dissolute life and debauched manners of the Romish Clergy, Plures nefariae eis assingebantur opiniones à quibus fuerunt omnino al●eni. That is, Many impious opinions were attributed to the Waldenses which they altogether abhorred. I might also make mention of these in Bohem, who were termed the Hussits, to whom, Hoornbeck in the forcited place, testifies that the Church of Constantinople wrote a letter in the year 1451. exhorting them to Communion with the Greek Church, in opposition to the Bishop of Rome. Yea your own Cochlaeus & other Popish writers are quoted by Prideaux, Lect. 9 §. 11. acknowledging that the Lutherans derived their doctrine from the Hussits, the Hussits from the Wicklevists, & the Wicklevists from the Waldenses. When therefore ye are better instructed, you will acknowledge that there Religion & ours, as to Substantials, are the same. But I may come yet nearer, and tell you that Luther had Communion with many thousands, who before his appearance were groaning under the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and breathed after the shaking off the yoke of the Papal faction. As beside others, Doctor Field hath demonstrated in Lib. 3. of his way to the Church, cap. 12. and more largely in his Appendix to that Third book. Think you the World to be strangers to the piteous complaints of Nicolaus Clemanges, Alvarez Pelagius, Theodoricus à Niem, Gulielmus à Saucto Amore, etc. Concerning the Corruptions of the church of Rome? Yea, did not Pope Adrian the sixth, acknowledge the necessity of a reformation, and that the World was hungrily expecting it? I know your late Papal parasites would persuade us, That it was only a reformation of manners and not of Doctrine, which was groaned after in the church of Rome. But the contrary is luculently demonstrated by our Authors. I shall at the time, only remit you to Sir Humphrey Lynd's defence of Via tuta, against I. R. entiuled, a case for the spectacles, cap. 4. pag. 165. etc. Where he brings testimonies, not only from the Cardinal de Al●aco, Gerson, Grostead, Occam, and from the Council of Pisa, but also from the Council of Trent itself, to prove that before, and about the first sitting down of that Council, Romanists themselves were sensible, that There was a necessity of reformation of doctrine, as well as of manners. Hence was it, that so many thousands in most of the nations of Europe, did join with Luther at his appearance, who did not only oppose The corrupt manners, but also the Corrupt Doctrines of the Church of Rome. Hence is that of your Alphonsus à Castro, adversus haeres. in Aepist nuneupat. ad Pac●ec. Cardinal. Nec solus Lutherus hoc saculo prod●it, sed multorum Hareticorum agmine, ceu quodam satellitio stipatus processit, qui illum tanquam ducem primo egredientem spectasse videntur. Where he acknowledgeth that Luther came forth accompanied as with an Arm●●, who but waited for his appearance as their Captain and Leader. But that I may shut up this Section, had you considered how this Queri● is retorted by our Divines upon you, I believe you would have spared it. They ask where your Present Romish Religion, as now it stands, was before the council of Trent, which was confirmed by Pope Pius the fourth, Anno 1564. long after Luther's death? Our Divines know, that there were many corruptions in the Church of Rome before the Council of Trent, against which the Waldenses, the Wicklevists, the Hussits, Luther and others did witness. But the question now is, Whether the then Church of Rome mantained all the points of Religion as necessary to Salvation, which your council of Trent, and your Pope Pius the fourth, in his formula fidei, have declared to be necessary to Salvation. If she did, than you may be pleased to produce evidences hereof, wherein you may perhaps find more difficulty than you are aware of. If she did not, then is your present Romish Church a new upstart, and Schismatical Church, of a distinct faith from the Catholic Church in all ages. You may notice how Doctor Field in the Appendix to his fifth book, part. 2. cap. 2. goes about, to prove that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was before Luther's appearance. Things being now defined as Articles of faith necessary to Salvation, which were not so before. I sincerely profess the Novelty of your Romish Faith, and the Schismatical constitution of your Church, are not the least grounds of my disatisfaction with your Religion, You may desire your Masters to calculate to you the Antiquity of the Romish Canons, establshing the points following as Articles of faith, viz, First, The equality of unwriten traditions with the holy scriptures of GOD. 2. That concupiscence in the regenerate is not properly sin. 3. The desinit number of seven, properly so called Sacraments, neither more nor fewer. 4. The Pope's supremacy above general Councils. 5. Your Indulgences and Purgatory. 6. The abstraction of the Cup from the people. 7. Your Transubstantiation. 8. The infallibility of the Church of Rome. 9 The adoration of Images. 10. The Pope's jurisdiction over secular Princes. Not to mention more at the time. I believe you will find some of these latter than Luther's appearance. Others but a little before, and all of them, not only short of Primitive and Aprstolick antiquity, but notone of them within the Verge of the Three first Centuries. You may if you will, take a brief hint of the novel dates of most of these Romish Canons, from Drelincourt in his PROTESTANTS Triumph, Discourse 2. from page 39 to page 52. As also of sundry of your rituals, such as the Procession of the Sacrament, the feast of the Sacrament, your Jubilees, the Canonising of Saints, nay of your present Romish Missal, and how lately it was received, both in the Gallican, and Spanish Churches, etc. Is it safe to venture the eternal Salvation of Souls upon a Religion so Novel, both in its Articles of Faith and Rituals?  
You have one Trifle more which I cannot let slip. Because I have required you, to prove the Assumption of that goodly Syllogism which ye proposed in your first Paper, wherein you said, That the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the sense of Scripture, and to this day, you have been able to bring nothing in Confirmation of it: Now therefore when Arguments fail you, you would try if you could bring yourself off, or create Odium to your Adversary, with a popular, but really impertinent Example. You say, That I have behaved myself, as if one should come as sent from the Council, to require the Provest of Aberdene to apprehend a person suspect of Disloyalty, but when the Provest did demand his commission, he should answer, that he was not bound to show his Commission, but his Commission was sufficiently proven by this, that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no Commission. Is this the Scholastic method which you call for, in stead of Arguments, to substitute popular, declamatory, Scenick examples, which by a person of any Acuteness, may be transformed into a thousand various shapes? But seeing you will have the matter managed by Examples, I must Examplisie time-about. Suppose therefore, First, that a man were really Commissionated by the Secret Council, to require the Magistrates of such a City to apprehend a disloyal person, and for this effect did produce his Commission, but the Magistrates did cavil at the sense of the Commission, how luculent soever in itself, alleging that they could do nothing upon that Commission until the sense of it were cleared, and that the sense of it could not be cleared without an infallible Expounder. Would not the Secret Council have just cause to be moved with indignation against these Magistrates, who had so ludified their Order? And is not this the very case betwixt us and you? Do not PROTESTANTS still produce the Tables wherein the Ground of our Faith is contained, Viz, the Holy Scriptures? Do not we tell you, if all our Religion be not found luculently there, we shall disclaim it? Is not this your very Cavil, that the Sense of Scripture is so obscure, that without an Infallible Bropounder it cannot be understood? Have you not cause then to fear the indignation of the Almighty, who do thus reproach the Scriptures of GOD, and go about to subvert the faith of his people, suspending it till they get Propounders, of whose Infallibility they must have an Antecedent and previous assurance, whereas there are none such now on Earth. The Fallibity of your Popes and Councils we did before demonstrat, and you like a mute Advocate, had not a word to mutter for them. But Secondly, in the case which you propose, of a man pretending a Commission, and having none, and requiring the Magistrates to prove that he had none, therefore the Rogue is justly , because he refuseth to prove the Affirmative, which was incumbent to him, and requires the Magistrates to prove the Negative. But betwixt you and us the case is quite contrary. For though you framed the Assumption of your first Syllogism in Negative Terms, yet upon the matter, you refused to prove the Affirmative, and required us to prove the Negative. For what is it for us to prove the Truth of our Religion, in points controverted betwixt you and us, but to prove that there i● no Purgatory, no Transubstantiation, no Proper sacrifice in the Mass, that your Pope hath no supremacy over the Catholic Church, that there Are not seven Sacraments, that Saints are not to be invocated, nor Images adored, etc. All which are meet Negatives, and so are the most of the points controverted betwixt us and you. Now suppose that there were no Revelation from Heaven for Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Pope's supremacy, etc. Will not you confess in that Case, that it were not duty to believe any of them, and that then it were a sufficient Argument against them; there is no Divine revelation produceable for these things, therefore they are not to be believed: and if any would obtrude the belief of them upon others, that he were bound to produce a Divine revelation for them. Now we PROTESTANTS maintain De facto, this to be the Case. I would therefore demand of any rational man, if there be a possibility to confute us, but by producing a Ground or Divine revelation for these things? Are not you then guilty of the same Absurdity with the Knave in your own Example, who refuse to prove the Affirmative, and require us to prove the Negative? But yet further, Thirdly, Is not he, at least, bound to prove a Negative, who undertakes the Probation thereof? Should one undertake to prove, that such an one had not Commission from the Secret Council, would not his undertaking of this, oblige him to prove it? Seeing therefore by the Proposal of your Negative Syllogism, you undertake to prove the Premises thereof; how can you deny that you are bound to prove them? But Lastly, though I have keeped you to your duty, that it might appear, that you have undertaken an impossible task, yet I was so fare from shunning to give a Ground of our Religion, that I have often produced to you the Grounds thereof as my Papers will witness, and have cut off your Cavils against them. Whether therefore I who have given Grounds, on which we walk, and appealed you to try accordingly the particular points of our Religion: Whether then, I say, I, or you, who shun to give the Grounds of your Religion, yea, or Any ground whereby the truth of Religion may be examined, be like to the Knave in your Example; let these who are not Knaves themselves judge.  
