A VINDICATION, OF THE REFORMED RELIGION, From the Reflections of a ROMANIST:  
Written for Information of all, who will receive the Truth in Love.  
By WILLIAM RAIT Minister of the Gospel at DUNDIE.  2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. Cyprianus ad Pompeium epist. 74. Quae ista obstinatio est, quave praesumptio, humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere, net animadvertere, indignari & irasci Deam, quoties divina pracepta soluit & praeterit humana traditio? Sine causa colunt me, mandata & doctrinas hominum docentes. 
ABERDENE, Printed by JOHN FORBES Younger, Printer to the Town andVniversitie, dwelling on the Mercat-place, 1671.   

To the truly Honourable, and really Religious, The Laird of HALGREEN Elder, Grace and Peace be multiplied.  
SIR,  
The great work of a Christian in the world, is to prefer Heaven to Barth, the law of the Lord to the law of sin, Gospel concernments to all earthly interests, when the one cometh in competition wi●●▪ or opposition to the other. The first fall of man, as the schoo● termeth it, was Aversio a Deo, and conversio ad creaturam. A turning from God to the creature. Then sin obtained precedency to Grace, folly to Wisdom, lust to the law of God. Our health and safety cometh in, by recovery and cure, our victory by a reserve: therefore God sent his Son into the world, with the Gospel remedy, to turn us from ungodliness, and worldly lusts, Titus 2. 12. to wean us from the inordinate love of the substance, and shadows of the world. 1. john 2. 15. to espouse our love to himself, that we may be presented as a chaste Virgin to Christ, 2 Cor 11. 2. For this we pray, we preach, we labour, we make use of Ordinances, and go about every duty. This is the scope and course of a Christian, and whatever, hindereth this design is not to be approved by him. Wood, hay, stubble, is not a Gospel cure. Pure Religion and undefiled, can only better the heart, mortify corruption, subdue the body of death, subject the whole man to the sovereignty of jesus Christ, mend the world, and make men live holily, righteously and soberly. When this salve was rightly applied in the primitive Church. O how wonderfully did the Lord bless the cure, and proved the medicine to be good by great success. How were men bound to their duty, by the awe and love of GOD on their hearts: that the very Heathens and Iewes ●●eto amused and forced to give testimony to the doctrine, that it was of GOD. But when men afterwards did begin to mix the wine with water, and handle the word of GOD deceitfully: They than became lovers of pleasure more than lovers of GOD▪ then fell they in dotage with the pomp and pride of the world. Which disease did break forth notoriously first at Rome, thence it spread and infected many Churches (Vrbs rea stagitiies, urbs le●●i causa putanda es. Vrbs fera, Tibrinae cui famulantur aquae.) As heathen Rome usurped dominion, so Rome now being animated by the Pope, and his Complices taking advantage by the division of Princes, and increasing her wealth by their wrack, like some who live near the Sea, as if there had been no law of Christ, to deny ourselves take up our cross and follow him, turned the Gospel-sim●●●citi● into state-policy, and the Ppoe degenerating from the ●hristian carriage of primitive fathers, sought secular greatness chief, put on a triple Crown, followed the pomp of the world. And all this is done under the name of Christ, pretence of Religion, and in ordine ad spiritualia, which maketh the sin more sinful, and their way irreconcilable with the dogmatic saith of a Christian who believeth the Scripture. The Church of Rome was once famous for Gospel profession. Her saith was spoken of through all the world in Tertullia's time who lived in the second century, Rome hath this character from him, lib de prescript. adversus Haeretico●, Felix R●m●, cui totam doctrinam, Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, legem & Prophetas cum Evangelicis & Apostolicis literis miscet, & inde potat fidem eam, aqua signat, Spiritu Sancta vestil, Eucharistia pascit, martyrio exhortatur, & adversus hauc institutionem nominem recipit. Happy Rome to whom the Apostles poured forth their doctrine with their blood, who mixeth Law and Gospel together, and drinketh in saith that way, taketh on the Baptismal seal thus, clotheth herself with the graces of the Holy Ghost, feedeth by the Sacrament of the Supper, confirmeth the doctrine by martyrdom, and receiveth none but on th●se terms. Quantum mutatur! O how great an alteration is there? Rome is not like that which is was once. For than they were made martyrs for the faith, now they make martyrs for the same faith, than they had pure ordirances, now they pollute them all with superstition and humane inventions. Bernard lib. 4. de consid. ad Eugen. Invisi Terrae & Coelo impii in Deum, temtrarii in sancta, seditiosi ad seiuvicem, simplicissimi dissimulatores, malignissimi proditores quos nominem amantes nemo amat. etc. The primitive Father's studied modelty, humility, and Gospel carriage. Cornelius to Cyprian in his Epistles, breatheth forth much self-denial. Cyprian tha● holy Martyr at the Council of Carthage, saith, neque evim quisquoē nostrum, se Episcopum Episcoporum constituit i. e. None of us maketh himself an universal Bishop. And divine Augustin writing to Hierom●pist. 97. uttereth, himself thus, in multis reb●s Augustinus Hieronymo minor est, this was Gospel like. But now the Pope is the Prince of pride, naming himself infallible, consequently incorrigible, & by the same reason impeccable, ●amom●is peccans in eo quod peccat errat. Every man erreth in as much as he sinneth, saith the school. If our hope were in this life only, and no retribution hereafter; or if the Alcoran were our rule, this deportment being full of carnal wisdom, proclaimeth them witty politicianes. But seeing the cont●a● is sure by the undoubted word of GOD, this their way is so●●ly, and it is admirable how understanding men appro●● their say. This their way hath wronged Christianity highly, and many sad effects have followed upon this pompous alteration of the Primitive frame. First, It hath turned many Italians who live near the Court of Rome, void of all true Religion, and died them with Atheism. So that as it is reported of them in Print, they will call proverbially their Idiots Christians, and when they would name a fool, they say he is a Christian, as if Christianity were a fable, and high folly. A discerning person who traveled through Italy many years ago, told me, that he heard some of them publicly blaspheme jesus Christ, by words which should not be repeated, and yet go unpunished. This is the fruit of their state way. For now it is far more like to the state of Rome, no● the old Church of Rome. Secondly, It exposeth Christian Religion to reproach, and stumbleth many. The jews are hindered to come in by their superstitious worship. The Eastern Church which is the most ancient, agreeing almost with us in all doctrinals, (as their Confession of Faith emitted by cyril the Patriarch of Constantinople testifieth,) is much offended at their Church dividing way. We are vexed with their plots, blots, underminding courses. They sow cockle amongst our wheat, and tares in our field, while men sleep. Of all men on Earth in any visible incorporation pretending to Christianity, they have made the greatest breach in the Catholic Church, and taken the tittle to themselves contrar to all reason. The Pagans perceiving our breaches are hardened in their blind way When their were not so great breaches in the Christian Church, Chrysostom on the Galatians, bringeth in the Gentile speaking thus, Vellent fieri Christianus, sed nescio cui adhaream, multae sunt inter vos pugnae, seditiones, & tumultus; nescio quod dogma eligam, quod praeseram, singuli enim dicunt, ego verum dico i. e. I would be a Christian but know not to whom I shall adhere, there be such differences amongst you, I know not what to choose, what to prefer, every one saith he hath the truth on his side. For this we are derided by jews and Gentiles, and the Church of Christ is divided. This ob●●●tion may be soon solved, by these who adhere to the Scripture, sensed by sound antiquity: But to them who are without, it maketh a great muster, and is a mountain in the way, which none have towered up more than the Romanists, by craft and might they have stated a faction, and fixed a Schism in the universal church. Is it not high arrogance, that a town in Italy, and a petty Prince there should make a monopoly, and obtrude their ware, pro arbitratu & imperio sub poena anathematis, upon all the Christians in the world, what have we to do with an Italian Prince, and who gave him right over us? Albeit these rents made in the church by secular interests, be matter of mourning, yet there be a providence in it, and this is permitted by the wisdom of GOD, that these who are approven may be made manifest. 1. Cor. 11. 19  sides habendo tentationem, habeat probationem, as saith Tertull. contra Haeres. cap. 1. Divina veritas calida oppositione agitatur, ut adversus illos adversarios desendi possit, considerari diligentius, intelligi clarius, praed●cari constantius, & ab adversariorum motis quaestionibus discendi existat occasio. Divine truth is cunningly opposed, that it may be defended more vigorously, considered more attentively, understood more clearly, preached more instantly, and that from the questions of adversaries, we may have the more occasion of learning truth. Saith Aug. de civet DEI. lib. 16. cap. 2. It is noted by Historians, that in the tenth Centurie, called the unhappy Age, there were no Heresies started not opposed, they were then asleep, and cared neither for truth nor error. Setiousness about these matters was at that time suspended. Yet it was infelix seculum, & it had been better for some that the tares had appeared, and then trysted with speedy opposition. Albeit evil be not good, yet sometimes, bonum est malum esse, as Aug: telleth us in his Enchiridion, it is good that evil be, qui bonus est non sineret malum esse, nisi omnipotens etiam de malo faceret bene. He would not suffer evil to be, if he being Omnipotent, could not bring good out of it. We are not therefore to cast away our confidence, nor become despondent, albeit Popery increaseth, & Papists way hold. The only wise Lord knoweth why it is so, & how to order this broken condition for good. When they like the old Pagans at Rome [who fathered Portenta Gnosticorum & aliorum Haereticorum, the absurdities of Gnostickes, and other Heretics upon the orthodox Christians, as Church history telleth us,) blot our doctrine & worship with all the reproaches which malice can devise: who can tell but the holy providence of GOD may bring us out amongst the pots, with our feathers like yellow gold. And he who worketh many of his works by mean instruments, may put such to it, that his strength may be perfected in weakness. I have contrar to my design, engaged into this debate, and do acknowledge that I am a weak sinful man, my inclination is averse from janglings, and I have had more satisfaction in going about the work of my Calling, in practicals of Religion, nor ever I had in penning or publishing this debate. But what could I do? Adversaries invaded the flock, pursued me within the ports, when my back was at the wall, and I had no purpose for war, stealed the sheep out of my bosom, and averred considentlie that they were said with rot-grasse in stead of wholesome food. Should I not in this exigence defend with such weapons as the Lord would afford? It may he said that the adversary is strong at home and abroad, but the Lord on high is more mighty than the noise of many waters. So fare as I am concerned, I rather would choose to fall in the field, nor turn my back, or by sinful silence suffer the truth to be over-laid and stifled. To some this may seem a light matter, and needless work, yet, if all be well understood it will not be found such. The found of a testimony for the truth in the case of subversion, is an ominous du●ie, if it were for no other end but this, to leave a witness, & not to be involved in the shout. Eveti● Minister of the Gospel is bound within his station, to promove Gospel intorests, to which Popery is highly prejudicial: to convince, convert, confute gainsayers, to confirm the weak, and undeceive the simple, I am much mistaken if this be superflous work. seeing it is one of the ends of our Calling. It is to be reposited indeed, that by debates for our just possession, past prescription, we should be diverted from more comfortable and edifying work; seeing ordinarily this way is so unsuccesful that few adversaries once engageing use to yield, and will rather act their parts to defend one error with another, ne videantur ●rrasse, nor with divine Aug: make a retractation. Which evidenceth much pride, and unmortified self-love, but very small respect to the Gospel. Yet cura officii i● ours, and our● even●us belongeth to the Lord, who will make a good account of all his affairs, & cause the f●ot of adversaries slidalin due 〈◊〉. Now Sir, seeing I resolved upon these considerations to publish this Vindication, following the custom, I have sheltered i● under the Patrociny of your Name, so much valued for Religion & Virtue. When Hieron wri●teth to Dardanus▪ he calleth him Christianorum nobilissime, nobilium Christianissime. I will not make use of that compellation to you, I know ye love not so well words to proclaim you good, as those which may make you better. It may be said without any assentation, that ye are a serious lover, and diligent practiser of those Gospel verities which have been from the beginning. And it will appear by proof, as Tertullian speaketh, antiquum nihil aliter suit quam sumus. This maketh me confident, that ye will entertain this Tractat for the truth. To speak of your descent and ancient extract, it belongeth to Historians and Heralds, not to me. Ye● if any doubt of that, let them read Hector Boetius history concerning the reign of Alexander the third, anno. Chr. 1208. fol. 300. And again about the reign of King Robert Bruce, anno Chri. 1320. fol 317. in both which, famous mention is made of your Relatives, Beside the Rudera of that old Castle in Murray called yet by your Name, proclaimeth this much, fuimus Trees. Neither shall I insist upon the constancy and frequency of your fervent devotion these seventy years and upward. And how ye preveen the morning watches in the coldest season, this commendeth the grace of GOD in you. Your Anteluc●na is such, well backed with the practice of righteousness, holiness, peaceableness, meekness, temperance, patience, zeal, and abundance of spiritual fortitude, if any will deny this, they either know you not, or love you not. I intent not by this to fire your corruption, that were not friendly breath, but to further your faith, and that others may learn of you to be religious indeed. Go on worthy Sir, in your Christian exercise, well may ye flourish in old age, well may ye finish your course with joy, O that all descended of you, may learn to follow your steps, in holiness, and righteousness, this will be the mercy of your family, which is daily desired by  
Your well Wisher and Servant in the Gospel, W. R.   

A Preface to the READER.  
THE Congregation of DUNDEE, Christian Reader, was by the good hand of GOD, for the space almost of an hundred years bygone, preserved from the infection of Popery; but of late some have been perverted by seducers, to the prejudice of the Gospel, and great scandal of the incorporation: amongst whom, one young woman descended of Religious and Honest Parents, being led away with the error occasioned this debate. For after conference she seemed to be much affected, and least that which then appeared to take impression on her mind, should slip out of her memory, some grounds by way of a Dialogue were shortly written down, with several wholesome Christian admonitions; this short dialogue was by her put into the hands of a traffiquing Romanist, and in stead of her Conversion so much desired, eight sheets of paper are stuffed with reflections, not only on it, but on the Gospel-doctrine, which is according to Godliness, and all the professors thereof. Ere I heard any such thing, this pamphlet was spread with artificial insinuations, and quickly convoyed from hand to hand for a time, at last a well wisher to the truth sent a copy to me, with this desire that I would re●iev● and refute it. At first I inclined to pass it with silence, because I thought discerning men would easily espy its weakness. Thereafter hearing that some Popishly inclined did magnify it, lest the reformed Doctrine should suffer prejudice, I was advised to pen a Reply with this resolution, that except some new arguments be brought forth, which are not answered by reformed Divines, or here by me, I will not trifle my time so much allotted for better work, as to debate more on the subject here contained. What is said, may (to my uptaking) satisfy such as love the truths of the Gospel, and in reason convince gainsayers. But if men will undervalue the word of GOD, right reason, and shutting their eyes, declare themselves unsatisfiable, an evil humour hath caused them to err. And I have other employment, not to wrestle with such. Wisdom will be justified of her own children. And in this time when profaneness and Popery walk on every side, blessed is he who keepeth his garments clean, and doth nothing against the truth, but for it. Seminary Priests are very diligent, sowing their cockle amongst us in this land, they have their own abettors, proxies, and procutors. Is it not then the duty of good Christians, to arm themselves with the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of GOD, and keep their ground against adversaries? The face of truth is beautiful, and the salvation of souls precious. This short Tractat is claiefly calculated for the Meridian of Dundee; and for any single sincere Christian, who seriously labour for Gospel truths, and to work out their own Salvation. All such cannot have leisure to read voluminous books, written by more able pens, nor will they be at the expenses to buy them; and it may be also that some would not comprehend or relish them, mediocriter docta, mediocriter doctis placent, saith the writer of the life of Pelicanus. Books are like meats, and somewhat of suitable sympathy, contributeth to make them edifying; if this convince, convert, or establish men in the truth, it is the blessing of the GOD of truth, for which I shall bless his Name. If not, it is my testimony to that truth wherein I have lived, and hope in the strength of jesus Christ to die. So far I'll endeavoure to serve my generation, this will be my peace whatever the event be; and my conscience is witness that I hazard to publish this debate for no selfish end, or any other respect whatever.  