You have frequently clamoured, That those of a false Religion may assume the grounds which we have given, with as much reason as we, and so you repeat your old Knavish example, comparing our Religion to an Honestman, betwixt whom and a Knave there is no difference. How often hath this been confuted before? But you have the impudency to repeat Ad nauseam, often confuted Calumnies, not once concerning yourself to examine what was replied to them. I confess an Heretic could soon give all the Grounds to prove his Religion, and a Knave to prove his Honesty, which you have brought to prove your Religion. For though you have been often required to condescend upon the Ground● of your Religion, you have been able to produce none; only some hints you had at the Infallibility of your propounders, but were soon beaten off from that pretence. How often hath it been told you, that these of a False Religion may pretend, though falsely, to the same Grounds with those of a True Religion, as a Knave may pretend to the same Arguments to prove his Honesty which a truly Honestman doth? Do not Quakers pretend to Infallibility, as well as your Popes? Did nor Appallonius Thyanaeus boast of Miracles as well as your Romish Synagogue? Did not the old Arians and Donatists claim the title of the Catholics as well as you? Do not the Patriarches of Alexandria, whom you hold for Schismatics, allege a Personal and Local succession, as well as your Popes? Will you for this disclaim your Pope's infallibility, the Miracles of your Church, the Title of Catholics, and Your succession? But whereas you say, That these of a false Religion may assume the same grounds which we have proposed, with as good reason as we, Is I pray you, a False Religion plainly laid down in Scripture, or deduceable by firm consequence from Scripture? Is not this the Test, by which you have been required to try all points of Controversy betwixt you and us? But you have judged it your interest, to hold rather on general Calumnies, then to come to a particular discuss.  
I come now to your last Paragraph, wherein you make a Bravade, of condescending to have one point of controversy betwixt us and you examined; but with your usual candour. Have I not been obtesting you all this time that you would leave your trifling Generals, and come to a discuss of Particulars? Did I not assure you in my Last, that if upon a particular examination, it should not appear, that all the points of our Religion, are either plainly in Scripture, or solidly deduceable from that which is plainly there, I would renounce it, and only required the like ingenuity in you, that if it be found, that your Popish Religion is neither plainly in Scripture, not by  consequence deduceable from that which is clearly there, that you would be as can did in disowning your Papal Superstition? To this you say, You embrace the offer, and only desire, that I would prove this one point of Religion, viz. That there be only two Sacraments. Where I desire, First, it may be observed, that in professing your acceptation of my Offer, you dissemble the one half of it. You make mention of my undertaking for the PROTESTANT Religion, but you altogether wave the provision on your part for the Popish Religion: and therefore you require me to prove that there be only two Sacraments, yet you do not once offer to prove that there are seven, which is the Popish assertion. What unfaithfulness and cowardliness is bewrayed by this mutilation of my Proffer, the unpartial Reader may judge. Were I to be blamed, though I declined to prosecut my Offer, you not accepting it Entirely? But I am not so base, nor distrustful of our cause. You say, That love to my conversion moved you to accept the offer. If your love to me were sincere, you would not tergiverse as you do, for you ought to prove Positively that there be Seven Sacraments, neither more nor fewer. Though I could not prove that there be only two, yet I could be no Papist in that point, except I be convinced, that there be only seven: As your Cursing (I had almost said Cursed,) Council of Trent hath defined, Sess. 7. Can. 1. Si quis di●●erit Sacramenta novae legis, aut esse plura vel pauciora quam septem, viz. Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Paenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem & Matrimonium, anathema sit. That is, If any shall say, that the Sacraments of the new law are more or fewer than seven, ●●●ly Baptism, Confirmation, the Euch ●rist, Penance, Extreme unction, Order and Matrimony, let him be accursed. If therefore one should 〈◊〉 antaine that there were three, or four, or five, or six, or eight, or nine, or twenty, etc. Sacraments, he should indeed differ from us in this particular, but yet be no Papist. Your tergive●fing assures me, you have no strength of reason with you, to persuade me to become your Proselyt. And if you had such a zeal for my Conversion, why did you not embrace this Offer sooner, I having often made such like appeals to you in divers of the foregoeing Papers? But Secondly, if there be any point of Controversy betwixt PROTESTANTS and Papists, where a cavilling Sophister may lurk under ambiguity of words, and darken the Debate with Logomachies, this is the point which you have chosen concerning the number of Sacraments. For the word Sacrament in the strict notion, wherein it's taken either by our or your Divines in this controversy, is not used in Scripture; no not in your Vulgar latin, unless you will be pleased to acknowledge that the Whore of Babylon is one of your Sacraments. For Revel 17.7. your Vulgar latin reads thus, Dicam tibi Sacramentum mather is. I will tell thee the Sacrament of the woman, but your Rhemists are there ashamed to use the word Sacrament. Nor is there any word either in the Hebrew, or Greek, exactly correspondent to the strict notion of a Sacrament, which is not extended to other things; which neither you nor we hold for Sacraments: as Chamter bathe demonstrated, Lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere, cap. 3.4. And besides, Ancient Fathers have used the word Sacrament, in so large a sense that they have designed many things by this name, which on all sides are acknowledged to be no proper Sacraments. As Austin gives the name of a Sacrament, lib. 2. de peccatorum merit is & remissione, cap. 26. to the meat given to Catechumen, and lib. 4. de Sym●olo, cap. 1. to Exercismes, lib. 19 contra Faustum, cap. 14. to the sign of the cross, yea, lib, de bono conjugali, cap. 18. to Polygamy, none of which you Romanists will acknowledge as Sacraments. So that, according as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense, PROTESTANTS do not deny, but there may be said to be more or fewer Sacraments. Yea, if the word be taken largely, Doctor Featly in his Stricturae in Lindo-Mastigem, pag. 90. will grant that it may be said, that there be not only seven, but seventeen Sacraments: And Doctor Whitaker, praelect. de Sacramentis, quaest, 6. cap. 1. will admit that seven times seven may be found in Ancient Fathers: and Doctor Morton, in his Appeal lib 2 cap. 26. Sect. 5. ascends to seventy seven: And Crakanthorp, in defension Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra Spalat. cap. 30. §. 1. spares not to affirm, that you may aswell number seventy times seven as seven: And Hierom, as cited by Gerard, de Sacramentis, cap. 1. §. 6 says Sacramenta Dei sunt praedicare, benedicere, confirmare, communionem reddere, visitare infirmos, orare. And Tertullian, lib. 4. contra Martion cap. 2. calls all Christianity a Sacrament, Religionis Christianae Sacramentum. How little weight some of our great ‛ Divines have laid on this Controversy, you may see in learned Whitaker loco citato, where he spares not to say, that barely to extend the name of a Sacrament to other things, which are not so properly called Sacraments, Error est non admodum periculosus, is not an error of dangerous consequence, providing there be not Ordinances brought into the Church which are not of divine institution. And learned Master Baxter, in his Treatise of Confirmation, pag. 88 & 89. propos. 10. grants that there are more than seven Sacraments in the largest sense, that there be five in a large sense, but only two, Baptism and the Lords Supper, in the strictest sense. Is this the Characteristic for distinguishing a True Religion from a False, where a Caviller may wrap himself up in such Logomachies? Have not some of your Divines affirmed, that a Sacrament cannot be defined, as Occam, Major, and Richardus cited by your own Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere, cap. 10? But one thing is remarkable, that among all the various acceptions of the word Sacrament, in Ancient writers there was never one of them, who determined the number of proper Sacraments to be seven, neither more nor less, as you Romanists do to day. How unhappy then were you to pitch on this particular Controversy, seeing the precise septenary number of Sacraments can never be proven, either from Scripture, or Antiquity? You may consider, what a low ebb in this matter you are at, when your Bellarmine lib. de effect. sacram. cap. 24. is put to that shift, Non debere adversarios petere à nobis, ut ostendamus in Scriptures, vel Patribus, nomen septevarii numeri Sacramentorum. Scripturae enim & Patres non scripserunt Gatechismum That is, Our Adversaries (he means PROTESTANTS,) should not demand of us, to show either from Scripture, or Fathers, the name of the number of seven Sacraments: For the Fathers wrote not Cathechisms. Yet we shall hear the same Cardinal a little after, rendering this as the reason, why Ambrose, and Cyril of Jerusalem, did not reckon our seven Sacraments, because they did write to Catechumen. Is this the pregnancy of your Jesuits Acumen, to use contradictory Mediums to prove the same Conclusion? Sometime thus, the Fathers wrote not Cathechisms, therefore they did not express the desinit number of seven Sacraments: And at another time infer the same Conclusion, because they did write Catechisms. May not such Sophisters infer. Quidlibet ex quolibet? But sure it is, Cyril of Jerusalem did write Catechisms, why then did not he, at least, mention your septenary of Sacraments? I suppose your Council of Florence, and Trent, were not writing Cathechisms, when they targht a septenary of them. But our Divines deal liberally with you in this matter. They stand nor upon words. They demand not the name of the number of seven. They only ask a real demonstration of a precise septenary, though not in so many words. Hence Doctor Mortone, in the place last quoted: We exact not (sayeth he,) the name of the number of seven, but only, as two and three make five, so would we have demonstrated, that any of the Fathers, in any place of their writings of the Sacraments of the New-Testament, did give any certain intimation of the number of seven. Can PROTESTANTS be more condescending in their demands? Yet this could never be performed by any of you. A clear evidence, that all your Popish Party cannot Proselyte me to you in this point. For they cannot show, that either Scripture, or Fathers, did approve the pretent Romish faith, concerning a precise Septenar●e of properly so called Sacraments of the New-Testament. Thirdly, had you been a person of ingenuity, would you not first have cleared these articles of your Religion, which I have impugned in my former Papers, before you had started a new Question? But by your deep silence as to these, it is easy to guesle, what satisfaction is to be expected from you as to this. Nay Fourthly, is it not a mere Negative, whereof you demand the Probation from me, That there be only two Sacraments. For you say, It is not the probation of two, but that there are no more than two, which you desire, so that it is a mere Negative, you would have me proving: Now would not all the reason of the World say, that ye who maintain the Affirmative, viz, that there be more than two, properly so called Gospel Sacraments, and that there be precisely seven; Ought to prove this your Assertion, and that we are sufficiently warranted to maintain the Negative, until you prove the Affirmative, for Ab authoritate negativa, in rebus fidei, optima est consequentia. You must also know, our Positives are the articles of our faith, and by the Negatives, which we maintain in opposition to you, we declare that your errors are no part of our faith, so that when you lay the whole stress upon your proving this Negative, that there are no more than two Sacraments, you do not require us to prove an Article of our faith, nor should we succumb in proving an article of our faith, though we did not prove it. Our Negative is only a declaration, that your five super added Sacraments are no part of our faith. But if you prove them not to be Sacraments, you succumb in proving an article of your Romish faith. How scurvily then deal you, who require us to prove the Negative, which is no article of our faith, and yet shun to prove the contradictory affirmative; which without question is an article of your Romish faith. How little candour you have showed in this matter, by these particulars may be discerned.  
Yet to give a touch of the Question in particular, that the State thereof may be clear betwixt us, know that we do not affirm, that the word Sacrament is to be found in Scripture; neither do we deny, but in a large sense, as some have taken it, pro signo rei sacrae, for an holy sign, or the sign of an holy thing, which is the first definition given by Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere, cap. 11. out of Austin and Bernard, it may be attributed to many things beside Baptism and the Lords Supper, as to Christ's washing of the Disciples feet, to the holy kiss used in Scripture times, etc. Shortly therefore, leaving both the Etymology of the word Sacrament, about which Critics have traveled, and the various definitions of a Sacrament given by Divines of both sides: When we affirm that there be two Sacraments only in the new Testament, we understand by a Sacrament of the new Testament, a substantial visible sign, instituted by GOD, since the incarnation of the Son of GOD, recorded in the Gospel to seal up the promises of salvation, which is to endure in the Church to the end of the World. Where we do require these things to the nature of a proper Sacrament of the new Testament, First, that it be a substantial visible sign, instituted by GOD since the incarnation, and recorded in the Gospel. That it be a sign, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not only held forth by the Apostle, Rom. 4.11. and by the Ancient Fathers of the Church, but also, is acknowledged by your Bellarmin, lib. 1. de sacram. in genere, cap. 9 That it be instituted of GOD, is not only proven from Scripture by our Divines, but also is acknowledged in the Definition of your Roman Catechism, part. 2. cap. 1. qu. 6. That it be instituted since the Incarnation, I suppose you cannot deny, to distinguish it from the Sacraments of the Old Testament, of which we are not now debating. I add likewise, that it must not only be a sensible Sign, but also Visible, to distinguish it from the preached Word; which is a sensible and audible Sign, but not Visible; and this Austin holds forth in that famous sentence of his, Tract. 80. in Johannem. Accedit verbum ad elementum & fit sacramentum, & ipsum quasi visibile verbum: Where he clearly distinguishes the Element which becomes a Sacrament from the audible Word: Hence Chamier, lib. 1: de sacram. in genere, cap. 14. § 6. brings in Damascen, calling Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Visible Symbols of intellig●le mysteries. Hence also was that definition of a Sacrament by your Master of sentences Lombard, lib. 4. sent. didst 1. tit. B. Invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma, A visible sign of invisible grace. Beauties cavils against the visibility of sacramental Elements, are learnedly confuted by Chamier in the place last cited, lib. 1. de sacram. in gen. cap. 14. It is further required to the nature of a proper Sacrament, that it be a substantial sign, for it must be such a sign as may congruonsly be termed an Element, as it is frequently designed, not only by Ancients, but also by your Roman Catechism; particularly part. 2. cap. 1. quast. 8. and likewise have an Analogy with the thing signified, else sayeth Austin. epist. 23. Sacramenta omnino non essent. They should not be sacraments at all. I know Bellarmine, lib. 1. de sacram. in genere, cap. 14. quartels with Chemnitius, that he required, that the institution of a Sacrament be found in Scripture. It is enough says Bellarmine, that the divine institution thereof be proven. But these Arguments, whereby our Divines prove Scripture to contain all articles of faith, conclude irrefragably, that they contain the divine institution of all properly so called Sacraments. Yet if you, or any will prove to me the divine institution of any Ordinance, I shall never decline to accept of a divine institution, whether written or not, when it is solidly proven; but surely you must outstrip Bellarmine, Valentia, and the test of your Champions, before you prove the divine institution of unwriten sacraments. Secondly, it is required to the nature of a proper Sacrament, that it be a seal of the promises of salvation, or of the righteousness of faith, as the Apostle phraseth it, Rom. 4.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where though the Apostle be treating of Circumcision, yet he gives a general Description of a Sacrament, which doth compet to Circumcision, and to all other Sacraments. I know that Bellarmine, and other your Author's quarrel at this clause of the Description, but the Objections against this, you may find abundantly discussed in Whitaker de sacramentis, quaest. 1. cap. 4. Gerard de sacram. cap. 3. sect. 2. §. 17.18.19. and in Chamter, lib. 2. de sacram. in genere, cap. 9 It is Thirdly required, that a sacrament of the new Testament be to endure in the Church to the end of the World; which Bellarmine himself acknowledges, lib. 1. de sacram. in genere, cap. 14. and on both sides it is confessed, that proper Guspel Sacraments must endure, so long as there is a Visible Church on Earth. And this doth exclude from the nature of a proper Sacrament, those Visible signs which were used under the Gospel, but were not perpetually to endure in the Church  
This being shortly premised, concerning the nature of a Sacrament, we do affirm that in this sense there be only two proper Sacraments in the New Testament, viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper. Or as others express it, that there is no other Ordinance under the Gospel, which may be so termed a Sacrament, as Baptism and the Lords-Supper. Neither are we the first who judge so. Doth not Austin, lib. 2. de symbolo ad Catechumenos, cap. 6. call them expressly Gemina Ecclesiae Sacramenta, The two twin Sacraments of the Church? Was it ever heard, that Gemina signified Seven, or more than Two? And again the same Austin, Epist. 118. Says, that the Sacraments of the Gospel, are numero paucissima & significatione facillima, then instancing only in the sacraments of Baptism and the LORDS-Supper. But if there were seven Sacraments, yea or more than two, they could not be numero paucissima, the fewest for number? what ever exceeds two, is not the least number. I know the usual subterfuge of your Authors, that Augustin in the last cited place addeth these words; Et si quid aliud in divinis literis commendetur. If any thing else be recommended in the Scriptures. But First, he calls our two Sacraments in the former place, the two twin Sacraments, without any such addition. Secondly, the addition he makes in the latter place, is only hypothetical, therefore no positive inference can be deduced from it; as if Austin had believed, that there were more proper Sacraments then two. Thirdly, I have already showed, that Austin in a Large sense, called many things by the name of Sacrament, which are not proper Sacraments; such as the sign of the Cross, Exorcisms, Polygamy. Yea sometimes he reckoned improper sacraments with the proper, as the sign of the Cross with Baptism, in his En●rrat. on Psal. 141. Why then in this additional hypothesis, may he not be supposed to point at Sacraments improperly so called? Especially seeing Fourthly, if here he meaned that here were more properly so called Sacraments, he should manifestly contradict himself, who had immediately before said, that they were numero pa●cissima, the fewest in number, and else where Gemina, two twin sacraments. And lib. 3. de doctrinâ Christianâ, cap. 9 Fewer in number then the Jewish sacraments, pauca pro multis cademque factu facillima, instancing also particularly in Baptism and the LORDS-Supper only. But it may suffice against you Romanists, that Austin doth no no where affirm Sacraments to be precisely seven. Let all the Romish antiquaries try where they can find ground in Austin, or in any one Ancient Father for their precise septenary. Had there been more than two, would Justine Martyr, in his second Apology, where he gives an account of the Worship, Ordinances, and Sacraments which Christians went about to apologise for the Christian Religion, would he, I say, only have made mention of Baptism and the Lords Supper? How destitute you are of Antiquity in this matter, may appear by this, that Bellarmine, lib. 2. de sacram. in genere, cap. 25. could produce none for the definite number of your seven Sacraments ancienter than Lombard, who lived in the twelfth Centurie, nor any Council before the Florentine; a late Council, about the middle of the fifteenth Conturie, and neither free nor general. As beside others, learned Stilling fleet hath demonstrated in his rational account of the PROTESTANT Religion, part 1. cap. 1. §. 13. out of Sylvester Sguropulus, who was present at the most secret transactions of that Florentine Assembly, and your Cassander, in consult. art. 13. hath noted that Lombard was the first Author who introduced the definite number of seven Sacraments, and yet neither He, nor the Florentine Council, declare these your seven Sacraments to be Sacraments properly so called, or that there be seven precisely, neither more nor less. Yea, Spal. de Repab. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 4. num. 21. spares not to affirm, that the Article concerning seven Sacraments, was never either ●hs●●ssed or defiled conc●li●r●●er, in public face of Council at Florence. So that your present Romish Article of a precise septenary, can i● seems, 〈◊〉 no higher c●●ciliarie Authority, then from the desinition of ●o ●● late Trent Conventicle. Is it probable, that the Author of the Catechisms, commonly attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, or of the six books de Sacraments, which go under the name of Ambrose; would have passed your seven Sacraments in silence, and satisfied themselves with mentioning our Two, Baptism and the LORDS-Supper, if the Church in their time had believed, that there were seven proper Sacraments? Were it not a great absurdity, if a man should undertake to write a Tractat of the Planets, or of the Pleyades, both which are in number seven; and yet never mention but two of them? To what straits is your Bellarmine reduced, Lib. 2. de sacram cap. 27. when he hath no better Evasion, then to say as I hinted before, That the design of Ambrose and Cyrill in these books, was only to instruct Catechumen, and therefore, it was not needful that they should make mention of all the Sacraments. Is not this both False on the matter, so fare as it concerns these six books of Ambrose, (for they were not only designed for the instruction of Catechumen, as Chamier, Featly, and other our Divines have largely demonstrated,) and also Frivolous? For suppose it were granted, that these Books had been written only for Catechumen, yet what is more usual in Catechisms then to set down all the Sacraments? Look to Catechisms both Popish and PROTESTANT, if it be not so. Hath not your Roman Catechism set forth by the command of Pope Pius the fifth, all your seven pretended SACRAMENTS? Though Catechumen be not presently admitted to all Sacraments, yet ought they not to learn what they all are, that they may be the better prepared to receive them in due time? Or why should the other five be rather kept up from the notice of Catechumen, than Baptism and the LORDS-SUPPER? Are there not more Mysteries in the Eucharist, especially according to your fancies of Transubstantiation, then in any other Sacrament? If any then of the Sacraments should have been concealed from the Catechumen, should it not have been that of the Eucharist? I deny not that cyril, Ambrose, and other Au●sents do make mention of Chrism, and indeed Chrism was anciently used. Yet suppose that by Chrism, they had meaned a peculiar and Distinct Sacrament, this would come fare short of the Popish five spurious Sacraments. Bot learned PROTESTANTS have showed that the Chrism mentioned by Cyrill, Ambrose, and others, was no pecuculiar and distinct Sacrament, but an Appendix of Baptism, and a Mutable Ceremony at the Church's pleasure, like a. Kneeling betwixt Easter, and Whitsuntide, the Love feasts, etc. Hence the same Ambrose, lib. 1. de sacramentis, cap. 2. Venimus (sayeth he,) ad fontem. Ingressus es,— unctus es quasi Althleta. That is, We came to the water, thou went in.— thou was anointed as a Wrestler. And Tertullian de Baptismo, cap. 7. Exinde egressi de lavacro, perungimur benedictâ unctione. That is, being come out of the laver, we are anointed with the blessed unction. Yea the Author of the Tractat, De Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium, which goes under the name of Basil cap. 27. acknowledges that there was no Scriptural warrant for that Unction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is What written word hath taught this anointing with oil? Surely then this Anointing was but a Ceremony, which the Church brought in by her own power, and therefore might be laid aside by the same power. And consequently, was no Proper Sacrament, which by the confession of Romanists, and according to the Tridentine definition, most all be instituted by JESUS CHRIST Himself. In a word, our Divines have frequently produced Fathers, asserting our Two Sacraments directly, yea and calling them Gemina, which seems clearly Exclusive of others. But Romanists to this day, could never produce one Father that makes mention of their seven Sacraments, either in so many words, or yet that said so much on the matter, from which a precise Septenarie could be concluded. Nay this very point concerning the number of Sacraments, in which it seems, you thought to have triumphed, furnishes me with a considerable Argument against your Religion, from which you may try how you can exped yourself. I frame it thus.  