The Romanists for upholding their faulty fabric, have forged many unwarrantable devices, some of which I shall briefly touch here, that by these as a tes●e, ye may discern how they build which wood, hay, stubble, and daub the work all along with untempered mortar.  
Their first engine is Matchiaveelian, calumniare audacter. If any man appear for truth in the gate, they bend their tongues and pens as bows with reproaches against such: like that persecuting Roman, who would first have the Virgins whom he minded to condemn, deflowered by the hangman, that they might not be heard, but die without regrate. And as the primitive Christians were sometimes put into beasts skins by their persecutors, to the end that dogs might devour them greedily: So deal they with reformed Writters, that truth be not heard from them. How sinful is this way contrar to that Scripture, Titus 3. 2. speak eull of no man? This is most like to the course which the adversaries of truth have still keeped; So d●●y they of old with the Prophets, Psalms 69. v. 10. 11. Yea with jesus Christ himself, Matth. 11. 19 Matth. 12. 24, and all his Apostles, 1. Cor. 4. 13. that they might overly the truth, and m●ke them the more easy prey to the teeth of obloquy and prejudice. What is this bawling to the cause before any discerning person? Quid ad rhombum? Michael the Archangel disputing with the Devil, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, jud. v. 9 Let not this hinder men from hearing truth, nor terrify any from giving testimony to it. We are bound as Christians not only to bear the scourge of tongues, but more also for the Gospel's sake when called to it. Augustin said to Petilian, his tongue was not the fan. I am a man in the floor of Christ, and if good grain will be laid up in the Garner, blow the wind as it will. So we may say to such railers, yea, if the adversary would write not only pasquils, but a book of this kind, we may bind it to our shoulders, and wear it as our crown; For the Lord will in due time, wipe of the rebuke of his people, (Is. 25. 8) which they bear for his Name. That saying of Bernard is sweet, Cimbae me comitto, in tanto discrimine confidens in Domine, qui pro illo recte l●quentibus, pro illo laborautibus dicit, Adsum. 〈◊〉 run the reack trusting in the Lord, who hath promised presence to all, who speak and act rightly for him. And heroickly Luther to the same purpose, if truth be on my side, quidni pro viribus agam, why should ●●ot do my uttermost, sim homicida, sim adulter, ●●●do silentii non arguar, dum Christus patitur. Let them call me what they will, if I be not guilty of sinful silence, when Christ suffereth in his truth. It is a very small matter, upon this account to be judged of men, 1. Cor. 4. 3. these things are light and heavy as we ordinarily take them. If this strain of reproaching did siste at us it were not so much, but they reproach the written word of GOD, and sentence it boldly of imperfection, contrar to Psalm. 19 7. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. and of obscurity, as if it were not a light and lantherue to our paths, Psalm. 119. 105. Yea, they shamelessly aver, that the authority of the Church, and Pope of Rome, is greater to us nor Scripture. Is it not lamentable, that men called Christians, for pompous selfish interests, should laboriously study to cast aspersions upon the unsported word of GOD, and depretiate it so in the world! May not this tender Popery suspicious to any knowing man, that the abettors thereof decline the written word of GOD, to be the sole umpire of faith and manners, and endeavour to discredit it before the Nations, which is the touchstone of truth, and best fence we have against Satan and all his complices; such non sunt audiendi, saith holy Aug. Confess. lib. 6. cap. 5. they should not in this be heard far less obeyed.  
Their second device, when they are pressed with the truth, is to coin evil grounded distinctions, and with this ley money to make merchandise of poor simple souls. Needle▪ headed men have strangely acted their inventions herein, and crumbled Gospel truths thus, that he is now thought the best and most learned Papist, who can findout subtle subterfugies, and receptacles against plain Scripture verities. So that the Romanists are the great foxes which eat up the tender vines. Other Sectaries who separate themselves from the Church builded on the foundation, Eph. 2. 20. and deface the doctrine which is according to Godliness, are of lesser magnitude. That ye may know what sort of props uphold their rotten building, take these five instances. First, When we prove that the Scripture is the rule of faith, this they grant in part, but say they it is a partial, not the total rule; they must sowder somewhat of their own tradition to it, err they acknowledge it for a rule. This is a reasonless shift. If the rule be not total and perfect in its own kind, for its own ends, it is no rule at all, but a semi-rule, regula nec appositionem nec ablationem admittit, saith Theophilact, on the 3. chap. to the Philip. Nothing can be added to, or taken from a rule; the law of nature, the law of reason, are sufficient for their own ends; so is the written word of GOD for salvation. When we say, Secondly, that the word of GOD cannot have authority from men, therefore the Scripture is judge of the Church, and not the Church of the Scripture. They answer by a leaden distinction, that it hath authority from the Church in respect of us, but not in respect of itself. This is a reasonless evasion, for all authority is an act, quoad extra, and relative to us. The Scriptures have excellency and dignity internal, but all its authority is external and relative to men. So that distinction is null. If the Scripture hath its authority from the testimony of their Church, than their faith must be ultimately resolved into their Church testimony, as more authoritative nor the word of GOD. Propter quod unumquodque est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale. Therefore Popish faith by this maxim is not divine, but ecclesiastic and humane: Now the Church and faith of Believers should be builded immediately upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Eph. 2. 20. Therefore the Pope with his traditions cannot found the Church, nor the faith of Christians; other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid. 1. Cor. 3. 11. To this they return a distinction, that jesus Christ is the principal, and the Pope the secondary foundation; seeing it was said to Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church. This subterfuge in like the rest; if this was said to Peter personally, as Tertul. de praescrip. thinketh, than not to his successors, suppose the Pope were the man, a personal individual prerogative is incommunicable. If it was not personal, but to him and his successors, then if the Apostle Paul were living, the Pope behoved to be above him in dignity and Church prerogative, by reason Peter was above him, and he succeedeth to his superiority. This to any discerner may appear absurd. Beside the Church is builded on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Eph. 2. 20. than not upon one Apostle, take the words as ye will. The true meaning of these words, upon this rock I will build my Church is this, the confession of Peter concerning jesus Church, the Son of the living GOD, was a ●ock on which the Church was builded. This interpretation is authorized by Augustin. who interpreteth the words thus, Tract. ult. in johan. & serm. 13. de verbis Apost. he giveth also strong reason for it, lib. 1. retract cap. 21. non enim dictum est Petro, tu es petra, sed tu es Petrus. which reason Valentia challengeth in vain, disp. 1. to 3. quaest. 1. punc. 7. Further, there cannot be two foundations, if we speak properly. If no man can lay another as the Scripture speaketh, why should it be asserted? Christ jesus alone set forth in the doctrine of Prophets and Apostles, is that solid foundation on which we build all our salvation; he is that sure foundation laid in Zion, and no ways can this without blasphemy be applied to the Pope, seeing the Apostle Peter maketh application of it to Christ only, 1. Peter 2. 6.  
Thirdly, When we assert with the Scripture, that Marriage is honourable amongst all, therefore they should not forbid it. Their answer is, that all should not be taken here absolutely, for then a brother might marry his sister, but only of persons not prohibited, and their votaries are such. Is not this a fig-leaf covering? Incest is forbidden by the law of GOD. But where are Church men forbidden by GOD to marry, it is honourable among them saith the written word; who can bind men to the contrar of that which the Lord hath permitted and commanded? The evasion about the Sacrament of the Supper is of the same kind; when it is objected that Christ said expressly of the Cup, drink ye all of it. By all say they, is meaned all Priests, but not all Christians. Is this to be endured with patience, to see men tear so the sense of Scripture with sophisms. If (all) relate to them as Ministers of the Gospel, than they should have the bread only, and all private Christians should be barred: for he who said drink ye all of it, said likewise to the same (all) take eat.  
Fourthly, When they are challenged of Superstition and Idolarrie, by breach of the second Command, here there is a distinction not lacking betwixt the worship called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reserved for GOD; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they avowedly say, should be given to images, Saints, etc. And this they father on Augustin. But these two words are promiscuously taken in Scripture, and both of them given to GOD, as shall be proved in its proper place. Papists give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Images, Relics, and Cross of Christ; Thus they confound themselves. When john the divine would have worshipped the Angel, doth he not forbid him, Rev: 22. 9 and say worship GOD? Belike he knew not this distinction. Is it not called will worship, Col 2. 23. Then it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither doth Augustin make use of that distinction in the Popish sense, he was fare from thinking that Religious worship should be tendered to Saint or Angel, for he saith, lib. de vera Relig. cap. ult. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter Religionem. And epist, 44. se●as inquit a Christianis ●ullum coli mortuorum. He biddeth us praise the Martyrs, honour their memories, follow their footsteps, sed DEUM Martyrum colite, worship the GOD of Martyrs only. This distinction than is groundless. Is it not lamentable that men professing Christianity, should so hazard upon Idolatry, Superstition and will worship, with a deceitful distinction, which can neither satisfy reason nor conscience? And dare any tender Christian think that such juggling work will be his peace in the day of distress and death? What is this but a lie in the right hand? Therefore let all who love and fear the Lord beware of that worship, which standeth on such cogling distinctions.  
Fifthly, Their great refuge when they cannot mantain these absurdities, is, that we calumniat them, & mistate questions. And if neither of these can serve, than they allege, that these are the opinions of some private Doctors, and not the judgement of their Church. But in this vindication, let all be assured, that to my best uptaking, nothing is fathered on this Adversary but what he saith directly, or consequentially, nothing brought against him but that which is either literally, or interpretatively in the written word of GOD, or human Authors. Albeit it he notoriously known that Papists uphold their tottering Babel by lies, murders, treasons, deluding wonders, by corrupting, mutilating, foisting, embezeling divers testimonies divine and huma●●, as shall be made out hereafter, yet we have not so learned Christ. The truths of Christ's Gospel need not such props, and we are not allowed to lie for GOD. It is a mere evasion to cast over what they cannot make good on their private Doctors. For the decrees of the council of Trent to which now they profess adherence, are purposely contrived in many particulars, like the Delphian oracles, and when they lurk under ambiguities, what way shall they be found out but by their Doctors, who are the expositors of their tenets: Beside there be few or none of them cited, whose books are not approven, by Censurers appointed for that effect, the tenor of whose testimony is, that such books contain nothing contrar to the Catholic faith of the Church of Rome. Is not this equivalent to a Council statute? Do they not impu●●●●ur Doctors, Calvine, Luther, &c, notwithstanding of 〈…〉 Confessions of faith, whereof they cannot be ignorant. They deal not only so with their own writters, but also with the Fathers, as some hard Masters use their servants, if they ●lease their humours they will keep them, if not, they will dismiss them, it may be with a stain betwixt terms. Yea they deal worse with such testimonies as relish nor their taste, for they dispatch and geld them also. Their Monastries have not occasioned the murder of more infants, nor their Golders by the index expurgatorius have the death of true testimonies, which now being overlaid cannot see the light. Shall not the GOD of truth make inquisition for these crimes in due time? Surely he will arise and have mercy on Zion, for some are yet living. who take pleasure in her stones and favour the dust thereof  
Thirdly, The third engine, which th●se Engyneers use, is, the colour of antiquity, and pretence to closely walking and austerities. The Church of Rome to which the Apostle Paul did write is indeed ancient, whose faith was spoken of through all the world. But Popery as it is now dogmatised, is a late invention, plastered with antiquity, like the Gibeonites bread. And so far from rendering men closely walkers, that it is highly prejudicial to Gospel interests. For ex natura operis, it turneth men lose and unfaithful to souls, yea its pompous secular way is very unsuitable to the simplicity, and self-denial required in the Gospel, this is soon proved. The great pillar of the Romish Religion, is the Pope's pompous supremacy and infallibility: In this saith Bell. prefat. de Pontifice, the sum of their Religion consisteth. Consider Reader, which of the Apostles did so empire it Not Peter, that he forbiddeth and calleth himself a fellow Elder, 1. Peter 5. 1. Not any Church man for many Centuries thereafter. For Gregory who was Bishop of Rome anno 600. curseth the name of universal Bishop, which john Bishop of Constantinople usurped and saith, epist. lib. 4, Rex superbiae prope est. he meaneth Anti. Christ, Et sacerdotum ei praeparatur exercitus, in this he prophesied truly. Estius in lib. 4. sent. didst 47. being puzzled with this testimony, saith, that by (universal Bishop) Gregory meaned only (sole Bishop) who excluded others. This is a mere forgery, for there were many Bishops at that time, in the Greek Church beside john of Constantinople, so he was not solus Episcopus. But giving, not granting this to be the sense of the prophecy, it will make against the Pope of Rome, who giveth himself out for sole Bishop, and all under him his Vicars only. This is clear from the history of the Trent Council lib. 7. pag. 599. Father Simon the Florentine, there speaketh after the same tenor. When it is demanded whither any Bishop be Jure Divino? One must answer affirmativelie, One only, the Successor of Peter. And thus the famous saying of Cyprian must be expounded, there is but one Bishopric, and every Bishop holdeth a part thereof, in solidum; otherwise it cannot b●e defended that the government of the Church is the most perfect of all, that is Monarchical, but must necessarlie ●all into an oligarchy: All the Pope's Prelates did speak then the same language, will not this make him solus Episcopus, so that in Estius sense, he must be concluded to be Rex superbiae, because he is sole universal Bishop. The primitive Father's studied modesty, charity, humility. But Head of the whole Church, Prince of Priests, infallible, universal Monarch, were names unknown to them. Yet this is the Pope's motto, summarei, the great foundation, sine qua corruit Ecclesia, saith, Bellarmin in the forecited place. Further worship in an unknown tongue, was not heard in the Church, till it was commanded by Witalianus, in the 7. Cent. saith Platina, and Aquinas on the 1. Cor. 14. telleth that the worship in the primitive Church, was performed in the vulgar language. The mutilation of the Sacrament of the Supper by withholding the cup from the people, was unknown to ant quitie. For Valentia de legitimo us● Eucharistiae, cap. 10. saith that the receiving of the Sacrament under one kind came into the Church by no decree but by the custom of the people, not long before the Council of Constance, at which time the custom was made a law. The withholding Scripture from people was detested in the primitive Church. Was it not decreed in the Council of Nice, saith Agrippa, that no Christian should be without a Bible, espcially if he could read; in Augustin, Chrysostom, and Hieroms days, the people are required to search the Scriptures according to the rule, john 5, 39 Tutius ambulatur per Scripturas, saith Aug. lib. 3. the doct. Chri. cap. 28 nor by humane traditions or glosses. Some names of things occurring in antiquity, are preserved in the Roman Church; but it will be found that the Fathers understood them not in that sense, nor made use of them as they do. The nature of things new in Popery is unanswerable to the old names, as snal afterward appear. By this we may perceive, that Popery was not from the beginning. The mystery of iniquity increasing, vain men set their posts beside the Lords posts, their thresholds beside his, Ezek. 43. 8. And making up a body of superstitious inventions, have placed Religion in these, which they hold forth to the world as eldest, and have so fall'n out with Scripture truths, that they are not ashamed to accuse them, and their professors of novelty, heresy, etc. But be it known to all, that we will have no Religion to be called ours, younger nor the Apostles and primitive Christians; It shall either be sixteen hundred years old, it shall be founded on the Scripture, sensed by pute antiquity, or else not outs.  