A precise Septenarie of SACRAMENTS, neither more nor fewer, is an Essential of the Present Romish Religion.  
But a precise Septenary of SACRAMENTS, neither more nor fewer, was not an Essential of the Ancient Christian Religion.  
Ergo, the Ancient Christian Religion, and the Present Romish Religion, differ in Essentials, and consequently, are not the same Religion.  
The Major is clear from your Council of Trent, sess. 7. Can. 1. And from Pope Pius the fourth, his Creed or Formula fidei. As for the Assumption, I appeal you, if you can, with the help of all your Associates, to produce me one testimony from any one Ancient Father, from which a precise septenary of Sacraments can be concluded. For express testimonies, all know that you have none. Is it probable, if the Ancient Church had been of your present Romish faith, concerning the number of Sacraments, that not one Testimony for a precise Septenarie, either direct or indirect, should be found in any one Father? I know the way of your Authors hath been, to patch up testimonies out of several Authors, whereof, one may give the denomination of a Sacrament to one of your pretended Sacraments, and another to another. But not one Father have they produced, that gives the Denomination of a Sacrament to All of them. And as some Fathers give the name of a Sacrament to some of these, so also they have honoured many other things with the same title, which by the confession of your own Authors are no proper Sacraments; concerning which you may be sufficiently informed by your own Suarez. In his Preface, to his Tom. 3. in 3. part. And therefore from these general Apellations, nothing can be certainly concluded, as to the definite number of Properly so called Sacraments, else we might conclude more than twice seven Sacraments from the writings of the Ancients. Your own Bonaventure, in 4. sent. didst 1. teaches that it was many time observed that the word Sacrament, was exceeding variously taken. Communiter, proprie, & propri●ssime: That is, sometimes Commonly, sometimes Properly, and sometimes most Properly: When therefore, the Denomination of a Sacrament, is given by a Father to any thing beside Baptism, and the LORDS- Supper, before it can be concluded, that they looked on that as a proper Sacrament, it remains to be proven, that they took the word Sacrament in that discourse, not Communiter, but proprie, or propriissime, not in a large or common sense, but strictly, and properly. Yea, and further it concerns you, to prove that they believed, that there were precisely seven of these, properly so termed Sacraments, neither more, nor fewer. When you set seriously to this work, you may readily find it so hard a task, that it put you to repent, that you should have pitched on this particular controversy concerning the number of Sacraments.  
But because you desire it to be proven by scripture, that there be two Sacraments only, I shall present you with this one Argument. If there be only two substantial visible signs instituted by GOD, since the Incarnation recorded in the Gospel, to seal the promises of salvation, and to endure in the Church to the end of the World; then are there only two Sarcraments of the new Testament. But the first is true, therefore also the last. The consequence of the Major is clear. For this only we mean by a proper Sacrament, when we affirm that there be only two. Though more should be proven in another sense, it would be but a Sophism, ab ignoratione elenchi; for the Conclusion would not be the contradictory of our Assertion. The Assumption is easily proven from Scripture, for it contains two branches, first, that there are two of that kind of visible signet. And secondly, that there be only two and no more. First then, for the positive part, that there be two, you yourself do acknowledge, and if it were needful, it were easy to show, that all the parts of the foresaid Description, do agree to Baptism and the Lords Supper. For first, they are substantial visible signs, instituted by GOD since the Incarnation, and their institution is recorded in the Gospel: You have the Divine institution of baptising with water, Matthew 28.19. And of the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11.23.24.25. Secondly, that they are seals of the promises of salvation is no less clear, and first of Baptism, Acts, 2.38.39. and also of the Lords Supper, in somuch that the Cup is called the New Testament, which you must acknowledge to be no proper speech, but it is only so called, because it is Sigillum faederis; hence also in the Institution, mention is made of the Remission of sins, and of the giving of the Body of CHRIST and shedding of his Blood for us, holding forth, that foregiveness of sins, and all other blessings purchased by the Death of CHRIST, and promised in the New Covenant, are by this Ordinance sealed to the people of GOD. The third and last condition is no less manifest, that these Ordinances are to continue to the end of World, from Matth. 28.20. and 1. Cor. 11.26. All the Question then betwixt you and me, must be concerning the other Branch of the Assumption, viz. that there be only two of these signs, or two and no more, and this seems no less certain than the other. For first, to use your way of argueing in Negative cases, if there be any more substantial visible signs, instituted by GOD since the Incarnation, recorded in the Gospel, to Seal the Promises of Salvation, & to endure in the Church to the end of the World, than they may be produced, but more cannot be produced, as shall be proven, solutione objectionum. Produce them therefore if you can, and show that the premised conditions of a Sacrament do compet to them. This way of arguing in this case, is the su●er, because the Scripture, as I have held out before, and proved against you is a perfect Canon of Faith and Manners, therefore if no more such signs can be held out from the Scriptures, it follows there are none. May I not here make use of Hieroms. Quia non legimus, non credimus. This may suffice for a Scriptural demonstration, that there be only two properly so called Sacraments. For if the Scriptures teach upon the one hand, that the Scriptures are a complete Canon of Faith, and upon the other, hold out no more but two of these Ordinances, to which the name of a Sacrament, in the strict and proper Notion thereof is applicable; then surely it follows, that according to the Scriptures there be only two proper Sacraments. Excellently said cyril of Hierus. in Catech 4. or who ever be the Author thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, Of the divine and holy Sacraments of faith, nothing ought to be delivered without the holy scriptures. But secondly, I might argue thus ad Hominem against you, were it not that I feared too great Prolixity, if there be any more than these two, it would be some, or all of your five pretended Sacraments Confirmation, Penance, Marriage Extreme Unction, or Ordination. But none of these, fare less all of them, therefore, there are no proper Sacraments at all besides these two, which we acknowledge. The sequel is clear, for there are none else, besides these which you can allege. Yea, if I prove that any one of these is not a proper Sacrament, the Infallibility of your Church, and consequently, the whole structure of your Religion is gone. To insist upon the probation of this last Assumption at large, would engage me upon too voluminous a discourse. You may see it largely done by Chamier, tom. 4. lib. 4. à cap. 7. ad 32. treating severally of each of these pretended Sacraments, and more succinctly by Maresius, tom. 2. contra Tirinum, controv. 20.23.25.26. and 27. not to remit you to many Authors. Now only to give you a short hint, I say that none of these your five pretended Sacraments, have all the forementioned conditions of a Sacrament, and consequently, none of them are properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament.  
First then, to begin with Confirmation: The Matter thereof, (which we call the Visible sign, or Element,) says your Pope Eugenius the fourth, and your Council of Florence, in Decrete ad instructionem Armenorum, and your Roman Catechism, part. 2. cap. 3. quaest 6. Is oil mixed with balsam. consecrated by a Bishop. The Form of it, or words to be pronounced at the celebration thereof, (As the same Eugenius & Catechism ibid. quaest. 10. do declare,) is, Sigte signo crucis & confirmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris, Filis, & spiritus sancti. But there is no divine institution, either of that matter or form recorded in all the New Testament, as your own Authors are constrained to acknowledge, particularly, Suarez, in 3. part. tom. 3. quaest. 72. disp. 33. sect. 1. & 5. If the sign you use in Confirmation be not of divine institution, than it cannot seal to the Soul the promises of Salvation, nor is it of necessity perpetually to endure in the Church. If you say, that you have a Divine institution for it, though not in the Scriptures, yet attested by unwriten tradition. You must first prove the Canon of the Scriptures to be imperfect, and then demonstrate by universal tradition in all ages, that there was a divine institution of Chrism mixed with balsam, as the matter of a distinct and peculiar ordinance, together with these words which you now use in the Romish Church, which you may find a difficult task. Nay your famous Jesuit Escobar, confesses that these words which you call the form of this Sacrament, were not instituted by CHRIST. Hear himself, lib. 12. Theol. Moral. Sect. 2. cap. 14. probl. 15. num. 116. Christus (sayeth he,) verba illius formae non determinavit, sed Ecclesiae determinanda reliquit. That is, Christ determined not the words of this form, but left them to be determined by the Church. As much is confessed by Alexander of Hales, and Bonaventure. (As Suarez testifies, tom. 3. in 3. part. quaest. 72. disp. 32. sect. 2.) concerning your visible matter of this Sacrament, viz, Oil Olive mixed with balsom, that neither were these instuted by Christ. So that now it is tossed among yourselves as a Problem, whether Oil mixed with Balsam be the necessary matter of this Sacrament. And many Authors of great fame among you maintain the negative, as you may find in Escobar, lib. 12. Theel. Moral. Sect. 2. cap. 12. probl. 3. num. 78. And in Suarez, tom. cit. disp. 33. sect. 1. If therefore you say that imposition of hands is the visible sign in Confirmation, as Bellarmine seems to do, lib. de confirm. cap. 2. §. Jam vero medium, (albeit afterwards, he likewise capp. 8. and 9 pleads for the necessity of the Unction also,) you may see this copiously confuted by Chamier, tom. 4. lib. 4. de sacram. novi Testamenti, cap. 10. Take now but these passing hints. And first, imposition of hands may be a Rite, but who can say that it is a substantial sign, or such a sign as may congruously be termed an Element? Secondly, how can that be the Visible sign of this pretended Sacrament, which neither belongs to the matter nor form thereof, if Pope Eugenius and your Roman Catechism have rightly designed them? Thirdly, how can that be the peculiar sign of Confirmation, which is common to other Sacraments, according to your Romish compuration, particularly to Ordination and Extreme Unction? Well did Austin speak concerning this Rite of imposition of hands, lib. 3. de Baptismo contra Donatistas'. cap. 16. Quid est aliud manus impositio, nisi oratio super hominem. Fourthly, either by this imposition of hands, is meaned the Unction with Chrism, or some distinct Imposition. If the first, no institution thereof is mentioned in Scripture: If the second, though imposition of hands, some times was practised by the Apostles, for conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost, yet there is no command for the perpetuity of it. Hence Suarez, loco citato sect. 4. determines that no Imposition of hands distinct from the Unction, is of the Essence of this pretended Sacrament of Confirmation. But your Cassander, in Consultatione art. 13. brings in Hoscot a learned Doctor in the Roman Church, as questioning whether Confirmation be a proper Sacrament. What respect judicious Calvine had for Confirmation in a sound sense, himself declares. lib. 4. institut. cap. 19 §. 4. But how much and justly he dislykes your Romish pretended Sacrament of Confirmation, and the superstitious Rites thereof, may be seen, ibid. from §. 5. to the 13. But though you Romanists pretend a kind of zeal for Confirmation as a proper Sacrament; yet have not many of your late Casuists & Jesuits disputed it almost into contempt? Is it not a Problem among you whether there be any command of God, or of the Church to receive Confirmation? Or whether it be so much as a venial sin to omit it, when a person hath convenient opportunity for it? Hath not your Jesuit Escobar divers problems to this purpose lib cit. cap. 16. problem. 31.32.33. & c? Yea doth not Escobar positively maintain that there is no command either divine or ecclesiastic for it? Hear himself, problem. 31. num. 181. Existime (sayeth he,) nullum dari nec divinum nec ecclesiasticum praeceptum confirmationts recipiendae. That is, I judge that there is no command either of GOD, or of the Church to receive confirmation. A noble Sacrament, forsooth, which persons are not bound to receive, even when they have convenient opportunity for it, yet, lest he should seem to be alone of this judgement, he citys for the same in his next problem, num. 183. Henriquez, Coninck, Lessius, Tolet, Reginaldus, Ledesma, Vivaldus, Sayrus, Valentia, Bonacina, etc. It is also noted by Doctor jeremy Taylor, in his little Treatise of Confirmation. sect. 1. pag. 10. that your Missionary jesuits, who come hither to traffic in BRITAIN, do generally teach the same Doctrine to serve their own ends. Is this one of your Mysteries of jesuitism, to cry up and down, to magnify and vilify the same thing, as it serves your interest?  
The second pretended Sacrament which I shall examine is your Penance. The necessity of the Grace and Duty of Repentance, we PROTESTANTS do unanimously acknowledge, and that much more than you Romanists, as I shown in my eight paper. But the proper Sacramentality of it we justly deny, and are hereunto induced upon many accounts; For first, you Romanists cannot agree among yourselves concerning the matter and form, or the outward sign of this pretended Sacrament. For albeit your Bellarmine is bold to affirm, lib. 1. de paenitentia, cap. 18. that your Authors do agree summo consensu, with a full harmony, that the Sacrament of Penance doth consist both in the Sacerdotal absolution, and in the confession, contrition, and satisfaction of the delinquent. Yet your Cardinal de Lugo, tract. de paenitentia, disp. 12. sect. 2. num. 11. reckons forth six different opinions among you. I touch but some few. Your Durand, in 4 sent. distinct. 16. qu. 1. n. 4. mantaines the Sacrament of Penance. to consist only in the delinquents confession, and the Priest's absolution excluding contrition and satisfaction. Scotus, Major, and Gabriel cited by Carleton, tom. 2. theol. schol. disp. 85. sect, 1. num. 1. exclude not only contrition and satisfaction, but also confession, and hold the Sacrament only to consist in the Priest's absolution. But Soto a● cited by the same Carleton, in the same place excludes the Sacerdotal absolution, from being a part of the Sacrament. Yea, your own Councils both of Florence and Trent, when they speak of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as the matter of this Sacrament. seem to speak very dubiously; for they say only that they are quasi materia, as is were the matter thereof. And your own Authors use this as an argument, for Scotus his opinion, that none of these three are truly parts of this Sacrament, as you will find in Conink, tom. 2. de sacram. disp. 4. dub. 4. num. 31. Ought you not to agree among yourselves, before you so rigidly censure and anathematise others, for not receiving your Penance as a proper Gospel Sacrament? Secondly, I cannot find assigned by any of your Authors in this Sacrament, a substantial visible sign instituted by GOD in the Gospel. For neither confession of the delinquent, nor absolution of the Priest, are either substantial or visible, but audible signs. And as for satisfaction, sure I am, many of the things which your Church prescribe as satisfactions, were never of CHRIST'S institution, and none of them were appointed to be satisfactory to divine justice for sin in your Romish sense. Doth not your Rushworth in his Dial 3. sect. 3. reckon these as your chief satisfactions, viz praying to Saints, and for the Dead, keeping and reverencing pictures of Christ, and his Saints, and above all the presence of GOD in the B. Sacrament? Neither you nor any of your Party shall be able to prove a divine institution of any of these, not to speak now of other Foppries which in your Church are imposed as satisfactions. But to prevent your cavils concerning the last of these, I advertise you that PROTESTANTS do not deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as your Romanists do calumniou sly traduce them. They acknowledge him to be most really present to the hearts of Believers. They only deny against you Romanists, a substitution of CHRIST'S Body and Blood under the Accidents of Bread, so as his Body and Blood may be received into the mouths and stomaches not only of  men, but also of Rats and other beasts. This therefore is it which you have to prove to be warranted by a divine testimony. and that religious reverence to that transubstantiated presence was instituted by GOD, as a satisfaction for sione to Divine justice: Which I suppose you will find to be a hard task. Yea, according to many of the chief Doctors of your Communion, satisfaction is so fare from being of the essence of this pretended Sacrament of Penance, that your Sacrament of Penance, may be in many cases without any Injunction of Satisfaction at all. So teacheth your Jesuit Escobar, lib. 17. Theol. Moral. Sect. 1. cap. 4. num. 30. etc. Where he also citys for it Suarez, Cajetan, Coninck, Fagundez. Whether then shall you run to find a visible sign? Except you take the sins confessed, which ordinarily your Authors make to be the remote matter of this Sacrament? But were ever sins, signs of divine institution, to seal the promises of salvation? Sure sins are rather the Devil's sacraments than GOD'S. These of your men that speak most Philosophically, say, that sins are signified by this Sacrament but in obliquo, and therefore they cannot be that sign which is predicated of the Sacrament, in recto. Thirdly, is Repentance any peculiar Gospel institution since the Incarnation? Do you not find in David, contrition and confession? Did he not also receive absolution by Nathan the Prophet? Instance if you can an institution of CHRIST for your secret auricular confession, that picklock of Consciences? Where did ever CHRIST or his Apostles, impose a necessity of confessing all mortal sins (as your Romanists term them,) how secret so ever to a Priest under the pain of eternal damnation, as your Council of Trent defynes sess. 14. c●in 6. & 7? Is not the jus divinum of the necessity of this confession, questioned by your own Authors particularly by B●rnesius in his Catholico-Romanus P●cisicus sect. 8. de paenit. confess. & s●t●●fact. Where speaking of this confession which the Ch●re●o Rome ●mpoie●h, he sayeth Now constat adhuc an ju●e divino debeat fieri. That is, it is not yet certain, if the necessity of this confession be warranted by a divine institution. He citys also many other Romish Doctors as maintaining the same. Know you not how your Authors altercat about these w●●'s of absolution, which are pretended to be the form of this Sacrament, according to your Council of Trent, sess. 14 caep. 3. Ego to absolvo, etc. Whether to the form of this Sacrament, there be a necessity of the pronoun Ego? Or of the pronoun Te? Or of the particle ab omnibus? Or of the words à peccatis tuis? Or of the Invocation of the Trinity, in uo●tiue Patris Filii & Spiritus Sancti? Or whether the words may not be pronounced in deprecatory terms thus, absolvat te DEUS etc. Let GOD absolve or pardon thee? Are you not thrown upon these, and many more perplexityes, (of which I leave you to receive a brief sum from Escobar, lib. 14 Theol. Moral. cap. 6. probl. 41. etc.) by your coining Sacraments without a divine Institution? As for Satisfactions in your Romish sense, they are greatly Injurious to the complete satisfaction of JESUS CHRIST, whose Blood cleanseth us from all our sins, 1. John 1.7. Hence was that of Ambrose on Luke 22. speaking of Peter's mourning for his denial, lachrymas ejus lego, satisfactionem non lego. I read of his tears but not of his satisfaction. And besides your Satisfactions, are ordinarily performed, according to your present Romish discipline after absolution, and so cannot belong to the essence of this pretended sacrament. This made Petrus de Osma as your Cardinal de Lugo reports sect. cit. num. 42. to assert, that satisfaction should be ended before absolution. But for that his assertion as Lugo testifies, your Pope Sixtus the fourth issued forth a Bull against him. Yet they who have any tolerable knowledge of the Ancient discipline, cannot but know that the disciplinary satisfactions then used, (which were vastly different from your Romish satisfactions at this day,) were ordinarily closed before absolution, except it were in the case of sickness when they despaired of the persons recovery, as Bellarmine himself is constrained to acknowledge, lib. 4. de paenit. cap. 5. But for a larger Confirmation of this, I shall remit you to Spal. lib. 5. de Repub. Eccles. cap. 7. num. 49. etc. And cap. 8. num. 10.11. etc. Have you not here a new specimen of your Romish Innovations.  