Beside this their foistery, that which is foisted poisoneth souls, and filleth them with the East-wind. For by their merits and mediators, they deerogate from the honour of Christ, and from the faith of Christians; seeing he is is so precious to them who believe, 1. Pet. 2. 7. It is not strange, that contrar to Scripture they will deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ jesus to the blessed Elect, and that imputed righteousness of Saints, is affirmed by them to profit others, and relieve them from temporal punishment. As if the death and merits of the Mediator, were not of sufficient value, to save us fr●m all evil. They say that no man can have certainty of Salvation by faith, and yet without any revelation, they will canonize others as Saints Can any be more certain of the salvation of another, nor his own. Their doctrine concerning the Priest's intention, taketh away all certainty of faith; if the Priest do not seriously intent what he professeth to do, there is no Sacrament, no consecration, no ordination. And who but the Lord searcheth the heart, and knoweth human intentions? By making the Body of Christ now in Heaven, to be corporally present in the Sacrament of the Supper, when it is administered, they deny many articles of the Christian Creed, they strengthen the heresy of the Valentinians, who said that his Body was fantastical, not real, they contradict the Scripture which calleth it the fruit of the vine after consecration, Luke 22. 18. And Aug. tract. 5. in john, who saith, that the bread remaineth bread after the consecration, and the Body of Christ a real Body after the Resurrection. By their doctrine of , they make free Grace to stand at the beck of the will, whither it shall be operative or not. Yea, they make providence in its acting dependent on the will: For this is their tener▪ GOD worketh because the will consenteth, not e contra, see Bellar de gratia & libero arbitrio, lib. 4. cap. 15. Will it not follow then, that we should thank our will for our Conversion, and entreat it to make grace efficacious, and providence effectual? Seeing it hath a negative voice in all these matters. And what is more prejudicial to the providence, and worship of GOD, or to the efficacy of grace, nor this tener which Aug refuteh well in his Enchrid. cap 32. By invocation of Saints, the worship of Relics, and the whole house of their imagery, they give the glory of the Lord to another, and are reproved, Is 42. 8. Yea there be many whom they invocat, of whom they are not certain if either they were Saints, or lived in the world. Cassander who lived in communion with Rome, acknowledgeth, that much superstition is sostered by this way, Consult. ●1. Is it not then soul-damning? By their distinction of mortal and venial sins, by Purgatory, by prayer for the dead, by their absolution under so bare a degree of contrition, they make people sin securely for under the name of v●nial sins, they comprehend grievous crimes, as sivearing by the wounds of Christ, Per Membra Christi est venialis irreverentia, & si reverenter juretur null●●s videtur esse peccatum, saith, Valentia tom. 3. disp. 6. quast. 7. punct. 3. Legerdemain in vendition, ubi quantuns & quale mutatur, may be venial, si materia sit levis, saith Tolet. de 7. pecc. cap. 49. whereas divers measures, without exception, are declared abomination, Pro. 20. 10. All these remedies which they apply after death, make men less diligent in duty while they live. And if Purgatory be the Pope's peculiar, as they call it, he must have little love to Souls, and too much to his own gain, who will not release those Prisoners sooner, and fill some rooms in Heaven faster? How ready are we to delay duty from time to time? And doth not this bait our humour? How jejune and bare is their contrition, which goeth before confession and absolution? Yet may prove sufficient. Hear Suarez. tom. 4. disp▪ 4. who saith a slender grief is sufficient. And Tolet. lib. 3. the instr. Sacerdot. a small degree of grief, can wipe away a great degree of sin. What is this but daubing with untempered mortar, and putting kercheifes under arm holes, a strengthening of the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way? By toleration of Brothels, and preferring in votaries fornication to lawful marriage; Is not a wide door opened to obscene sensuality? Agrippa de vanit. witnesseth, that the Pope hath tribute paid to him by all the whorehouses at Rome. Therefore Pope Sixtus builded the nobile l●pan●r, a notable Brothel house. Bell. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 30. saith, that fornication in such is a less sin nor marriage. What will debauch the chastity if this do not? Tolet. lib. 4. the instr. sacerd. telleth us, that a man is bound to sanctify the Sabbath, but is not bound to sanctify it well, for he may hunt, travel, and make market on that day. Is not this infectious doctrine? Now Christian Reader, if thou be serious for salvation, I charge thee to pause here a little, and consider if this can be the way of holiness, wherein the prophets, Apostles, and primitive Fathers walked to Heaven? Therefore as thou tenderest thy own salvation and consolation, beware of it, this leadeth to the chambers of death. Hath fall'n man who inclineth naturally to wickedness need of such incentives to sin, and lenitives when he hath sinned? Or can he who is of puter eyes then to behold iniquity, approve such as break his Commandments, and teach men so to do? Can the tree be good where the frui● is so b●d? None will believe it who have understanding, unless they be willing to be deceived. It is the stain of any Christian, to desert the good old way in which they are commanded to walk, jer. 6. 16. and to be fooled out of their Religion, by some groundless distinctions, and ingenious devices of subtle men, who stint snares, and lay themselves in wa●te to deceive the simple. If a man born and trained in the Reformed Church shall hanker after Popery, he is foolish in so doing, if he purpose n●t to swallow the whole bulk of it. For Bellarmin saith, they cannot quite one ●ota, otherwise their Church were not to be reputed infallible; and if he resolve to do this, I must say he hath an Ostrich-stomach, and is a great latitudinarian. Further it is to be feared that at the next alteration, if tempted, ●e fall into Atheism, & total infidelity. For the weapons by which the Papists wage war with the Scriptures, and the Reformed Church built thereon, are the same which Celsus used of old against Christianity itself, which Origen refuteth at length, he impeached the Scriptures, and quarrelled the Christians for their rents, for the calumnies of the world, etc. If these have beat thee from the Reformed Religion, hast thou not to fear, that they may shake thee in all, and turn thee at last Nullisidian? As they make use of Pagan arguments, so of the Jewish, for they reasoned just so against Christ Jesus and his Apostles. By what authority? where is your visible succession? have any of the rulers, Scribes or Pharisees believed on him? etc. It hath pleased the Lord to furnish us with good defences, but it is strange, that they drawing many of their shafts from Pagan, and Jewish Antichristian quivers, should not be ashamed of their way. And it is more strange, that knowing men if conscientious, should be ensnared by them. It is known to such as are not ignorant of Church history, that when Christianity came first into this isle, they had nothing to do with Rome, for a long time they were strangers and adversaries to her sovereignty, and would not exchange the diet of Easter for her commands, nor have communion with these messengers, who came from her. Bede called Venerable telleth lib 2. hist. cap. 4. that in the beginning of the 7. cent. after Augustine the Monk came to Britain, he found them no way like the Romanists, no● could he prevail with them, to conform to Rome, not so much as in the administration of Baptism, or observation of Easter. And when one Laurentius his successor endeavoured the same, and thought the Scots would be more tractable, he found the plain contrare: as he writteth to the Abbates in Scotland, for Dagamus the Scotish Bishop, who came to speak with them, refused to eat or drink with Laurentius, or stay in the room where he was. So little communion would they here have then with Romanists. Now that Church is fare more corrupt, than it was in Gregory's days, and ours more pure and enlightened then it was at that time. What frenzy must it be therefore in them now who are members of this Church, to enter into communion with Romanists, or tamper with, or haunker after their way. Let all who love the Truth stand in awe thus to sin, we have a safer surer way for Salvation nor Popery, wherein if we walk, peace and mercy shall be on us, Gal. 6. 16.  
Lest this Preface swell disproportionably, I will offer four advyees to my Countrymen, that they may be persuaded from Popery; and then close with a word more particularly to the Inhabitants of this Place.  
First, If ye would guard well against Popery, have a full persuasion of the Truth, from the ground of divine revelation, in the holy Scriptures. 2. Tim. 1. 13. 14. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ jesus, that good thing which is committed to thee, keep by the holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. For men not persuaded by divine faith, like to young scholars, evil grounded in their principles are easily put from their grounds, and tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine: Persuasisti mihi Domine saith Aug. lib. 6. confess. cap. 5. this keeped him fast. When once divine Truth sinketh into the heart, ye will have a sincere love to it for itself, and not for any by respects or worldly advantages. Otherways when truth florteth only in the head, and men are bated with worldly temptations, and selfish interests, they are soon drawn away from the truth, which in their affection is postponed to that which they love better. And GOD in his holy justice giveth them up to strong delusions for their hypocrisy, and want of sincerity, 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. the Lord hath promised the spirit to them who ask him, Luke 11. 13. If ye love the truth, seek the grace and strength of the holy Spirit to lead you into all truth, and labour to grow in grace, and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, following diligently the means appointed thereto by GOD himself, to wit, reading, hearing the Word preached, receiving the holy Sacrament of the Supper, as GOD shall give opportunity, meditation, prayer, spiritual conference, Hosea 6. 3.  
2. Peter 3. 17. Beware of looseness and all profaneness in conversation, for it is righteousness with GOD to punish practical Atheists, by giving them over to speculative Atheism, whereby they are hardened in their wicked courses; And silly women led away with divers lusts are easy led captive, and detained in error by seducers, whose doctrine hath compliance with their lose way of living, 2. Tim. 3. 6.  
Secondly, beware of prejudice against reformed Ministers or Prosessours, where this entereth it maketh the evil eye, and if the eye be evil, the whole body is dark, Matth. 6. 23. Some allege that the pupil of a Witch eye is inverted by malice. Certainly the understanding of any man is in hazard to be thus perverted. That which made Porphyre, julian, and other Apostats fall away from the truth, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prejudice and passion. It is reported of an Indian, that being wronged by the Spainard, when some were instructing him about Christianity, and the way to Heaven, he refused to be a Christian, because he heard that the King of Spain was walking in that path; in this he was Pagan like. Let Christians be ashamed to speak or do so. If men in this controversal age, have done or suffered injuries, for the Lords sake let none of these things make you wrong the truth of GOD, your own consciences, or the Mother Church, which did bear or foster you. Alace, what evil hath the Gospel of Christ done to you? Wherein hath it weatied you, whose Ox or Ass hath it taken, testify against it if ye dare? Why then will ye wrong the Master for the Servants sake, and hate the truth, because ye love not some who profess to adberes to it? Is it imaginable that such back-sliding courses will afford you comfort in the end of the day, when the silver cord is loosed, and the pitcher broken at the well? Were it a good defence for treason, to say to a King, some fellow subjects have wronged me. How easily might he return this, shall ye therefore wrong my law? It may be your wrong is supposed not real, and admit it be so indeed, two blacks makes not one white, ye should remember the oath of alleag●●nce. So will the King of Kings challenge Apostats, and say, why departed ye from the truth? Was this the way to right your wrongs, whereunto was ye baptised; Why gad ye abroad to change your way? This is baseness below a Christian or any man of honour.  
Thirdly, Let all lovers of truth love one another dearly, and entertain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; This is a sense against foes, forbear and forgive one another, let the strong bear with the weak, and if in all things ye cannot be like minded, (which is rather to be w●shed nor expected here) yet be kindly affectioned. And whereunto ye have attained walk by the same rule, and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, the Lord will reveal that in due time, and teach you that which ye see not. When breaches are amongst sincere Christians, who fear the Lord and his goodness, the adversary who waiteth for their halting, casteth oil on the flame, and with jeering warmeth his hands at the fire. All the wild beasts of the wilderness, enter in at those breaches, and are ready to take away the wine-press, and devour with open mouth the tender Vines. Josephus de Bello Judaico, telleth us, that the Romans of old overcame Jerusalem easily, because the chief Captains within the walls fought eagerly amongst themselves, and were so divided by the wrath of GOD, that their animosity was greater against other, nor the common adversary; this prepared the way for their sudden overthrow. And when the Roman Eagles did slay to BRITAIN, the Historian Tacitus showeth, how they in this Isle were vanquished, dum singuli pugnant universi vincuntur. Little was left undone to the adversaries hand. So the new Romanists take the same advantage against our Jerusalem; therefore we should be the more diligent to endeavour by all Christian ways, that peace may be within her walls, and prosperity within her palaces. It would be well adverted that the enemy is at the gates, therefore should be watchfully eyed in all our deportment. Every time hath its own trial and temptation, the dispensation of this sinful time calleth for much consideration; and they who understand the language of it, may excel amongst their brethren, and serve the generation best in the fear of the Lord. The Christians in Persia saith Theod lib. 5. h●st. cap. 38. understood not the times wherein they lived, therefore became a prey to their adversaries, let not the enemy her advantage, lest it be told in Gath and Askelon. It was said of old amongst Pagans, behold the Christians how they love one another, and their adversaries were forced to commend them, for sweet harm: less carriage. This is an ornament to profession, and a guard to the truths of the Gospel. Therefore as ye tender the honour of the Lord, and preservation of his truth, live in love; love the truth and peace, follow peace and holiness, this will at least damp adversaries.  
Fourthly, Labour to know experimentally the power of Christian Religion, nothing will more solidly refute Popery to you, nor the kingdom of grace in power. Popery is a humane device, full of pompous shadows, which hath no concord with the light and life of the Gospel. For the more shadow the less light. The Northern-people from whom the Sun is remote, are circled with shadows: but these who have the Sun perpendicularly over them, and are under it at the Noontide, have little or no shadow. So, if ye would decline the Popish groves, live near the Sun of righteousness. The Popish trash cannot please a reformed Christian. Holy Augustin ep. 119. complaineth that in his time the Church was pressed, contrar to the merciful institution of Christ, with such a servile burden of ceremonies, that the state of the Jews under the Law, was more tolerable nor the condition of Christians. seeing they were subject to the ordinances of GOD, and not to humane presumptions. If he had now lived and seen their gadie way, what would he have said? Surely this, that the Romish Church is full of shadows, therefore, far from the Sun. The best refutation of some points of Arminianism, is the power and efficacy of Gospel grace on the heart. Will ever that man believe  in its extent, as it is taught by them, to whom the Lord hath spoken with an high hand, and determined for his duty? No verily! Or will any of the Circumcision who worship GOD in spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh; Be delighted with a burdensome bounde● of humane inventions, or place worship in these? It cannot be, such will consider Matth. 15. 9 and so acocunt that worship vain. The Merchants have not always the best shops who hang forth pompous signs. Nor is she reputed a chaste woman who is fearded in the face, and clothed with the attire of an harlot. The whorish garb of Rome, will not reactily please souls espoused to that one Husband jesus Christ, therefore live like the Gospel. And if ye be sealed by it to the day of Redemption, with the holy Spirit of promise, the Scripture truths will be precious to you. That which rendereth many unstable is a notional Cartesian way of Religion; but sincere Christians have not so learned Christ. If thou once taste how good the Lord is, and if he hath given thee songs in the night, his testimonies to thee will be more than thy necessary food. Irreligious profaneness and Popery are practically so sibb to other, that the one ushereth in the other. Nothing maketh me fear the growth of this bitter root in the Land more, than the deludge of profaneness, which overfloweth all the banks. When men belie their Christian profession, being abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobat. Is it not to be feared, that the Lord make such like Shiloh, jer. 7. 17. live then holily and righteously. If ye do his will ye shall know the doctrine whither it be of GOD or not, john 7. 17. Godliness hath the promises of this life, and of that which is to come; it is nor much to be feared that many (if any) who have tasted of the power of Religion by the ordinances of the Reformed Church, will turn away to Popery; That seal on the heart will prove a notable preservative.  