As to your pretended Sacrament of Marriage, you may first take another view of your intestine Debates, how you are divided among yourselves, concerning the matter, form, and minister thereof. Victorellus in his additions to Tolet, lib. 7. the instruct. sacerdot. cap. 6. m●sters up your Authors into four distinct parties and opinions. Aegidius, Conink, tom. 2. de sacram. disp. 24. dub. 3. distribures them into six sundry classes, Vasq. tom. 4. in 3. part. tract. de matrimonii sacram. disp. 3. ca●p. 1.2.3.4.5. numbers no less than nine different Sects among you as to this one particular. Is this your Papal unity, whereof you use to glory? Neither can you allege that this is only a School-nicety, about which you are thus broken. Are not your Sacraments points of faith with you? And do you not all acknowledge, that there is nothing more essential to Sacraments then the matter and form thereof? When therefore your greatest Rabbis are so divided among themselves, that what one affirms another confutes, is it not a strong presumption that there is no true assignable matter and form of this pretended Sacrament, & consequently that there is no proper Sacrament of Marriage at all? Neither are your private Doctors only, at a loss in this point, but also your Infallible Oracles, I mean your Popes and Councils. For your Pope Eugenius the fourth, in Decreto ad instructionem Armenorum, (which is reckoned by your Romanists, as a Decree of the Council of Florence,) takes upon him to determine the matter and form of all the rest of your pretended Sacraments. But when he comes to this of matrimony there is nothing but deep silence as to the matter and form thereof. Hence your famous Bishop of the Canaries, Melchior Canus, lib. 8. loc. come. cap. 5. professes concerning your Romish Divines. In materia (sayeth he,) & forma hujus sacramenti statuenda, adeo sunt inconstantes & varii, adeo incerti & ambigui, ut ineptus futurus sit qui in tanta illorum varietate & discrepantia rem aliquam certam, constantem & exploratam conctur efficere. That is, Romish Divines are so uncertain, unconstant and divided among themselves concerning the matter and form of Matrimony, that (in Melchior Canus his judgement,) they are fools who would attempt to determine any thing certainly therein. And among other reasons of this his assertion, he brings that which I have been hinting at, Concilium certè Florentinum (sayeth he,) de materia, forma, ministro matrimonti praestitit nihil. Id quod sine dubio faceret cum hoc in caeteris omnibus Ecclesiae Sacramentis fecisset, si de its rebus videret quippiam esse à Theologis, in schola definitum. The sense hereof is, The Council of Florence hath determined nothing concerning the matter and form, or minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which the Council would not have neglected, having passed sentence concerning the matter and form of other Sacraments, but that they saw nothing concluded among Divines concerning this matter. Secondly, I might here give an account how weakly, yea how ludibriously your chief Champion Bellarmine behaves himself in this matter. For lib. 1. de matrimonii sacramento, cap. 6. he distinguisheth two states of the Sacrament of Marriage, one, when it is in fieri, in doing, another when it is in facto, done, taking for granted that the Sacrament of Marriage continues after it is solemnised, as long as the married couple do live. This being premised, he affirms, that while this pretended Sacrament is in fieri, or in doing, the matter and form thereof consists in the Words whereby the Parties do express their mutual consent, and that the parties themselves are the ministers who clebrat this Sacrament. And if you ask how the Words of the married couple can be both the matter and form, it is answered, the expression, as first uttered by one of the Parties, is the matter, and as afterwards uttered by the other Party, is the form. So Victorellus a famous Romish Doctor in his Additions to Tolet, de instruct. sacerdot. lib. 7. cap. 6. expounds your Cardinal's opinion, for I confess his words, as to this, have need of a commentary. But if you speak of the Sacrament in facto, or after it is done, than (sayeth Bellarmine,) the Bodies or Persons of the Married couple are the matter, not only circa quam, about which the Sacrament is conversant, but also ex qua, or the visible sign, which intrinsically constitutes the sacrament, and in this case he makes the form to consist in the words of the Parties, and so still he concludes the Parties to be the Ministers of this Sacrament. Thus your Cardinal. But ought he not to have brought some Arguments to confirm his assertions, especially the point being so much controverted? Is his teste me ipso, confirmation enough● Must not the doctrine be very absurd for which so skilled a sophister could not devise one paralogism? Indeed in his next cap. he is very fervent in impugning Melchior Canus opinion; but in cap. 6. where he lays down his own opinion, be brings not one Argument to confirm it. It is easier I confess for Sophisters to impugn their Neighbour's fancy, then solidly to confirm their own. Are not all Beauties' notions as to this particular, confuted by his own fellow Jesuits, though for reverence to his Eminency, suppresso nomine. Is not the first rejected by Vasquez disp. cit. cap. 2. num. 9 & 10. with a Nunqam mihi placuit, I never loved (sayeth Vasquez,) that opinion which made the matter of this Sacrament the expression of consent, as given first by one of the Parties, and the form the like expression as afterwards given by the other Party, for then (sayeth Vasquez.) if both should signify their consent at once, there should be a Sacrament without either matter or form. The other notion of making the Bodies of the Parties, the materia ex qua, is zealously confuted by Coninck, dub. cit. num. 31. as repugnant to the nature of all contracts, and he shows that the Bodies of the Parties, may well be the materia circa quam, but cannot be the materia ex qua, or that which constitutes the contract. Yea as he goes on to confute this Whimsy, he distroyes the foundation of all Bellarmine's discourse, concerning the two states of Matrimony, as being repugnant to the common opinion of your own Divines, qui communiter docent omnia sacramenta excepta Eucharistia consistere in actione transeunte, That all sacraments except the eucharist, do consist in a transient action, and that they do not endure but in the time of the celebration. Beside these impugnations from his own fellow Jesuits, let me but desire sober Persons to consider if it be probable that in a Sacrament the visible sign, the Persons receiving, and the Minister of the Sacrament shall be one and the same thing? Yet this must be it the Persons married, be both the matter of the Sacrament and also the minister, as Bellarmine affirms. Or can their be a parallel found where that which was both the matter and form of a Sacrament in one instant, becomes only the form in the next? The words of the Parties according to Bellarmine, are both matter and form when it is in fieri, and only the form in facto. Doth not Beauties dreams make of Marriage two Sacraments, the one in fieri and the other in facto, differing specifically in their essentials? For the Bodies of the Parties which are made the matter in facto, are specifically distinct from the words which were the matter in fieri. Is there not here a Mystery feigned in Marriage, beyond what you Romanists fancy in the Eucharist? For though you imagine the Sacrament of the Eucharist to continue extra usum, yet you do not diversify the matter and the form of the Sacrament. But here Bellarmine would make a new transmutation, I had almost said Transubstantiation, of that which was both Matter and Form into the Form alone, and of that which was only materia circa quam, into the materia ex qua. I am irked to insist further in the refutation of this reasonless Romantic fancy. Yet I cannot let pass Aegidius Coninck's notion, whereby he thinks to escape the rocks, upon which other of his fellows have split. He therefore asserts, that the words or signs, whereby the Parties do express their mutual consent, to be both Matter and Form, yet not as Victorellus expounded Beauties meaning. But (sayeth he,) the words of the Parties may be conceived, either as a mutual tradition of the Parties to one another, & thus they are the matter of the Sacrament; or as they are a mutual acceptation of the tradition made one by another, and thus they are the form. This notion I find likewise improven by divers others, Becan, Bonae Spei, etc. And perhaps some favourite of Beauties, would in this sense expound his affirming the words of the Parties, whereby they express their mutual consent to be the matter of the Sacrament, in fieri. But grant he had meant so, yet it would advantage him nothing; for this likewise is another cobweb of a Jesuits brain. For a proper Sacrament (as I held out before,) must be a substantial sign instituted by GOD since the Incarnation, and recorded in the Gospel, etc. Now can words of the Parties, in what ever notion they be taken be visible signs? Or are they substantial signs? Or such signs as may be fitly termed Elements? Were the words of the Parties instituted by GOD in the Gospel, and recorded there to be both Matter and Form of this Sacrament? Let all your Jesuits try there Acumen, in producing such an Institution from the Gospel. If they cannot, then sure Matrimony is no such Sacrament, as Baptism and the LORDS-Supper, (whose matter and form can be showed from the Gospel,) which is all that protestants do affirm. Had there been any solid stuff among you, would we not have found it in these your chief Champions? But the man I find among you dealing most ingenuously, is your great School-man Durand, in 4. sent. didst 26. quaest. 3. num. 15. where he positively says, Matrimonium non esse Sacramentum, strict & proprie dictum, sicut alia Sacramenta novae legis, or, That Marriage is not a Sacrament, strictly and properly so called, as other Sacraments of the Gospel are. This was plain truth, but because it savoured so much of that which you call PROTESTANCY, or Calvinisme, therefore your Cardinal Tolet, lib. 7. the Instruct. Sacerdot. cap. 5. num. 1. stigmatizeth this ductrine of Durand as heretical. Is this the best entertainment of plain truth among you jesuits, when it doth not suit with your Romish interest? But Thirdly, Sacraments are peculiar to the Church, and these of which we debate are peculiar to the Gospel-Church. But Marriage is among Heathens, and was of old in the jewish Church. If you say, that Marriage in the Gospel-Church is only a Sacrament, and not without it. It will concern you to prove that assertion, and particularly, to show how Marriage in the Gospel-Church is a Sacrament, and yet was not one in the jewish Church. Are you not here again piteously broken among yourselves? Some, as Alphonsus à Castro, adversus haeres. lib. 11. lit. nuptiae. hares. 3. and others maintaining, that Marriage was instituted as a Sacrament from the beginning of the World, (and if so, than it is no proper Gospel-Sacrament,) others again affirming, that Marriage was only instituted as a Sacrament under the Gospel. But they could never produce to this day a solid ground for that Sacramental institution, under the Gospel. But of this, and many other considera●●e breaches among yourselves, concerning your pretended Sacrament of Marriage, I leave you to receive information from our learned Country man, Doctor JOHN FORBES, in his Instruct. historico-theol. lib. 9 cap. 8. §. 30. etc. But 〈◊〉 o● but take some notice of the absurd and impious differences, which your Authors make betwixt Marriage as in the Gospel-Church, and Marriage not only as among Heathens and Infidels, but also as it was of old in the jewish Church, thereby to advance Marriage, now under the Gospel, to the dignity of a Sacrament. Cardinal, Tolet, lib. 7. the instruct. Sacerdot. cap. 5. num. 2. mentions three differences betwixt them, viz, First, That Marriage in the Christian Church, is a Sacrament, not so among either jews or Heathens. But all see that to be a begging of the question, therefore I let it go. Secondly, That Marriage in the Gospel Church conferrs grace, ex opere operato. And Thirdly, That in the Gospel Church, actus conjugalis est meritorius, the conjugal act, (They who are acquaint with your jesuit Dialect, will understand his meaning, I am ashamed to make it plainer,) Is meritorious, not so among Heathens, or ancient jews, These things the jesuit boldly asserts, but doth not once offer a probation for them. They might be solidly confuted, (but that I doubt I be already guilty of too too much prolixity,) by all the Arguments which our Divines bring against your opus operatum in the general, and against your doctrine of Merit, all which hold, a Fortiori, in this particular. Hither if in any case I may apply that saying, O Spes fallaces Meritis confidere vanis!  
I shall only desire you, if you dare own these impious positions of your fellow jesuit, to try how you can bring any shadow of reason why Marriage doth confer grace, ex opere operato? Or why conjugal acts are meritorious, now among Christians, and not of old among believing jews? Are Christians now in a state of Grace, so were believing jews? Have Christians now a respect to the ends why Marriage was instituted, so had believing jews? Where then is the difference as to the specific nature of the ordinance then & now? But Fourthly, If Marriage be a proper Gospel Sacrament, how are your Priests interdicted from it? Doth one Sarcrament render persons incapable of another? How did Siricius and Innocent the first, Bishops of Rome, pass such an impious gloss (if the Deeretals ascribed to them be ) upon that text Rom. 8.8. They that are in the flesh cannot please GOD: As if persons in a married estate could not please GOD, because they are in the flesh? If this gloss were true, marriage were so fare from confering grace Ex opere operato, and conjugal acts so fare from being meritorious, that they should rather put a person in a state of enmity against GOD, which to affirm, says the Apostle, 1. Tim. 4.1.3. Were a doctrine of Devils. Fifthly, how can it be made out, that Marriage is appointed of GOD as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, or promises of Salvation? Doth not your own Cassander assirme, that your Master of sentences Lombard, denyeth Marriage to confer Grace, which you Romanists require as necessary to the nature of a proper Gospel's Sacrament? Sixthly and Lastly, doth not your great Cajetan teach, that from Eph. 5.32. (Which yet is the only Scripture, that can be pretended to favour your Sacrament of Marriage,) It cannot be solidly concluded, that Marriage is a  Sacrament? Non habes (sayeth Ca●etan on the place,) ex hoc loco, prudens lector a Paulo conjugium esse Sacramentum: But of this point I suppose enough.  
Shall I here give you a touch of your extreme Unction? And First, though your Council of Trent have defined, Sess. 7. can. 1. That every Sacrament of the New Testament was instituted by Christ himself, yet many of your chief Doctors have denied that extreme Unction was instituted by Christ, such as Hugo de sancto victore, Lombard, Bonaventure, Alensis, Alt●siodorensis, as is testified by your Jesuit Suarez, tom. 4. in 3 part. disp. 39 sect. 2. num. 1. Consequently, if that opinion of these your great Doctors hold, Extreme unction can be no proper Sacrament of the New Testament. But Secondly, where have you warrant from the Scripture, that the matter of this Sacrament must be Oil O●ive consecrated by a Bishop? Or that seven parts of the body should be anointed therewith, viz. Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Hands, Feet, and Reins? Or that the Form of this Sacrament should be these words which you use, viz. Per istam unctionem, & suum piissim●m misericord●●m indulgeat tibi Dominus quicquid deliquishi●per visium, etc. All which are determined by your Pope Eugeni●●s the fourth, in that alleged Decret of the Council of Florence for the instruction of the Armenians; Or that this Unction as so administrated, is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and perpetually to endure in the Christian Church? If you essay to prove all these, you may find it a difficult work. Thirdly, might I not here give an account of your altercations among yourselves, concerning this pretended Sacrament, as whether it be necessary to this Sacrament, that the Oil be consecrated by a Bishop, or that the body be anointed in all the forementioned parts, which your Pope Eugenius the fourth hath specified? Whether the words must be pronounced Deprecatively, or whether they might be used Indicatively, according to that which your Authors call the Ambrosian Form? Ungo te oleo in nomine Patris, etc. Yea, is it not debated among you, whether there be any command at all for receiving this pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction? Are not the greatest part of your Doctors for the Negative? Hear your own Suarez, tem. 4. in 3. part. disp. 44. sect. 1. num. 2. Communis (sayeth he,) opinio est nullum esse affirmativum praeceptum de suscipiendo hoc sacramento, etiam in extremo vitae discrimine. That is, It is the common opinion of the Romish Divines, that there is no positive precept obliging persons to receive this sacrament of extreme unction, even when they are in the most extreme hazard of death. A noble Sacrament indeed, which by the confession of your own Romanists, ye are tied by no command of GOD to receive. The same is granted by your Romish Doctors, concerning all your five controverted Sacraments, except Penance. That there is no positive command of GOD to receive any of them. Whence I argue thus. There are positive precepts in the holy Scripture for receiving Baptism and the LORDS-Supper, but there is no positive precept of GOD, either in or our of Scripture, for receiving four at least of your Sacraments, viz. Confirmation, Marriage, extreme Unction, and Ordination; as is confessed by your own Romanists. Therefore, these four at least are no such Sacraments, as Baptism and the Lords-Supper. And though your interest and Commodum Curiae, induces you to assert a necessity of Penance, (for thereby you make yourselves Masters, both of Purses and Consciences, and privy to all Secrets,) yet try when you will, you will be as little able solidly to prove a positive command of GOD for Pennance, in your Romish sense, and as it is practised among you, as for any of the other four. And consequently, none of these your five Sacraments is sub pracepto, and therefore none of them are such Sacraments, as are BAPTISM and the LORDS SUPPER; which is that which PROTESTANTS mean, when they affirm that there be only two properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament. Fourthly, not only have our Divines proven, that the two places of Scripture which Romanists deprave for this pretended Sacrament, viz, Mark, 6.13. and james 5.14.15. make nothing for you: But also eminent Authors among yourselves have done the same. The first place your great Champion Bellarmine, lib. de Extreme: Vnct. cap: 2. denies, to hold out any Sacrament, and urges no few Arguments for that purpose. jansenius Gandavensis in Concord. Evang. cap. 55: is of the same judgement, as also Aegidius, Coninck, tom: 2. de sacram. disp. 19 dub. 1. num. 3. so likewise Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, Carleton, etc. As for the other place, your great Cardinal Cajetan, is as express in denying, that any solid ground for your Sacrament, of Extreme Unction, can be drawn from the words of the Apostle james. Hear himself on the chap. 5. of james, Nec ex verbis (sayeth he,) nec ex effectu verba hac loquuntur de Sacramentali Vnctione, sed magis de Vnctione quam instituit Dominus in Evangelio à Discipulis exercendam in agros. And thereafter, the Cardinal brings divers Arguments to prove this his Assertion. If it be true, (as certain it is,) which Bellarmine and many other Romish Doctors have affirmed, that the Unction spoken of by Mark, is not a proper Sacrament; then neither is the Unction spoken of by james a proper Sacrament. For both are one, as not only our Divines have proven, by comparing the places, and answering the Arguments brought by Bellarmine to diversify them, but also the same is acknowledged both by Beda, Theophylact, O Ecumenius, as testifieth your jesuit Becan. part. 4. theol. scholast. tract. de sacram. cap. 27. quast. 1. num. 2. & likewise by many Romish Doctors cited by a Lapide, Commenton Mark 6.13. I shall only mention your famous jesuit Maldonat, on that same place, who falls very sharply upon them who would understand them of different Unctions. I add fifthly, that learned PROTESTANTS have demonstrated, that the Unction spoken of by Mark and james, were in order to a miraculous healing of diseased persons. On this account learned Chamier, lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 18. §. 8. spared not to call it, miraculosum & extraordinarium Sacramentum. A kind of miraculous and extraordinary Sacrament, And Calvine, comment▪ in jacob cap. 5. calls it Symbolum temporable, a temporary Symbol, which was made use of in the Primitive Church, so long as these gifts of healing continued. But these having long ago ceased by the confession of all, Recedente gratia recedit & disciplina, The grace departing, there is no more use of the ceremony. I know your Romanists have some cavils, by which they labour at least to pervert that place of James, in favour of your pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Should I now insist in examining them, this Paper would swell to a nimious bigness, and I confess it hath already grown beyond my expectation. Let it therefore suffice to advertise you, that all these your Cavils are abundantly confuted to my hand by Chamier, lib. 4. de sacram. N. T. cap. 18.19. By Doctor Fulk, in his confutation of the Rhemists' notes, on James. 5.14. and by other PROTESTANT Authors. So that, if in your Reply you repeat to me these old cavils, and do not confute the answers given to them by our Authors, you will discover yourself to be a superficiary Theologue and unable to dive to the bottom of the Controversy. To sum up all therefore, this your greasy Unction as now it is gone about in your Church, hath no Scriptural foundation, but it seems to have too great resemblance to the practice of the Heracleonita, a kind of Heretics sprung from the Valentinians, of whom Austin writes in his Book, ad Quod vult Deum, cap. 16. Something also not unlike to this, Irenaus testifies concerning the Valentinians themselves, lib. 1. con. hares. cap. 18. And so much of your Extreme Unction.  