I shall conclude this Preface with a word of advertisement to the Inhabitants of Dundee, whom I dearly love, and have in my heart frequently before the Lord. That seeing the Lord hath made you one of the considerable incorporations in this Nation, ye would consecrate your gain to him, by proving valiant for his truth on earth, it is not unknown how the Lord honoured this place, by making an early proffer of the Gospel to it, by that faithful Servant and Martyr of Christ, Mr. George Wishart who preached the Gospel here, and edified many by his powerful preaching. One Robert Milne who had then sway in the Town, to please that Cardinal Beton, by whom he was corrupted and biased with bribes, as our Ecclesiastic Historians ●ell, discharged the faithful servant of Christ, from preaching in the Town any more, to whom he replied, I shall remove, but if it be long well with you I am not led by the spirit of Truth: and if unexpected trouble fall on you, remember this is the cause of it; Turn then to God by repentance, for he is merciful. This word was verified, for within four days after his departur, the plague of pestilence break up here. Then sent they for him as sick men do for a Physician, who returning comforted the unthankful people who shut him out; Preached on the East-port, on that text Psalm 107. v. 20. he sent his word and healed them, shortly thereafter the plague ceased. The Word of GOD backed by prophecy, and providence did take so deep impression on the people, that they became eminent promoters of the work of Reformation. And for aught that I can learn from that time or thereabout Popery decayed so in this place, that none avouched it till the year 1662. then some three or four did break out to the great scandal of the Congregation. Now the case and stare of the question being the same which was then, if ye fall out of love with the truth, wrath will be upon you, and as ye would not meet with a wrathful stroke, cleave to the Gospel with full purpose of heart. If any shall do otherwise (which the Lord forbidden) such will degenerate from their worthy Predecessors, and wand'ring from mountain to hill, will find no resting place. As no place in the Land, hath been more free of Popery for a long time, so none have suffered more for loyalty to our Sovereign the King's Majesty. Was not your blood spilt like water? Your houses rifled and possessed by usurping strangers? Yet ye who survive the rest, are a● brands plucked out of the fire, preserved by the Lord. If after such strokes, messages, messengers, deliverances, preservations, ye do countenance or foster Popery, and fall away from the truth of GOD. Will it not be bitterness in the latter end? Who incline so, let them read Ezra 9 14. and make application. A word is enough to the wise. There have been sundry faithful Messengers of Christ here since the Reformation, who warned the place frequently, who battered Babylon, and builded Zion. And if the tares of Adversaries should pester this field again; these Messengers now at their rest, will stand up and witness against this place in one day. And this testimony shall be endorsed against you. That ye are lawfully warred to save yourselves from the evil of this generation. Reader where ever thou dwellest, consider well what is said here, buy the truth and sell it not. And the Lord give thee understanding in all things which belong to thy Peace in this thy day; this is hearty desired by a lover of the truth and doctrine which is according to Godliness.  
FAREWEL. Since our Confession and the Grecian Confession of Faith is here mentioned, I thought it expedient to prefix the Greek, because every Reader will not probably have it at hand. That therefore it may appear to all, what consent our doctrine hath of old and of late, and how numerous the Professors thereof, be at home and abroad this is adjoined. So that Adversaries can neither justly load us with novelty of tenets, or paucity of adherents: and he who will peruse both Confessions, may easily convince them of their error. I thought to have set down the entire Confession in the Greek language, but the Printer finding a defect of typs, the beginning of each Article and distinct period is set down in Greek. And a faithful translation of it in the English language is subjoined, this translation was Printed at London divers years since.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Eastern Confession of the Christian faith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY-GHOST.  
_ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe ou● GOD Almighty and infinite, three in Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father  the World, consubstantial with the Father: the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the Son, we call these three Persons in one essence, the holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and to be worshipped of every creature.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe the holy Scripture to be give● by GOD, to have no other author but the Holy Ghost, which we ought undoubtedly to believe: for it is written, We have a more sure word of Prophecy, to the which ye do well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place. Besides, we believe the authority thereof to be above the authority of the Church. It is a far different thing for the h●ly Ghost to speak and the tongue ●f man, for the tongue of man may through ignorance err, deceive, and be deceived; but the Word of GOD neither deceieveth, nor is deceived, nor can err, but is always infallible and sure.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect unto their works, and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of GOD. In like manner before the world was made he hath rejected whom he would: of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of GOD, his will is the cause, but if ye look upon GOD'S orderly proceeding, his justice is the cause, for GOD is merciful and ●ust.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We believe that one GOD in Trinity, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible: Invisible things we call the Angels, visible things the Heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, he hath created all things good, and cannot do any evil: and if there be any evil, it proceedeth from the Devil and man: for it ought to be a certain rule to us, that GOD is not the author of evil, neither can any sin by any just reason be imputed to him.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that all things are governed by GOD'S Providence, which we ought rather to adore then search into, sigh it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves; in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility, then to speak many things which do not edisie.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the first man created by God, fell in Paradise, because neglecting the Commandment of GOD, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the Serpent, from thence sprung up Original sin to his posterity, so that no man is borne according to the flesh, who doth not bear his burden, and feel the fruits of it in his life.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the Son of God our Lord jesus Christ hath made himself of no account, that is, hath assumed man's nature into his own Subsistence, that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, that he was made man in the womb of Mary always a Virgin, was born and suffered death, was buried, and glorified by his resurrection, that he brought salvation and glory to all Believers, whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that our Lord jesus Christ sitteth a● the right hand of his Father, and there maketh intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful Priest and Mediator: and from thence he hath a care of his people, and governeth his Church, adorning and enriching her with many blessings.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that without Faith no man can be saved, but that we call Faith, which in Christ jesus justifieth which the life and death of our Lord jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please GOD.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the Church (which it called Catholic) containeth all true believers in Christ, which being departed, are in their Country in Heaven, or living on earth, are yet travelling in the way▪ the Head of which Church, (because a mortal man by no means can be) jesus Christ is the Head alone, and he holdeth the starve of the Government of the Church in his own hand: but because on earth there be particular visible Churches, and in order every one of them hath one chief which chief is not properly to be called a head of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member thereof.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the Members of the Catholic Church be the Saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number & fellowship of who; Hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible Churches, Tares may be found amongst the Wheat.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the Church on earth in the way is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Ghost, for he is the true Comforter, whom Christ sendeth from the Father, to teach the truth and to expel da●kness from the understanding of the Faithful. For it is very certain, that the Church of GOD may err, ●●king falsehood for truth: from which error, the light and doctrine of the holy Spirit alone f●eeth us, not of mortal man, although by Mediation of the labours of the Church's Ministers, this may be done  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that a man is justify by ●ai●h, and not by works but when we say by Faith, we understand the correlative or object of Faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which Faith apprehends and applieth unto us for our salvation. This may verily be, and yet without any prejudice to good works: for Truth itself teacheth us that works mu●● not be neglected, that they be necessary means, and testimonies of our Faith, for confirmation of our calling; but for works to be sufficient for our salvation and to make a man so to appear before the Tribunal of Christ, that of condignity or merit they confer salvation, humane frailty witnesseth to be false, but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, doth only justify and save the Faithful.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that freewill i● dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the holy Spirit, the will it excited, and indeed worketh, but not without the assistance of grace; to effect that therefore which is good, grace goeth before the will, which will in the regenerated is wounded, as he by the thiefs that came from jerusalem, so that of himself without the help of grace, he hath no power to do any thing.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that there be Evangelicall Sacraments in the Church, which the Lord hath instituted in the Gospel, and they be two: we have no larger number of Sacraments, because the ordainer thereof delivered no more. Further more we believe, that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they be seals of the promises of GOD, and we doubt not, but do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action do concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord, and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith doth prejudice the integrity of the Sacrament.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, which unless a man hath received, he hath not communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious Resurrection, the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism doth proceed. Therefore in the same form wherein our LORD hath commanded in the Gospel we are certain that to those who be Baptised both Original and Actual sins are pardoned: so that whosoever have been washed, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are regenerate cleansed & justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be Re-baptised therefore we must abstain from this inconvenience.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the other Sacrament was ordained of the Lord▪ which we call the Eucharist. For in the night wherein he was betrayed, taking b●ead and blessing it, he said to his Apostles, Take ye, ●at, this is my Body: and when he had taken the Cup, he gave thanks and said, Drink ye all of this, this is my Blood which was shed for many; do this in remembrance of me. And Paul addeth, for as often as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup, ye do show the Lords death: this is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in administration whereof we confess and profess a true and real presence of Christ our Lord, but yet such ●● one as Faith offereth ●o us, not such as devised Transubstantiation teacheth For we believe, the faithful do eat the Body of Christ in the supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the Body, but by perceiving it with the sense & feeling of the Soul sigh the Body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth, and offereth to us: from whence it is true that if we believe, we do eat and partake; if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe consequently, that to drink the Cup in the Sacrament, is to be partaker of the true Blood of our Lord jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the Body: for as the Author of it commanded concerning his Body, so he did concerning his Blood: which commandment ought neither to be dismembered nor maimed according to the fancy of man's arbitrement; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ worthily, and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our head of the same Body, with certain hope to be coheires in the Kingdom to come.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe that the Souls of the dead are either in blessedness, or in damnation, according as every one hath done: for as soon as they remove out of the Body they pass either to Christ, or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there i● neither power nor opportunity to repent. In this life there is a time of Grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter: but they who being not justified do die, are appointed for everlasting punishments. By which it is evident that the fiction of Pargatory is not to be admitted, but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life, and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And let this be the end.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. This compendious and brief Confession of us we conjectur will be a contradiction to them, who are pleased to slander, maliciously accuse us, and unjustly persecute us: But we trust in our Lord Jesus Christ, and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickednessly upon the lot of the righteous.  
Da●id in Constantinople, in the Month of March, 1629.  
CYRILL, Patriarch of Constantinople.   

Courteous Reader, thy favour is desired in some escapes of the Press, these which are but literal not altering the sense, pardon and pass by; these which are more gross amend as followeth.  
In Epist. Ded. Page 5. Line 10. Read callida▪ l ●0 for way hold, Read, wax bold. In the Epistle to the Reader, p. 8. l. 2 for Church r. Christ. p. 16. l. ult for the, r. the●e. p. 18. l. 12. for calumnies r. calamities. page 19 line. 27. for persuaded, read, dissuaded. page 21. line. 17. for δ● r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 26. l. 5. for 17 r. 14. In the Debate, p 8. l. 13. for, although all, r. Apocryphal p 19 l antep. del. lay. p. 33 l. ult. r. proceed, p. 34. l. 17 for Paliner r. Parmen. p 37. l. 21 for a r. the. p. 46 l. antep. r. Praxeam. p. 48 l. 6. r. conjuncta. p. 69. l. 25. for tradition r. citation. p. 88 l. 23. r. lament. p. 103. l 20. del. Thirdly. p. 107. l. ●. r mortalitate. p 121. l. 13. r. were made. p. 129. l. 18. r. breasts. p. 130. l. 19 for of r. in. p. 138 l. 19 r. statue. p. 160. l. 9 for according to, r. accordingly. p 161 l. penult. r. non continentur. p. 175. from l. 10. to 17. read all that period in () p. 177. l. 1. for, that r. not. p. 234. l. 20 add, or as some, 23. p. 268. l 23. r. let them testify. p. 270 l. 25. r. comminations. p. 284. l. 17. r in company. p. 284. l 5. r. none can.  
In some copies though but in few, there will be found these errors, in Ep. Ded. p. 2 Peope for Pope. p. 3. l. 9 Sacraments for Sacrament l. 20. modestly and humbly, for modesty, humility. p. 4. l. 17. underminding for undermining. l. 18. tears for tares, in pres. of the Greek Confession, twice δ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
If any testimonies be repeated, that is to be imputed to the Impunger, not to the Defender.   

A DIALOGUE, Betwixt a Papist, and a reformed PROFESSOR, who protesteth against the Errors of Popery; written for information of the Simple, who love the truth, that they be not ensnared, by the temptations of the time.  
PAPIST. QUESTION I SEEing this Age is so controversal, how shall it be discerned who hath the Truth?  
PROTE ¦ STANT Answer. A By the Scriptures. The written word of God is the only infallible determiner of faith and manners. It hath livine Authority, heavenly Majesty, to a right discerner, it maketh spiritual impress●ons on the so●l, to it as chief judge on Earth all ●●●eals should be made, Is. 8. 20. To the ●●w and the Testimony.  
Papists Reply To this Answer, a Papist replieth, that it is not satisfying; and rendereth five reasons, why the Scripture cannot be the determiner of faith and manners. First, Because the chief and greatest Controversy is about scripture it ●●lf, viz, What 〈…〉 scripture, what not? Now if it be the determiner of faith, as you speak, in 〈…〉 is the Catalogue of Canonical books 〈◊〉? How may it be proved against Luth●●▪ that St. james his Epistle is Canonical 〈…〉 against others that Nicodemus and S. Thomas Gospels are not? Or, if you reject Tobias, Judith, the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees, because the Synagogue of the Jews did so, why ●o ●ou not also deny Christ to be the Messiah with them?  
Answer. This return is rather an evasion, then solid reply, and is satisfied in the resolution Protest. Duply. of the sixth Question, to which in reason it ought to be referred; yet seeing tumultuously divers things are here heaped together I shall sort and discuss them thus. First, There is no Christian Church which maketh it a Controversy at all, whether scripture be the word of God? so this is not the chiefest and greatest Controversy: for it is supposed amongst the principles of Christianity, and if the Precognita of other science have, ex terminis, their own notoreiety, (& We should not argument, contra negantes principia, against them who deny known principles) how can this be denied to Theology? seeing, if we rest not on some principles we must run ourselves out of breath, and not know where to sist. Basil 
† Basil on Psal. 115.  telleth 〈…〉, as in every science, there be unquenchable principles, which are believed witho●●●●rther demonstration, so in the science of 〈◊〉 Theology, This is amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 scripture is the word of God, if any 〈◊〉 this controversal, he is an Antiscripturi●● and Paganish. Secondly, There be no Controversy, betwixt us and the Papists, in that wherein we are agreed, but both are agreed that all the books which we receive for Canonical scripture, are the word of God, Ergo, this is no Controversy. If all the books of scripture which we maintain be the word of God, our Adversaries being judges, than i● must determine faith and manners, or else our faith is humane, for Bellarmine 
† Bel. de verbo Dei lib. 1. ●. 2.  sayeth, that Scriptura est regula credendi tutissima & certissima, the written word is a most sure and certain rule of believing. So sayeth Aquinas 
† Aquinas in Tim. 6. . This is sufficient for confirming the first Answer, and refuting the first Exceptions Yet, to follow your impertineut digression, from the power of the scripture-bench, to the number of the books. I Answer Secondly, that the doctrine, concerning the number of the scripture books, or the names of all them who penned these, if comparatively considered, that is, if you compare the present number with that of the Jewish and ancient Church in primitive times of Christianity, is not explicit known and believed by all, Fide divin● 〈◊〉 first; but we come to the knowledge of ●●e number, which the primitive Church mantained, as we do to the names and number of other books, seeing the Catalogue of Canonical books is not set down in scripture. All this we attain, without the aid of Romish Councils. For the Jews to whom were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3. 1. 2. whom holy Augustin on Ps. 40. calleth Capsarios & librarios Christianorum, these who keeped the books of the old Testament for Christians, and fulfilled, as he saith, that word in part. The elder shall serve the younger, divide the books of the old Testament, according to the letters of their Alphabet into two and twenty, sometimes into four and twenty, as Eusebius showeth, yet never added to, nor 
Lib. 3. cap. 10.  altered a book of the Canon; only they would sum up now and then the book of Ruth with the Judges, the book of the Lamentations with the Prophecies of Jeremy, and at other times again, reckon them by themselves: So they sometimes made but one book of Samuel, one of the Kings, one of the Chronicles, in some editions the whole Minor Prophets were reckoned but one book, by them. As the scription and writing of the bible is, and hath been divers, yet the doctrine contained therein, is still the rule under every character: so the Canon of the old Testament finished by the Prophet Malachy, was ever the same in the Jewish Church, what ever way they calculated the number of these books. Hierom translated the books of the old Testament from the Hebrew, and he did admit all the books admitted by us. So did the Greek and Latin Church, neither for aught we can learn from Authors, was there any alteration or addition till the third Council of Carthage then Can. 47. they recommended other books as profitable to be read, which are Apocryphal. The Canon of the New Testament was finished by john the Evangelist, who out, lived the rest of the Apostles, and the number, we have not disclaimed, In universa ecclesia Christiana, sayeth Hierom ad Dardanum. And, according to the Council of Laodi●●a Can. 59 these books were numbered is Canonic only, and appointed to be read in all the Churches of Syrla, this Council was holden Annno Dom. 364.  