Now it remains, that I take some notice Lastly of your pretended Sacrament of Ordination. Know therefore, that we PROTESTANTS, do cordially acknowledge, that Ordination ought to be observed in the Church. Yea, learned Calvin, lib. 4. Instit. cap. 14. §. 20. admits that in a large sense, it may be termed a Sacrament. So likewise have other our Divines, as did Austin of old, lib. 2. contra Epist. Parmeniani cap. 13. and other Ancients. Yet Calvin in the place quoted, justly denies as do other reformed Divines, that it ought to be reckoned among ordinary and properly so called Sacraments, Inter ordinaria sacramenta (sayeth Calvin,) now numero. I shall desire you but to take notice of the ensuing Considerations. And First, how piteously are your Authors broken among themselves, concerning the matter or visible sign of this pretended Sacrament? You may take an account of this, from your Jesuit Becan, part. 4. the dischol. tract. de sacram. cap. 26. quaest. 4. Where first he brings in Dominicus à Soto, and Valentia, affirming that the porrection of the instruments, as of a Plater with Bread, and Cup with Wine, in the ordination of a Presbyter, to be the only essential matter of ordination. Then Petrus à Soto. Ledesma, Bellarmine, & Henriquez, asserting both the Porrection of instruments, and also Imposition of hands, to be the essential parts of ordination. But lastly, Becan himself affirms only Imposition of hands, to be the essential matter of this pretended Sacrament and that the Porrection of the instruments is accidental thereto. This is another specimen of your Papal Unity. Do you not perceive this fatality attending you, that where you divide from us, there you also divide among yourselves. Secondly therefore, I would ask what you really make the visible sign in this Sacrament? Is it only the Porrection of the instruments, of which alone your Pope Eugenius the fourth speaks, in that pretended Decree of the Council of Florence? Or is it only the Imposition of hands, or both? Not the first, for there can be no evidence of a divine institution thereof, nor doth Scripture make mention of any such Porrection of instruments, as is well observed by your own Jesuit Becan. Nor the second, for Imposition of hands is a rit● and action of the ordainer, but no substantial Element, such as is requisite to the nature of a Sacrament: And besides according to your Authors, it is common to other Sacraments, such as Corfirmation, and Extreme Unction. How then can it be the sole and peculiar sign in this Sacrament? Neither the third, for the arguments which prove that the matter of this pretended Sacrament can be neither of these separately, prove also, that it cannot consist in both conjunctly. The porrection of the instruments cannot be the matter of this Sacrament, either in part or whole, as not being of a divine institution; neither Imposition, of hands as being no substantial Element. Thirdly, that which your Pope Eugenius the fourth, giveth out as the form of this Sacrament, or words to be pronounced, were never of divine institution. The words he speaks of at the ordaining of Presbyters are these, Accipite potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro Vivis & Mortuis. Where have you a divine institution for these words? Nay, they are manifestly repugnant to the Scriptures of GOD, for they suppose Ministers to be Sacrificers of a proper propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins of Living and Dead. The absurdity whereof, and repugnancy to the Scriptures, might be demonstrated by many Arguments, if by digressing to that Controversy, I should not be longer entangled then at present is convenient. Fourthly, you will find it hard, to prove that Ordination is a seal of the promises of eternal Salvation. It is indeed a Seal of vocation to such an office, not of a right to eternal life. Fifthly, Ordination is peculiar to one Rank of men in the Church, But when our Divines deny it to be a proper Sacrament of the Gospel, they require to the nature of a proper Sacrament, as Doctor FORBES holds forth, in his Instruct. Historico-Theol. lib. 9 cap. 1. §. 27. That it be, Commune omnibus faederatis, quos neque aetas neque exiguus in gratia progressus, vel aliqua Physica incongruitas, vel nondum peracta paenitentia impedit. That is, That it be common to all within the bond of the Covenant, who are not impeded either by age, or by guiltness or some Physical incongruity. Therefore Ordination, from which the greater part of believing Christians are excluded, (though upon none of these accounts,) can be no Sacrament in that sense in which it is denied by PROTESTANTS. Sixtly, by Ordination with you men are rendered uncapable of Marriage, which also according to you is another Sacrament. Strange Sacraments whereof the one doth incapacitat to partake of the other. But lastly, what should I here insist upon the facundity of this pretended Sacrament of Ordination, how it hath begotten to you as learned Calvine expresseth it. lib. 4. institut. cap. 19 §. 22. septem Sacramentula, seven other petty Sacraments? Do you not subdivide your Ordination into seven kinds, viz, Ordination of Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons', Exorcists, Doorkeepers, Readers, Acolythes? Yea do not some of you reckon out eight kind of orders, some nine, some ten; as testifyes your jesuit Fornarius, de sacram. ordinis cap. 1. num. 3. If all these be Sacraments, have you not a goodly number of Sacraments? Where have you a divyne institution for all these, yea for the first seven or eight? Or for the Symbols you use in conferring these orders? Are you agreed among yourselves, how many of these are Sacraments, and whether any of these, or how many of them be proper species of the Sacrament of Order? If these of them be proper species, which your Coninck supposes disp. 20. dub. 7. num. 51. will not the number of your Sacraments be much increased above a septonarie, if you divide them into species specialissimas? But a more full account of the Vertigo, wherewith your Authors are smitten in this matter, may be had in Chamier lib. 4. de sacram. N. T. cap. 23. and in Doctor FORBES, his Instruct. historico-thcol. lib. 9 cap. 7.  
Perhaps I have expatiated on these particulars too fare, I shall now leave you to examine seven other Sacraments, (as a learned Author terms them,) or rather Mysteries of iniquity, which Doctor Beard in his Retractive from Popery, hath charged upon your Church, viz, Turpitudinem: Impietatem, Falsitatem, Novitatem, Idololatriam, Scripturarum Vituperationem, & Ignorantiae Defensionem. That is, Turpitude, Impiety, Falsehood, Novelty, Idolatry, Reproaching of the Scriptures, and Patrociny of Ignorance. How justly these are charged upon your Church, I leave you to receive: an account from the learned Author throughout the forecited Tractat.  
I shut up this whole discourse, concerning the number of Sacraments, with two testimonies from your famous Cassander, in Consult. art 13. de Numero Sacramentorum, which I suppose may stop the mouths of your Romanists, and if you would lay aside a contending Humour, might do much to put a period to this Question. His first testimony is this, In ho certè controversia nulla est, duo esse praecipua salutis nostrae Sacramenta, quomode lequuntur Rupertus Tuitien sis; & Hugo de Sancto Victore, nempe sacrum Baptisma, & Sacramentum Corporis, & Sanguinis Domini. That is, There is no controversy concerning this, that there be two chief Sacraments of our Salvation, as Rupertus Tuitiensis, and Hugo de Sancto Victore do speak, namely, holy Baptism, and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the LORD. The other testimony of Cassander follows a little after, thus. Et de his quoque septem Sacramentis certum est, ne ipses quidem scholasticos existimasse omnia aeque proprie Sacramenta vocari. That is, Concerning the seven much talked of Sacraments, it is certain (sayeth Cassander,) that the schoolmen themselves never esteemed them all alike properly so called Sacraments. What can I, or an indifferent Reader conclude from these testimonies of Cassander, but that you Romanists are convinced in your own consciences. that there are no other ordinances which may be termed Sacraments in that strict notion wherein Baptism and the Lords Supper may, which is that which PROTESTANTS affirm.  
Yet that you may remember, that you are not liberated from your old task, but remain where ye were at the transmission of your first Paper to me. I subioyne again the confutation of all your ten Papers in these two words.  
Nego Minerem, Or, Nego Conclusionem.  
john Menzeis.  Augustin, lib. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donat. cap. 5. Aliquid aliter sapere quam se res habet humana tentatio est. Nimis autem amande sententiam suam, vel invidendo melioribus usque ad pracidendae communionis & condendi Schismatis vel Haeresis Sacrilegium pervenire, Diabolica praesumptio est. In nullo autem aliter sapere quam se res habet Angelica perfectio est. Qui igitur homines sumus & spe Augeli sumus, quibus aequales in Resurrectione futuri sumus, quamdiu perfectionem Angeli non habemus, praesumptionem Diaboli non habeamus.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Page 5. Lin. 24. Read Heretic, page 8. lin. 11. R. Negative, pag. 10. lin. 1. R. Ecclesiam, pag. 51. lin. 32. r. would, pag. 55. lin. 34. r. Ecclesiae, pag. 91. lin. 11. r. necessity, pag. 100 lin. 13. r. supernatural, pag. 129. lin. 24. r. figment, pag. 135. lin. 8. add, to be, pag. 142. lin. 9 r. only, pag. 145. lin. 26. r. young Boys and, pag. 182. lin. 19 r. for, pag. 183. lin. 21. r. edition, pag. 200. lin. 23. add; it, ibid. lin. 33. r. virulent, pag. 215. lin. 11. r. conformity, pag. 227. lin 4. r. yet, pag. 230. lin. 22. r. nefariae, pag. 241. lin. 11. r. our, pag. 248. lin. 27. r. in his time, for, many time, pag. 251. lin. 27. r. Signo, pag. 256. lin. 25. r. jure, pag. 260. lin. 1. r. fancy, pag. 262. lin. 13. r. suit.  
The rest of the Escap's are humbly referred to the correction of the discreet READER. As for the Jesuits papers, the Original Copies transmitted by him to me were so full of grosse-errours, that I could nor undertake the correction of them. But of his papers a further account may be had in the Epistle to the READER.