Although Luther cast at the Epistle of James we receive it. Secondly, Luther by some Learned, is said to have made a retractation of that error. Thirdly, In his Preface to his works he desireth that men would read his books with some commiseration, and remember that once he was a Monk. Fourthly, Your own Cajetan said as much against the Epistle of James as Sirtus Senensis telleth us Biblioth. lib. 6. will it therefore follow that ye have no Canon? Fifthly, Stapleton saith, Princ. doct. lib. 9 cap. 14. & in Defence. Ecc. Author: that it is not as yet peremptorily defined by your Church, whither ye may add more books to the present number? but, we of the reformed Church are agreed in this, that these books of the Old and New Testament number them who will, were the Canon received, read, and exponed in the Primitive Church, and none can add to or alter the doctrine therein contained, under the pain of Anathema, Rev. 22. 19 It is an admirable providence that the Jews such enemies to Christianity, keeped these Prophecies of the Scripture uncorrupted. So saith holy Augustin lib. de Consensu Evang. cap. 26. yet you deride that, as if the Lord could not keep that holy Canon in the Jews hand which is a witness against them, and testifies of him to their confusion. Jo. 5. 39 so your consequence ●s bad and impertinent.  
Answer. Third. Although the numbering, or penning of the Scripture books, (comparatively considered) be not simply necessary to be known, or believed, fide Divina. But we come to the knowledge of these as to the number or penner of other books: yet absolutely considered, to any discerner the books of Scripture father themselves. Lege in fancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divina, read in the face of them divine approbation, as in the Firmament we may see the singer of GOD, so here 
† See Barron against Turnbul tract. 9 p. 643.  we may behold divine Majesty, Heavenly efficacy, the consent and harmony of parts the fulfilling of Prophecies, see August. lib. 6. Confess. cap. 5. Persuasisti mihi non qui crederent libros tuos, quos, tanta in omnibus fere gentibus authoritate, fundasti, sed qui non crederent, esse culpandos: nec audiendos esse, si qui forte mihi dicerent, unde scis illos libros unius veri Dei spiritu esse humano generi administratos? id ipsum maxime credendum erat. The Scripture itself then testifieth whose it is, holy men of GOD did so speak and writ that ye may know the certainty of these things, Luk 1. 4. and believe them, Jo. 19 35. this is taken from the very Scripture, and not from any distinct Tradition from i●. Beside all this, we have miracles wonderful providences sealing this word; the testimony of adversaries, Jews and Gentiles to the doctrine therein contained, the testimony of old and late writters to our whole Canon. And seeing the Lord hath sealed it▪ and it is called his Testament, none should add to it, or alter any point contained therein. This is expressly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Pro. 3. 6. how grossly Papists make void the Testament of the Lord by new datives, and in that are like the Pharisees, Matth. 15. 3. 6. shall appear hereafter.  
Answer fourth, Although all books 
† The Papists reject some of these Apocryphal books from the Canon of Scripture, a● Esdras, the book of Baruch etc.  are not rejected by us upon this account only because the jews did so, but for many other good reasons; for, self-murder is commended in Razis there, contrar to the 6. Command, etc. The authors crave pardon for that which is spoken amiss, whereby it is acknowledged that they had not the spirit of infallibility; in all ages, exceptions were made against them as is well proved by our Divines, S. Thomas and Nicodemus Gospels have approbation of none, so need no refutation. Now I refer it to any Reader whither this first reason be sufficiently refuted, or if this reflecter understandeth Logic, or himself who thus reasoneth, The number of Scripture b●oks is controverted, therefore that which on all hands betwixt PROTESTANTS and Papists, is acknowledged to be Scripture is not the determiner of faith. Who will not perceive here a mis-stated question and gross non-consequence? Yet no greater not that concerning the Messiah which deserveth no answer, being so absurd, and bordering with blasphemy.  
The second Reason, Why Scripture cannot Page Rea. 2 be the rule of faith, is, because PROTESTANTS believe many things whereof the Scripture maketh no mention at all, as the keeping holy the Sunday for the Sabbath, or Saturday, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the Trinity of Persons in God, that there is one person although two natures in Christ: for the Scripture maketh no more mention of Persons then of Papish-tran substantiation: that Baptism of Heretics is not to be reiterate, against the Donatists: that Ordination of lawful Ministers should not be reiterate against Martion: that Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments, which are the very fundamentals of your Religion.  
I answer to this, that error is broodie, for ere it be confessed by some men, they will Pro. An. 1 broach absurd Tenets, and shake foundations which appeareth evidently here. For this man de●yeth the Articles of our Creed to be grounded on Scripture, which is most abominable to utter. What, is not the Trinity, the Sacrament of Baptism and the Supper scriptural truths? Let not this be heard in Gath. This giveth the Council of 
† Sess. 7 Can. 1. de Sacr. in gen.  Trent the lie, so the author is anathematised by them. Let Papists read such as writ positive Divinity, these points are abundantly proved by them from Scripture, Catechists will teach them to speak better, and it they be not founded there, why do your own writters prove them thence?  
Secondly, The mystery of the Trinity is directly in Scripture. 1. Io. 5. 7. there are 
An. 2.  three which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, these three are one. The Word Person is in Scripture, Heb. 1. 3. we indeed make use of words in the doctrine of the Trinity which are not Scripture words, but all the things are there, otherwise our foundations would soon dissolve. This is Augustins' answer against the Arrians, Contra Max. lib. 3. cap. 5. and Naz. Orat. 5. de Theol. yea your own Bellarmin lib. 2. de Christo. cap 2. saith, Quadam verba sunt utilia ad explicanda mysteria Scripturae, quae licet in Scriptures non habeantur, eorum tamen aequivalentia & semina ibi habentur. i e. Some words are  for explaining the mysteries of Scripture which though they be not contained in the Scriptures yet their parallels and seeds are contained there. This he proveth by instances, cha. 3. 4. 5 which I need not to translate. So that the Tenets which we maintain concerning the Trinity and the two Sacraments, being Scripture truths, it is gross to say, we have no Scripture warrant for these & seeing we may make use of words for explaining divine truths any may behold the weakness of this Reply. The name Trinity and Sacrament is not in Scripture; therefore the thing is not there. As for the Sabbath, we once prove from Scripture that Saturday is no Sabbath to us, Col. 2. 16. 17. then from Scripture that one day of seven behoved to be observed by reason of the fourth Command which is Moral. Secondly, That the seventh in number ●● Moral, & the seventh day in order, only ceremonial. Thirdly That the Lordsday by right succeedeth 
† See Palmer & Candrey about the Sabbath  as is here made out. And what day can be more sit then that on which Christ Jesus arose, and put an end to the work of Redemption? Then our Lord came in amongst the midst of his Disciples. Io. 20. 26. which M●ldo●at on the place confesseth to be some proof to show that the Lordsday hath its origin from the will of Christ. Acts 20▪ 7. The Disciples convened to the worship and the breaking of bread that day, and 1. Cor. 16 they had their collections that day: Hierom contra Vigilantium sayeth, that per una● Sabbati is understood the Lordsday. And Rev. 1. 10. There is express mention of the Lords day, on which place Ribera the jesuit remarketh that in the Apostles times, the solemnity of the Sabbath was changed to the Lordsday, and consecrated by the Lord's Resurrection. Esthius on Gal. 4. v. 10. refuteth you fully by saying, Diei Dominicae observationem Apostolicam esse constat ex Scriptura. i e. It is clear from Scripture that the Apostles observed the Lord's day. How then can you say that we have no Scripture for it? Thirdly, That the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son, is clear in Scripture, Io. 14. 16. 17. joh. 15. 26. Io. 16. 7. Gal. 4. 6. Fourthly, That there be two Natures in Christ, is clear, Io. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelled amongst us. And Augustin who refuteth Rebaptization mantained by Donatists, maketh no use of unwritten Traditions, against that error, but of that Scripture, Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, for he sayeth, re●urrantus ad fontem, viz. Scripturas: let us return to the Scriptures which are the fountain; then citeh that text mentioned Tom. 7. lib. 5. cap. 26. and Ordination is expressed in that Tense, which by virtue of the word, excludeth Reiteration. It being a matter of Order if it be once done according to the rule, 1. Tim. 4. 14. it is enough; neither should this be debated here, for all that we assert is, that all points  to salvation are comprehended in Scripture, either expressly or cosequentially, by general or particular precepts, Perinde sunt ea quae ex Scriptu●is Colliguntur, atque ea quae scribuntur, saith Nazianzen, 
† Naz. de Theol. orat. 5.  i. e. These things which by necessary consequence are deduced from Scripture are of the same force with these which are written in it. Let the Reader judge whither Popery be a safe way, which buildeth our main foundations upon humane testimony, and derogats so much from the Scriptures of GOD. Yea, ere they will give them their due, rather will they strengthen Anti-Trinitarians, Arrians, Anti-Sacramentarians, Anti-Sabbatarians, Donatists and Separatists. The Lord grant repentance to such, who leaving the truth have a massed a body of errors.  
Thirdly. For that amongst many Versions, Pa. Red. 3 yea and corruptions of Scripture, which all do acknowledge, and each sect imputeth to its adversaries, it seemeth very hard to discern authentic Scripture, many of the originals being lost, and the extract coming to the hands of very few, and few understand the Hebrew and Greek tongues wherein they are written, and yet, of this first of all we must be understood and assured, if we will not waver in matters of f●●th.  
Answer first, This is a digression to another Pro. An. 1 question concerning the Version: for I would ask, if there be any right Version at all? this will not be denied, for the old Latin translation is acknowledged by you, than it is the rule of faith and no humane testimony. What doth this arguing prove against the point? there be some corrupted Versions, Ergo, the Original rightly translated must not determine my faith; some men are evil clothed, therefore a man should not be well clothed against the cold; there is no consequence there. Further, this objection maketh the word of God useless to men. Now, is it like that all should be commanded to go to the Law and Testimony, to, search the Scriptures, if they could not be had by any? Yea this Objection spoileth Providence, of its rent of praise which hath appeared so visibly in the preservation of the Scriptures. And we bless his Name for it that we have the Originals in Hebrew and Greek, and so pure a translaon, that if any will compare them they will find great faithfulness and skill in the translators.  
But to answer this impertinent Objection 
An. 2.  more fully, we say that the Version is a Commentary be way of interpretation, and we make neither the translation of the 70. nor of the vulgar Latin authentic; but when we find errors in either, we go ad judicem incor●uptum hoc est primaevam linguam: to the uncorrupted Judge that is the first language, so much speaketh your Acosta. lib. 2. cap. 10. and in this rightly. But ye Romanists have preferred the vulgar Latin to the Hebrew and Greek, whereas it is a corrupt translation, as some of your own testify, and corrupteth the doctrine, witness that one text for many, Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa conteret caput tuum. She shall break thy head, which is contrar to the Hebrew (hu). to the 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and putteth the Virgin Mary for Christ, so overturneth a foundation. Pag●●n. in his Preface to the Hebrew Grammar, saith, Optarem ut ostenderent mihi Germanam translationem, quae enim p●ssim legitur non est Hieronymi incorrupta translatio. i e. I wish they would show me the  translation, for that which is commonly received is not Hieroms pure translation, and Sixtus Senensis Bib. lib. 8. sub finem, sayeth, Multa ibi sunt parum accommodate versa. There are many things in it not fitly rendered: so that our Version will be found as good as any. And we are not hindered to run to the fountains in case of doubting, we make use of these streams as helps, and the Version is an humane instrument leading us to the wellhead of the Original tongues. Dei verbum non est linguased doctrina: The word of GOD is not the language but the doctrine, saith, Rivet in his Isag. cap. 1. and we need Grammar more than Tradition for understanding thereof.  
Reason fourth. Many cannot read Scripture, and more as yet do not understand it, the Pa. Rea. 4 Scripture then or written word cannot be the Rule of Faith to these poor ignorants, but their Churches or Pastor's authority. And so it seemeth the Scripture cannot be the rule of faith to all persons, or in all points, or of any point contained in itself, until I be first assured of some infallible rule, that this translation I rely upon is conform to the original in all points, and this Bible I am reading is the authentic word of God.  
Answer First, This maketh nothing against Pro. An. 1 our assertion, wherein it is only said that the Scripture is the rule of faith to a right discerner, which is granted by the Arguer in the next reason. It is Regula regulativa to all, apt and meet to decide all controversies, if men have ears to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches: if it be not Regula regulans to some who are ignorant and unstable, Vitium  in Organo, the fault is in the Organ. It is ill argued to say the Sun shineth not, because blind men see it not.  
Secondly. They who cannot read the Scriptures 
An. 2.  can hear them read, and it is more easy for dark ignorant ones to hear the word read and explained in their own language, then to travel from Scotland to Rome to hear the sentence of the Pope, for they could not understand the language in which it is delivered, they cannot travel through their decretals and acts. They know not if it be a lawful Pope, who pronounceth the sentence. And by their Confessors here they may be and are deceived.  
Thirdly, It is the privilege and promise 
An. 3.  of God to open the heart, to enlighten the eyes, by the word read and preached, but no where hath the word of man this prerogative. See Is. 32. 3. 4. and Is. 35. 5. 6. 7. 8. These are Gospel prophecies. The Roman Trash may well make seeing men blind, but will never make blind men see the right way.  
Fourthly, We do not deny ministerial 
An. 4.  helps to unlettered people, for such are commanded, Heb. 13. 7. and 17. provided always their faith be resolved into the word of God, at least interpretative & virtualiter. What ever means be used, this milk of the Word is the authentic instrument which begetteth faith, and it must be received not as the word of man, albeit the treasure be in earthen vessels, and the milk in a wooden pape. The difference of assent betwixt the learned and the unlearned is only accidental and modal, the one being more express than the other; we Catechise and instruct the ignorant, and require them to hear the Church and follow their guides, so far as they follow Christ. 1. Cor. 11. 1. we hold forth co●munia fidei motiva, interna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inward testimonies, the common motives of faith, reasons and testimonies of old and late, and what ever may help their edification: but we dare not lead them from the Scripture to men, neither will the interpretation of the Scripture permit us to admit of an other determiner. And it may be well enough known by them who understand these languages, that these Greek and Hebrew words do thus signify as they are translated, without the help of an infallible decree of Pope or Council thereanent. Without this also, GOD'S word can discover itself to be from GOD as hath been showed already.  
Reason 5. Reading of the Scripture with the private spirit, and taking it up as every one Pa. Rea. 5 thinketh, maketh all the controversies in Christendom, daily multiplying both Heresies and sects. Luther no sooner swerved from the Church, and denied her authority, but as soon he broached this principle, That every man might take the Bible & follow that interpretation which after due diligence used, he thought best, whereupon presently did spring up an incredible number of different sects, Antimon●ans, Osiandrians, Majorists, Synergists, etc. Now hear what Luther himself said of calvin's heresy, Tom. 7. fol. 380. I scarce ever read, saith he, of a more deformed heresy, which presently in the beginning was divided into such variety of sects, as so many Toads, and such disagreement of opinions not one like to another. You see then how the word cannot be the determiner of faith, which all these sects take with you for their rule, yet alone will never agree ●hem. As for that you say, the scripture hath Divine authority, Heavenly majesty, and maketh Spiritual impressions on the soul, all this I grant, if once a man know or believe it to be the word of GOD.  
Answer First, All this is answered to the fourth or fifth question, and should not be Pro. An. 1 brought in here, yet passing the digression and informality, which I hope the Reader cannot impute to me the Defender. I answer to the 5. Reason, the Scriptures in the Primitive Church were published ●o all, this your own Az●●i●s confesseth, Just, mor. p. 1. lib: 8. c. 26. ●he Scriptures in the Primitive Church were to be published throughout all Nations, and therefore made common in the most famous languages. In Hierom and Chrysostoms' days the ley people were exercised in reading the Scriptures. Espencaeus saith, Comment. on Tit. 3. 2. it is manifest by the Apostles doctrine, Col. 3. 16. and by the practice of the Church, that the publies use of reading the scriptures was then permitted to the people. The Council of Nice decreed saith Agrippa, that no Christian shoul●●e without a Bible. Augustin alloweth, de Doct. Christi. the use of scriptures to all, for he saith, they are not so hard, but every one by his use making of them may attain to so much knowledge of them as may further him in his salvation. Chrysost. hom. 3. de Lizaro. exhorts all men and women, yea Tradesmen to get Bibles. Now I pray you to what purpose if they dare not search for the sense of them?  
Secondly, It is denied that when private Pro. An. 2 men search the Scriptures, this is an act of a private spirit, 
† It may be private respectupersonae which is public ration● modi & medii & è contra.  for such may pray, and have the spirit of grace and supplication poured forth on them, according to the promise, Zach. 12. 10. and none call that a private spirit, so they may interpret Scripture by Scripture, and have the gift of it. Hear your own Gerson prim● part. de ex. doct. Si aliquis non authorizatus sit excellenter in sacra scriptura eruditus, plus credendum est ejus assertioni quam Papae declarationi. i e. If any not ordained be well instructed in the holy Scriptures, his assertion is more to be believed then the Pope's declaration. Secondly, Our Divines distinguish well three sorts of interpreters, the first is extraordinar and miraculous. 1. Cor. 12. 30. The second is ordinar and ministerial. 1. Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. The third is of private persons who are commanded to ●ry the spirits, and are commended for so ●●ing. A●t. 8. 28. 29. A●t. 17. 11. The first kind of interpretation is gone, the two next are in use as yet, but the one is subservient to the other. Thirdly, ●he different sects that lay claim to Scripture, cannot deprive us of the privilege to search it and make use of it. Will any man approve this argument? Meat and drink is abused by some therefore none should eat or drink. If the matter be indifferent and subject to abuse, than we are to restrain ourselves of liberty in the use of that in different thing. V●tandum estlicitum non necess●riū propter vicinitatem illi●●ti. Aug. de c●v. Dei lib. 15. But when it is  necessitate precepti & medii, by necessity of precept and mean, who can forbid the use of a  mean? Now it is most  to improve the Scriptures by reading, understanding, application, meditation, and blessed is he who doth so day and night, sitting or standing. De●t. 6. 6. It is absurd to say (albeit Luther and Calvin did differ in some points) that he fathered the sects of Germany on Calvin, who was as free of Munster malady as the man unborn, and was malleus haereticorum as his learned writings testify abundantly. In that place cited, he speaketh of the swarms of sects, which were indeed monstrous like, at that time, but never imputed it to the use making of Scripture, for than he would not have understood himself, nor could he blame Calvin for it upon that account, seeing it was his own tenet. Now Reader, stay and impartially consider the weakness and impertinency of these 5 reasons, why our faith should not be resolved into the Scriptures and determined by them. For the sum of all is thus concluded. The word of GOD is not well understood by some, is evil translated by others, and Heretics and Schismatics have abused it: therefore, we should not make use of it as the rule of faith and manners. This is a Paralogism and confused rapsodic, but I pass it; for sons of Babel must daub with untempered mortar, and be Babel-like in their way.  
Although these 5. Reasons be answered 
§ 1.  sufficiently, yet for further satisfaction to the Reader, these two particulars shall be discussed. Question 1. Whose it is to interpret Scripture. R. In the first place it belongeth to the Ministerial Church. Pastors and Officers called of GOD to that employment, are ordinarily better gifted for that work then other men: I say ordinarily, because in some cases it may be otherwise, and the Lord may raise up extraordinary interpreters, this appeareth from 1. Cor. 14. 29. And the judgement of a pure Church in dubious cases, should weigh much with private Christians. Secondly, Private Christians may read the Scriptures, search for their sense, improve them privately for edification, and examine what is said by others, for they have the promise to attain, Jer. 31. 34. a precept to improve, 1. Pet. 4. 10. and a privilege to try Acts 17. 11. 1. Cor. 10. 15. this judgement of discretion no man can take from them, Io. 10. 4. Matth. 7. 15. more than the taste from a man. Is not that spirit which dyted the scripure the best interprerer of it? But private men may have that, 1. Cor. 2. 15. This their judgement is not authoritative nor judicial, yet bindeth themselves, and he is a better Christian who followeth, than he who stiffleth it, so speak all Casuists. Chrysost. hom. 13. in act. Apost. reproveth such as professed they would be Christians, yet doubted to whom they should adhere●; have ye not judgement sayeth he, and have ye not scriptures? Aug. Confess. lib. 13. sub sinem cap. 22. & cap. 23. explaining that place, 1. Cor. 2. 15. sayeth Quisque fidelis est spiritualis, every believer is spiritual and hath a judgement of discretion. Picus Mirandula Theor. 16. sayeth, If the greatest part of a Council conclude against the word of God, Si rusticus, if a rural man have the Gospel for him, he is most to be believed and adhered to. This showeth that the scripture should be read and searched by such, and private men having this privilege, should make use of it in a Gospel way, for edification, not for destruction.  
Question second, How shall Scripture be interpreted? Answer first, Not by the Pope, 
§. 2.  for people are commanded to search the Scriptures, before there was a Pope in the world. john 5. 39 therefore, that cannot be a  mean. Secondly, Nor can all make use of General Councils, seeing these are more hard to be understood then the Scripture. Thirdly, Not by carnal reason. For the natural man perceiveth not the things of God. 1. Cor. 2. 14. But first by Prayer and Meditation, for the Lord giveth the Spirit to them that ask him, Luke 11. 13. and this mean is practised by experienced believers. Ps. 119. 18. Secondly, By a docile cleanly frame of heart. Ps. 25: 9 10. Matth. 5. 8. Thirdly, By comparing Scripture with scripture, obscure places with these which are clear,; ex Gr. who can interpret Ps. 8. v. 2. so well as the Evangelist, Matth. 21. 16. or the 4. and 5. verses, so as the Apostle to the Heb. 2. 7. 8. or these words Matth. 26. 28 so as the Evangelist Luke 22. 20. with Mat. 26. 29. where after the consecration of the Cup it is called the fruit of the vine. Or that text, Matth. 19 23. A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven. so as the interpretation of the Evangelist, Mark. cap. 10. 34. How hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. Fourthly, By the Commentats of ancient and late writters, by the preaching of those who are called of God to that work: with this caution that we try the spirits, whither they be of God or not. 1. Io. 4. 1. Fifthly, For the exact interpretation of places, which should be propounded to others for edification, the knowledge of the Original tongues, History, Chronology, Topography, is in measure requisite. This is the way by which the ancient Fathers expounded Scripture. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socra Scriptura cum nos tale quid docere vult, serpsant exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. i e. The holy Scripture when it will have us to teach any such thing it expounds itself, and suffereth not the hearer to err. Yea a Jesuit Acosta, lib. 3. de Christo revelato. ch. 25. confesseth so much, being overcome with the truth. Nihil perinde scripturam mihi aperire videtur, atque ipsa scriptura, itaque diligens attenta frequensque lectio, meditatio, oratio, & collatio scripturarum, summa regula ad intelligendam scripturam mihi semper visa est. i e. Nothing seemeth to me more useful, for opening up scripture, than scripture itself: therefore the diligent, attentive, and frequent reading of the Scriptures, meditation, prayer, and comparing of them together, hath ever seemed to me the best rule for understanding scripture. Aug. de doct. Christi lib. 2. cap. 9 In his enim quae aperte in scriptura proposita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, spem, charitatem, moresque vivendi: de quibus libro superiore tractavimus tum vero facta quadam familiaritate, cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea quae obscura sunt aperienda & discutienda, pergendum est▪ ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas, de manifestioribus summantur exempla: & quaed●m certatum sententiarum testimonia, dubitationem de incertis auferant.  
Question seco●d, How can the Scripture be judge seeing it is the rule? 
●a. Qu. ●.   
Answer fi●st, It is a speaking rule, the Spirit of God speaketh there. The Acts of Parliament are both the law and judge of a Pro. An. case, albeit men pronounce the sense of them. So the Church hath the heraldry of this, and hence may pronounce the sentence: but the determination is from the word alone, for humane testimony can add no weight to the Divine.  
To this it is returned, that the second answer Pa. Rea▪ is no better than the first. The Scripture say you is a speaking rule, and may be both rule and judge. But the Acts of Parliament and civil laws be as well speaking laws, in matters of temporal government, as the scripture is in spiritual: and yet parties should never agree, if the Lords of Council and Session did not expound them, and pronounce sentence from them, not as heralds, but as judges: albeit they be tied to conform their sentence both to Acts of Parliament customs, and laws. Even so, scripture is indeed our law book, but the Church is our judge, for this our experience may prove, that there hath been no agreement amongst them, who make any other judge then the Church, as all Sectaries commonly do. Beside, it would seem to me against our oath of supremacy, not to acknowledge any other judge in matters of controversy than scripture. Seeing there his Majesty is said to be, and we sworn to acknowledge him, supreme judge in all cases, as well Civil as Eclesiastick, and I pray God that Preachers and Ministers, to whom only you ascribe the power of heraldry, had not taken on the coat of arms, these years bygon, to publish any other sentence, then that which did proceed from the mouth of that supreme judge.  
Answer first, The Scripture we call a rule, Pro. An. because it maketh the man of GOD perfect, 2. Tim. 3. 16. as a rule doth a line, and the 
Duply. 1.  doctrine therein is termed a judge, Metonymically, (properly a judge is a person) because it is the voice of a supreme judge, who is our lawgiver. This we speak with the Scripture, Io. 12. 48. Io. 7. 51. and Heb. 4. 13. It is the descerner of the thoughts of the heart. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given to it. You grant here, that it is our law book, Ergo, Metonymically our judge and determiner it must be, for we appeal to the law for judgement. To this the Apostle Paul appealeth, Act. 26. 22. Then there be many cases incident to a Christian in his spiritual exercise, which none on earth can judge. The spiritual one is judged of no man, 1. Cor. 2. 15. yet this will discern the thoughts of his heart. The divine doctrine now written is the only impartial infallible determiner, he who heareth not Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, will not hear one risen from the dead. Conscience is a rule, Rom. 2. 14. a witness, Rom. 2. 15. and a judge, 1. Io. 3. 20. 21. It is to be considered, that there is a difference betwixt humane Courts and this work: the one concerneth temporals wherein we may be ruled by reason, but here in matters of salvation we must have an infallible rule by revelation; albeit in humane Courts the rule the witness and the judge are different, for guarding against corruption to which fallen man is subject▪ yet in foro divino, in the court of GOD one may be witness, judge, rule, accuser, such is the scripture. The Spirit of GOD speaketh there. Is it not the law, the testimony the canon or rule? Gal. 6. 16. is it not a witnesser a warner? Ps. 19 11. doth it not speak to men? Rom. 9 17. and will it not judge us hereafter? The word which I speak to you will judge you in the last day. Io. 12. 48. if then, why now is it not our judge? Further, the judgement of discretion, is but a discretive faculty, no proper bench, and liker a watch then a judge, for it hath no authority over others, the Ministerial authority is subordin●t, and more like the office of a steward nor of a proper judge. 2. Cor. 1. 24. Only the written word is the determiner, and the Lord speaking there, is absolute supreme judge, from whom there is no appealing.  
Answer second, If the second be as good as the first it is well, for notwithstanding of all Pro. An. 2 your weapon-shews, you yield in the end what I said, that we should go to the law and testimony with all our cases, and that the scripture to any believer and right discerner hath divine authority, Heavenly majesty, and maketh spiritual impressions on the soul. If it have divine authority is it not judge? was there any more asserted in the first answer? we hold the same similitude; the King is head of Council and Session, the law ratified by King and Parliament is the rule, and the officers of Council and Session are administrators. So our Lord Jesus is the head of his Church, the written Word is the law, and the Ministers of the Gospel are administrators, by whom the people are directed and instructed. But if the officers go contrar to the will of the King and his law, the subjects may appeal from their administration to the acts of Parliament, and hear the King's pleasure, when subjects wrong their inferiors and neighbours. See Ps. 85. 8. Hear what the Lord will say, and who hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth to the Churches.  
Answer third, Ministers of the Gospel are called Messengers, Rev. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 23. So Pro. An. 3 were they termed under the law, Mal. 2. 7. and doth not the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oft used for Preacher in the N. T. signify a crier or herald? Why then do you scoff at Scripture? As for your prayer, it seemeth you pray all by the book, and here you are beside it: present or future things are the object of prayer, but that factum should be infectum, to pray that a thing done should be undone, is an unwarrantable petition; what hath been wrong in us heretofore should be regretted, what is or hath been right, is the object of praise, but your prayer is unwarrantable and impossible.  
Answer fourth, Albeit our Sovereign Lord Pro. An. 4 the King's Majesty be supreme magistrate, according to the Scripture, 1. Pet. 2. 13. and ex officio a nursing father to the Church, Is. 49. 23. to whom every man civil or Ecclesiastic doth owe subjection, Rom. 13. 1. Yet it will not follow, that the word of GOD is not the supreme determiner of all controversies in Religion. Whatsoever primitive Fathers gave to Constantine the great, Theodosius elder and younger, etc. that we give to our Sovereign Lord the King: And▪ there be no Church on earth, which by their confessions of faith honour the Magistrate more than we. Yet notwithstanding of this prerogative asserted, and mantained against Papists by our 
† Viz. Bp. Bilson de Subject. Usher. Dr. Strang.  Divines. Our Sovereign Lord the King's Majesty will not deny, that the scripture is the determiner of all the Articles of our faith: seeing he mantaineth the 39 Articles of the Church of England, whereof this is one.  
Answer fifth, How cometh it to pass that Pro. An. 5 you own the oath of supremacy? (By calling it ours) seeing the main scop of that oath was, to renounce the Pope his jurisdiction in the King's dominions, you must either have a dispensation for this, that you here subscribe a renunciation of the Pope's supremacy, or else you will be declared apostar at Rome. And no Papist keeping his principles, can aver that which is here set down under your hand.  
Question third, If the Scripture be judge, why be there so many controversies undecyded? Pa. Qu.  
Answer, The perverseness of men is to blame for this. Unstable, unlearned ones wrest the Scripture to their own perdition, Pro. An. 2. Pet. 3. 16. and make difficulties where there be none. As much as containeth the way to salvation is plain in Scripture, so that he who runneth may read and learn.  
Reply, In your third answer you please me Pap. Reply. well, and it confirmeth all I have said, but refuteth your former answer to the full. For if the unlearned as well as the unstable wrest the scripture to their own destruction, than Scripture can neither be the determiner of faith nor the judge of controversies to them, and so they must have another, both to instruct the ignorant and settle the unstable; as we must all have some infallible judge to know who wrist the Scripture who not: otherwise we may well agree in the letter, but we will never agree in the sense and meaning thereof. But as much (say you) as containeth the way to salvation is plain, so that he may run who readeth it. Sir, doth it not belong to salvation that there be three persons in God, one in Christ, that Baptism is a Sacrament, etc. Now, where find you this in Scripture either running or sitting? Or if Scripture be so plain & clear as ye make it, why be there so many Comments on it among your own men and so different? Why is there amongst Protestants 200. expositions upon these four words, This is my Body? As Cusa●us in his holy court observeth.  
Answer first, I am glad that the written Pro. An. 1 word of GOD pleaseth you so, who have all this time spent words to throw all power out of its hand, and hang it at the Pope's foot. But you say, it refuteth what was said formerly. This cannot be made good, for still I said it was the rule of faith, to right discerners, and sometime you grant this, as in the latter part of your fifth Reason, whereby indeed you refute all you have said, and yields the cause fully. Now what contradiction can be here? The scripture is the rule to all right discerners, and as many as walk according to this rule peace shall be on them: but men who wrist the word, unlearned, unstable souls, fall into perdition for abuse of the word, and destroy themselves; hence proceedeth many controversies. Is it not a strange consequence to infer thence, that these unlearned, unstable souls should have another rule and another judge? In the 19 of Luke v. 27. it is said by our Lord, that his enemies who would not have him to reign over them, should be brought forth and slain before him: will it therefore follow, that he should not reign over them? Or that they Jure should have another King? The case is just alike here. It is granted that many have their consciences seared, 1. Tim. 4. 2. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3. 8. self-condemned. Tit. 3. 11. under strong delusions. 2. Thess. 2. 11. Is the Scripture to blame for this? You have many faults to that which you like not. Hear Optatus Milevitanus adversus Paliner Donatistam. Vos dicitis licet, nos non licet, inter licet vestrum, & non licet nostrum, nutant animi populorum. If you seek a judge (saith he) a Pagan cannot do it nor a Jew, they are enemies: Christians by their discerning faculty cannot, they being impeded study partium Then upon earth there can be no judge: shall we go to Heaven for one? Quorsum, cum hic habemus i● Evangelio testamentum. i e. To what purpose seeing we have the Testament here in the Gospel. If there be a contention among brethren, (saith he) quaritur Testamentum, the Testament is sought. So we must decide our controversies by the Old and New Testament, etenim praesentia quae modo facitis futura conspexerat Christus. i e. For Christ did foresee these things as future, which ye make to be now present, and hath he foreseen it, and will he not provide a remedy for it?  
Secondly, These unlearned unstable ones, Pro. An. 2 who are to be destroyed, will not hear, understand nor obey his word: then is it like that they will understand the voluminous decrees of the Pope? May they not wrest his sentence and sense more easily than Scripture words? Or dare any say, that humane ordinances will sooner compes●e, command, or regulat them, than the word of GOD?  
Thirdly, We do not deny Ministerial Pro. An▪ 3 helps for instructing and se●ling the ignorant and unstable, nor judicial sentences subaltern and subordinat ●o the law, But that there is an infallible man 〈◊〉 to whose sentence I must implicitly submi●●● is ●●●culous to averie it, and the broaching of that error hath occasioned more controversies, than were formerly in the Church, so far is it from composing differences. If ye were more in catechising the unlearned, and le●s in regal commands, the law of GOD would be both better understood and obeyed.  
Fourthly, Albeit some places be hard to Pro. An. 4 be understood by the unlearned, 1. Pet. 3. 16. other places are not so difficult. In the scripture an Elephant may swim, and a Lamb may wade. And the same particulars you again object are clearly holden forth in scripture as is formerly proved, in the vindication of my, answer to your 1. Qu. in answer to Rea. 2. Yea the way to salvation is fair and patent there, and if we perish, our destruction is of ourselves, seeing that book is not sealed to us. Commentaries, Church-canons, Ecclesiastic sentences, are helps and means for edification: but scripture is the authentic instrument, and all the authority is originally from it. And different expositions, according to the analogy of faith, may be, and will be, so long as there be diversity of gifts. But I ask why ye make use of Commentars', Seeing ye resolve all into the sentence of the Pope? And why do your Commentators differ so amongst themselves? If this hinder not your Ecclesiastic supremacy, why should it be brought to weaken scripture authority? It is hard to find where you are, for sometimes ye would have a judge to authorise scripture to you, sometimes you would have only one for the sense of scripture, then at last, you are for one only to the unlearned and unstable, such is your instability in this matter, that I wish the word of God may determine you aright in the point.  
Question fourth, Were it not better to establish Pa. Qu. 4 a man or an assembly of men judge of Controversies, seeing the Church is the pillar of truth, 1. Tim 3. 15. a●d hath the promise of presence Matth. 28. 20. then th● 〈◊〉 Sect should be laying claim to the Scripture and yet taking sundry ways.  
Answer, The promulgation of the law is Pro. An. not denied to the pure Gospel Church, truth is mantained and preserved there, as the law was keeped in the Ark, thus it is called the pillar of it. But the Church of Rome is not such being a very strumpet, and making the Kings of the earth drunk with the cup of her fornications. Rev. 17. 2. tha● promise of presence is made to the universal Church, but no particular Church such as Rome, can claim the measure or duration of it; who of these can say that they shall last to the end of the world? Albeit Sects lay claim to Scripture, yet their abuse cannot take away our lawful use of it.  
To this a Papist replieth, That the question Pap. Reply. is not directly answered by me, whither on man or many should be judge of controversies? To this he saith I dare not answer, because I will not grant the power either to the high Bishop or general council, nevertheless, he findeth this to have been the constant practice of the Church, both in the Old and New Testament established by the express word of God, and received by the Fathers in all ages: for in the Old Testament, from Deut. 17. from 8. to 13. we read that GOD did command the people in matters of controversy to go to the Priests, Levits, and judge, who should be in those days appointed by him for that end, saying, and thou shalt do according to the sense of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee. Remark, he saith not according to the sense of the law which thou shalt read, but which they shall teach thee, not taken according to the private judgement and spirit, but according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, where God promiseth out of their mouth judicii veritatem truth and verity in judgement, or as you turn it, sentence of judgement. See for this also 2. Chr. 19 8. where Jehosophat established what was first instituted. Viz. a council of Levits, Priests, and chief fathers of Israel, to judge not only between brethren and brethren, blood and blood, but also betwixt law and commandments, statutes and judgements. Not leaving law and commandments to the people's private reading, and interpretation, as you do in your rule of faith. In the 11. verse, he concludeth thus, Amaziah is over you in all matters of the Lord; where it is evident that the council and chief Priest is established judge of controversy, and not the written Word, as every one readeth and expoundeth. In the New Testament again you have this practice clearly set down, Acts. 15. Where Paul and Barnabas though Apostles themselves, go up to Jerusalem about the question of circumcising the Gentiles converted to the faith. And there was holden the first council in which this is decided, not out of Scripture, but by the authority of the Council itself. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us, said they, having the assured promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, as the Church hath at all time. Wherefore after the Apostles, councils have decided with the same authority, and upon the same infallible ground of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to the Church. Many controversies are acknowledged by Protestants for points of faith, without express passage of Scripture. Martion teaching that Baptism should be conferred more than once; and Donatists that Baptism conferred by Heretics should be reiterated, as invalid, are condemned, in the council holden at Rome under Melchiad●s Pope in the year 313. now what passage of Scripture I pray you is for this? S●bellius putting one person only in the Godhead, is condemned in the council of Alexandria under Pope Cornelius in the year 319. but scripture maketh no mention of persons, Nestorius putting two persons in Christ is condemned in the General Council holden at Ephesus under Pope Caelestin the year 434. Yet neither doth the Scripture speak of th●●. The Monotheli●s giving to Christ one will in two Natures, are condemned in the third general Councils holden at Constantinople under Pope Agathon the year 679. albeit there be no formal scripture for this. So you see it belongeth both in the Old and New Testament, to the high Priest and general Council to decide controversy, either by Scripture if there be any passage clear for that point, or without Scripture, by Apostolic tradition conserved in the Church which scripture itself warranteth. 2. Thess. 2. 15. Hold fast the traditions which ye have learned either by word or our epistle; but it seemeth you care not who be condemned, or by whom, if you take away all power on earth to condemn yourselves. Every Protestant will be condemned by none but Scripture, and yet will make none judge of the Canon, Version, and sense of Scripture but himself. All your answer is, that we grant the Promulgation of the law to the pure Gospel Church, but you show not what is this pure Gospel Church, neither can you infallibly prove the purity of the Gospel itself, or that there is a Gospel, or the true sense of the Gospel but by the Catholic Church her authority. Hear Aug. contta Ep. fund. cap. 5. Where he saith, I myself would not have believed the Gospel, were it not that the authority of the Church moved me to it. Now the Catholic Church is, that whose faith is spread through all the world in the Apostle Paul his time, which maketh her to be justly called the Catholic Roman Church: and whose faith hath been in all ages since Christ, which all the records of the Protestant writters witness of the Roman Church; wherein the succession of Popes, Bishops, Councils, is made conspicuous to all who have written Chronology or Church history in every age, none whereof make mention of your Church, or of men professing your tenets before Luther and Calvin, from whom ye descent in many things.  
Answer first, This is a prolix reply, the Pro. Du. 1 substance of which might have been taken up in seven or eight lines. As it is spacious, so it is an impertinent rhapsody, and like a beggar's cloak clouted here and there with divers parcels without any method or cohesion; It seemeth to have been taken out of some Index, and cast in here to fill the page. For the answer was, That the promulgation of the law is not denied to the pure Gospell-Church, which is not the Roman-Church, for it is impure. Is not this a direct answer? You prove, that there hath been a Ministerial-Church in the old and new Testament, which we do not deny; but this is the point, did they so pronounce sentence, and decide Controversies, that all discretive judgement was taken from people? or called they themselves infallible, whether they had scripture warrant or not? Or, will the promise of presence, to the Apostles, Prophets and penners of Scripture, in measure and duration agree to any Church Officers now on Earth? Or, should promises made to the Universal-Church agree to any particular Church such as Rome? Or will promises made to the collective body of the Church agree to the representative? unless these be proved you fight with your own shadow. For we are much for the authority of Christ's Church, and think that her judgement of old, and late, should sway private men, unless they can prove by scripture, or sound reason, that she erreth. We are much for the authority of all lawful Councils, and we give them all reverence in regard of the authority of their constitution, but if they depart from the scriptures we own them not active obedience. Well speaketh our learned Camero, tom. 1. tract. de infallibilitate ecclesiae, So oft as any thing is decreed by a Council, or assembly of men, appointed by lawful autharity in the Church, it should have this weight with us, that rashly, without grave and diligent enquiry after the truth, it should not be rejected by us. And whereas it is alleged, there will be no effectual way against Controversies and divisions in religion, unless some one supreme and infallible judge be appointed on Earth, in whose ●udgement and decision, parties controverting should ●●st and acquiesce. It may be well answered in your own Bellarmin his words, lib. 2. the Concil. cap. 19 It is no wonder if the Church remain without any humane remedy, seeing the welfare of it doth not primarily rely upon humane industry, but upon divine protection; seeing its King is GOD: therefore may and aught the Church to pray unto God, and it is certain, he will care for the welfare of it.  
Answer second, Albeit I cannot comprehend the purpose of this lax discourse, yet Pro. Duply 2 for satisfaction to the Reader, I shall inform him in these 5. particulars. First, what Papists mean by the Church, or whither they understand themselves in this? Secondly, Whither Church officers since the days of the Apostles are infallible? Thirdly, What kind of obedience should be tendered to them? Fourthly, What government the Christian Church should have, whither Papal and Monarchical, or Aristocratical and Ministerial? Fifthly, How that testimony of Augustia, non credidissem Scripturae etc. is to be understood. For the first, by the Church, all the Jesuits, who are the Pope's lifeguard, understand the Pope. So Valentia disk. Theol. tom. 1. disp. 1. qu. 1. Coster Enchir de sum: Pont: Gretser. Colloq. Ratis. Sesse. 1. Bell. hanketeth in the point, for once he saith, that the Pope without the Council may determine matters of faith, De Christo. lib. 2. cap. 28. and the Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. Against this de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 3. he saith, the Pope with a Council is the judge of the true sense of Scripture. So speaketh this reflecter. The Sorbonists, Jansenists, and others of the Popish party understand by the Church, the present Romish officers assisted by the Pope, and stand by the Canons of the Councils of Constance Sess. 4. 5. and Basil. Sess. 2. wherein it was decreed that the Pope should obey the Council. The Council of Trent according to its manner is ambiguous herein Sess. 4. decr. 2. And saith, that the Church should judge the true sense of Scripture, yet tell us not what they mean by the Church. Now, whatever way it be taken, whither for Pope or Council, there must be another judge of controversies, otherwise the Church wanted a judge 300 years, for there was no such judge then pretending to the infallible supremacy now claimed. Secondly, The Romish Synagogue headed by the Pope cannot be our judge, for they are party partial against whom we have just acception. Thirdly, Is not this a juggling trick, that when controversies occasioned and raised by them, are in the Christian Church, they will have none to be judge but themselves: so they would be sure of the sentence, and must suspect their own cause. Fourthly, If by the Church they mean the Pope, as now they mantain, it is hard to call him judge of controversies, seeing it is a great controversy whither there should be any Pope at all, and beyond controversy with us that he is an usurper. Fifthly, According to the Popish tenet, the intention of the Priest is  in his ordination, in his Baptism; succession without interruption is ; and Simony maketh him no Pope, as Gratian telleth from the Canon law, causa 2. qu. 1. Now if so, he may be a Pagan, for who knoweth the Priest's intention who baptised him? He may be a Laic, and yet without ordination upon the same ground; if one be such, it marreth uninterrupted succession, and so ceaseth the Pope. Then by your own writters it is clear, that many Popes entered by Simony, as Barronius testifieth, Annal: tom. 9 ad annum. Christi. 912. And Alexander the 6. was notorious that way. This un Popeth all, for it breaketh the chain of succession, and leaveth the Church collective without any judge. It is clear hence, how slippery the Romish Church is in its foundations: seeing he whom they call the Church may be a Pagan Secondly, As to the second thing proposed, viz. Whither Church officers since the days of the Apostles are infallible▪ The Church whither taken for Pope or Council, or Pope & Council is not infallible. When the Councils condemned heretics of old, they did it not pro arbitratu & imperio: but judged by the Scriptures which is indeed an infallible rule, but the church taken whither for Pope or Council, or Pope and Council is not infallible. First, If the Jewish-church erred in matter of faith and worship, then may the christian-church err also. For they had statutes, judgements, and promises: to them were committed the oracles of GOD. Rom. 3. 2. But Aaron and the people erred grossly, Ex 32. So did Uriah the Priest, 2. Kings 16. May not then Popes err? Seeing Aaron the saint of the Lord was not infallible. Yea, both Priest and Prophet erred in judgement, see Is. 28. 7. on which words Sanctius the Jesuit saith, Priests, Prophets, and people were spiritually drunk. Did not the Church rulers while the Levitical Priesthood lasted, procure the death of Christ? Secondly, Under the Gospel Popes and Councils have erred, Ergo, they are not infallible. Tertullian telleth contra Praxetam, that Eleutherius the Pope approved Montanus heresy, and obtruded it on the Church as his Irenicum. Your own Barronius telleth ad ann. 302. that Marcellus the Pope sacrificed to Idols, Athaudsius 
† Athanasius in epist. ad Solitariam vitam agentes.  testifieth, that Liberius the Pope was Arrian. Honorius was condemned in the sixth General Council as a Monothelit, Anastasius the Pope saith Alphonsus, de cast. lib. 5. cap. 25. was Nestorian. Now can Monothelism, Nestorianism, Arrianism, Montaaism and Idolatry, be inherent to a man infallible? Or can a chair make that man who is Arrian Orthodox, or him who sacrificeth to Idols unerring, who will believe this?  
Councils may err adversaries being judges, Occam asserteth so much, and Petrus Alliaco Cardinalis qu. vespert. art. 3. for he saith, that this promise, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, is made universo catui fidelium, to the whole number of the faithful, not to the representative Church which may err. Panor: sup. 1. part. sib. decret. Dicit Ecclesiam quae non potest errare esse totam collectionem fidelium, nam ista est Ecclesia quae non potest errare, that is, the whole company of believers which cannot err. Nic. de Clemang. in his disp with the Parisians, saith, the promise Matth. 18. as likewise that john 16. The spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth, belongeth only to spiritual ones, and it were better to be much in fasting and prayer for direction, then to brag we cannot err. So then I reason, the Pope may err, Councils may err, Ergo, the Pope and Council may err. The argument will hold here, a divisis ad conjugata. as well as thus, the Magistrate may be diseased, and his council infected, therefore both Magistrate and Council are subject to sickness. It is a deluding evasion, to say, that the Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot err, for the Jesuits place the infallibility in the Pope, the Parlsians in the Council, and they are not agreed in this amongst themselves▪ In the sense of the one, a Church Session confirmed by the Pope is as infallible as a Council. And in the sense of the other, a Council confirmed by a private Bishop is at infallible as if it were confirmed by the Pope. Thus than we argue, that must have no entity which can find no subject, but Papists cannot agree upon the subject of this infallibility, therefore it is not ens. Further, General Councils have been of this judgement, that the Pope's consent is not requisite for making their decrees right. For in the Council of Chalcedon where were convened 630. fathers in the year 454. where Martianus the Emperor was present, it was contrar to the desire of the Pope's Legates, appointed, that seeing the seat of Rome had no divine warrant for its supremacy, Constantinople should have alike privileges with it. This was as full a Council as we read of, and yet all these father's thought the Pope's consent not necessary for their statutes: Yea they declared his supremacy not to be Juris Apostolici in the first Council of Constantinople which was the second general Council. The Councils of Constance and Basil, judged the Council to be above the Pope. In the first three general Councils the Pope did not so much as preside in them, either by himself or by his legates. For in the first, presided Hosius Bishop of Corduba. In the second Necta●ius, Bishop of Constantinople. And in the third at Ephesus, Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, in which Councils, Controversies were deterrained by the plurality of suffrages, and every one of the fathers there, did subscrive their name to the constitutions and conclusions of the Council. The council of Trent again did all Proponentibus legatis, therefore, either it or they were in an error, so not infallible. And indeed it is above dispute that the council of Trent was erroneous, and not the council of Chalcedon, in that, which Gregory the Great and all ancients so extol and commend.  
This is said not in the least to derogate from lawful councils which we judge necessary helps, for ordering the affairs of the house of God in divers exigencies. Yea, we give more to the four General Councils than Papists do, for they cast both at the second and fourth. But we have another judge and determiner, the Scripture of God. Augustin confirmeth this, Nec ego nicaenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam prajudicaturus 
† Aug. contra Maxi. Arrian. Episcop.  praeferre consilium; nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumcunque propriis, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione consentiat. i e. Neither would I prefer the Nicen, nor ought you as prejudged to prefer the Arimin council, I am not holden by this, or thou by that, but by the authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses common to all, appropriate to none, let one thing agree with another, cause with cause, reason with reason.  
Thirdly, As to the third thing proposed, The Church is not appointed to be obeyed, Pro. An. 3 but in subordination to the law of God; for I know not the Church but by the word, therefore, I cannot obey it but by it also. Secondly, Subjects should not judge the law authoritatively: If thou judge the law thou art not a doer of it, james 4. 11. The word of God is the law, and all churches are subject to it. Thirdly, The Text you cite the 17. of Deut. from the 8. v. to the 13, where the people are commanded to go to the Priests for decision of controversiys, hath this expressly in it, v. 11. According to the sentence of the law which he shall teach thee. Cajetan upon the place sayeth, That in the Hebrew it is super o● legis, ideo doctrina eorum esset conformis divinae legi. There doctrine of decision should be warrandable by the law. Glossa ordinaria explaineth the place thus, non dicitur tibi ut obedias, nisi ●uxta legens docuerint. i e. thou art not commanded to obey if they teach not according to the law: Lyra is of the same judgement, si dicant falsum non sunt credendi, if they speak false they are not to be believed: In Mal. 2. 7. The Lord showeth that the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, where he declareth not what was, for they had gone out of the way at that time, but what should be. Ribera saith, the words are not to be read in the present, but in the future tense, and according to Cyril, he is called the Messenger of the Lord, because he should give men of the oracles of God, as he hath received them from the Lord. Also that place Matth. 23. 2. where Church rulers are appointed to be heard when they si● in Moses chair. Theophylact expoundeth i● quando docent ea quae continentur in lege, when they teach the things contained in the law. O if your Scribes and Pharisees would do so, they might be better heard. That place 2. Chr. 19 8. 11. concerning Amaziah, who was over them in all matters of the Lord, holdeth only forth this, that Magistracy and Ministry are distinct offices. And in the church of Jerusalem, albeit the Apostles were infallible, yet they proceed according to the word, and built their sentence on the Prophets, Acts 15. 14. these places prove, that implicit obedience is not to be given to any Church rulers. And the B●reans were commended for searching the Scriptures, when the message was delivered to them. How gross then is Bellarmin, who saith, 
† Bell. lib. 4. the ●ont. cap. 5.  S● Papa erraret praecipiendo vita, & prohibendo virtutes, tenetur Ecclesia credere, virtutes esse malas & vitia b●n●. If the Pope saith he, should commend vice, and call it good (which they grant he may do, notwithstanding of his infallibility) than people were bound to obey and call vice good. Valentia saith more, that the people are bound without any enquiry, 
Valent. Tom. 3. disp. 1. & disp. 7. qu. 3. Punct. ●.  to err with their rulers, and errores corum in tali causa sunt actus Christianae obedientiae, their errors are acts of Christian obedience, Aeternae vitae meritoriae, deserving eternal life. When Papists speak so great absurdities, what will they not do for their interest?  
Fourthly, As to the fourth thing proposed, Pro. An. 4 the Church of Christ is to be ruled by its officers lawfully called, but the government of it here is not Monarchical but Aristocratical. Under the New Testament the Lord appointed no visible Monarch on earth, to be an officer in his church; for our last appeal in dubious cases is regulated by that well known Scripture Matth. 18. 17. If he will 
See Bish. Laud. against Fisher.  not hear the church, let him be to thee as a publican; Now it is absurd to say, that this should be the sense of it, tell the Pope, for in no language the word Church can signify a visible Monarch. Secondly, The council of Jerusalem maketh not for this, for not only proceed they upon Scripture grounds, but although they were infallible men, yet none of them took the Papal way, and the government was not Monarchical, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us. Thirdly, Church power is Ministerial, Matth. 20. 25. 26. 2. Cor. 1. 24. 1. Pet. 5. 3. but Monarchy is Magisterial, therefore it agreeth not with church power. And when Papists reason for the power of the church and mention councils the argument may be thus propounded, church officers, councils, have been appointed to rule and order the affairs of the house of God, Ergo, they may do what they will and who can say unto them what dost thou. I deny the consequence. Ergo, the Pope is one of these officers, it is absolutely refused. And this is summa totalis, of the prolix answer to the fourth question, which may be taken away with a word. Ergo, if the word make not for them, the● they may betake themselves to their own traditions and rule by them. That is denied also by us. And suppose they should give the Law to their own Vassals, will it therefore follow that they empire it over the whole Christian-church? And seeing all churches are bound to a rule, can any be infallible which have need of a rule? When you make the Pope your church, do ye not build your faith on him? Is this like the foundation, Eph. 2. 20.? What is this but to make your faith humane? And is it not absurd to say that Alexander the si●●h Pope john, 22. in the cathedra were infallible as the Prophets and Apostles in dyting Scripture, they cannot blush who speak so.  
Fifthly, As for the fifth particular, viz. That place of Augustin, count, ep. fund. cap. 5. I would not have believed the Scripture, Pro. An. 5 unless the authority of the church had moved me. Our Divines have answered fully long ago, so it is a thread bare argument: for he speaketh not there concerning the formal reason, why Scripture is believed; but concerning the mean and motive, by which intrants are brought at first to the knowledge of the Scripture, (I mean the consused knowledge of the Scripture) as when a man delivereth a letter he may tell from whom it is, but the faith of it is from the subscription. So here then, by the church, he understandeth not the church or Pope of Rome, but the Primitive-church of the faithful, which did hear & see Christ and his Apostles. So saith Durand 
† Dur, lib. didst 24. qu. 1.  he had to do with the Manichees, who would make him believe their Gospel. No saith he, the testimony of those who did see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and handle the word of life, is to be preferred to your assertion, and this is a motive which made me at first quite Manichism, and close with the Gospel of Christ, so speaketh Melchior Canus lib. 2. de loc. cap. 8. therefore it maketh nothing for the imperious supremacy of the Pope or Church in matters of faith, for there is a difference between commuma motivafidei, and formalis ratio credendi. See learned and perspicuous Dr. Barron against Turnebul, Tract. 4. & pag. 188. Who hath unanswerably demonstrated this truth, and so interpreteth these words of Augustin, The testimony of the church is a principle inductive, and a motive to new intrants, to read, hear, and consider the holy Scriptures, and it produceth only an humane faith: the inward testimony of the holy Spirit is the principle effective of divine faith, and the Scriptures themselves are the formal reason and terminative principle, whereinto divine faith is resolved, as a building upon its foundation. Eph. 2. 20. To conclude this answer, We judge that the pure Gospel Church is, and should be the pronouncer of divine sentence from the Scripture; that the authority of Councils should be inrerposed for making men willing and obedient to the divine law: so should the Magistrate concur in his station for that effect. But the church of Rome is not pure, nor like that which once it was in the Apostle Paul his time, and at no time could she be called the Universal church, far less now. Albeit then her faith was spoken of throughout all the world. Is this a good argument, the faith of the Church of Britain is mentioned throughout all the reformed churches of Transylvania, Hungaria, Polland, Germany, Bohaemia, Flanders, France, and Helve●ia, therefore it is the Universal-church, no, we claim no more but to be a Sister church to these in the confession of faith, according to the Scriptures, 
† Alb. Pighius, lib. 6. Eccl. hierarc. cap. 3.  and all together make up the Universal-church. And any one of these is preferable to the church at Rome, as it is now corrupted and apostatised. Will ye hear Albertus Pighius, Quis unquam per Romanam Ecclesiam intellexit universalem, who ever did by the Roman Church understand the Church universal. Why do ye then speak so, and ambitiously empire it over all the world?  
Question fifth, Seeing no Scripture is of Pa. Qu. 5 private interpretation, 2. Pet. 1. 20. should private men take upon them to interpret the same?  
Answer, The sense of that text is, no scripture Pro. An. is the indytment of a private spirit, but proceedeth from the holy Ghost, for it followeth, holy men of GOD spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost, and it came not of old by the will of men. Therefore it is no ways to be thought, that private men should be barred from searching the Scripture seeing Christ Jesus commanded the contrar, Io. 5. 39 This was spoken to a whole multitude of persecuting Jews. The word is the sword of the spirit Eph. 6. 17. should any private man be disarmed amongst his foes? And blessed is he whither private or public, who meditateth in the law of the Lord day and night. Ps. 1.  
Reply, In your fifth answer you grant with the Apostle, that no prophecy of the Scripture Pa. Rep. is of any private interpretation; so should you grant also, that the Scriptures cannot be rightly expounded of every private spirit, and fancy of the vulgar Reader, but by the same spirit wherewith they were writren which resolveth in the Church. And I am very confident no learned or wise Protestant will allow any private man to expound scripture, against the common consent of the whole Catholic Church, wherein they were immediately before: But you insist, that it is not to be thought that private m●n should be barred from searching the scripture, seeing it is contrar to that text, John 5. 39 where if by searching the Scripture, you mean the reading and interpretation of it, that cannot be the sense of it. For the Apostle Paul saith, 1. Cor. 12. GOD hath set in the Church Prophets, Apostles, Doctors, etc. Then he addeth, are all Apostles, are all Prophets, are all Doctors, do all interpret? Then this doth not belong to every man to read and interpret Scripture, but to search the deep meaning and sense thereof from the Doctors of the Church. For the Jews did search the scripture, reading and hearing it read in their Synagogues, and yet did deny Christ to be the Messiah, which scripture doth clearly testify. Even as Protestants do read Scripture, and in it the real presence, the power to forgive sins granted to men, justification by faith and good works, anointing the sick, virginity preferred to marriage, and yet deny all this: Wherefore as Christ exhorteth the Jews, to do it with greater reflection and attention, not superficially, turning and shuffling it over as Protestants do, so do I exhort them. The word is the sword of the spirit, upon which you infer, should any private man be disarmed amongst his foes. So let me tell you that the Apostle calling it a sword, sheweth that it should not be put into a mad man's hand, or in the hand of a fool, i. e. Poor ignorants who as Peter saith, wrist it to their own destruction, and yet this is your consequence, if it should be granted to all private men. Children and fools get not arms amongst their foes, wherewith they might rather wrong themselves then their enemies, but are under the protection of their Paedagogues and attendants. And so the ignorant should not easily handle the sword of the word, being ignorant, and only capable of the letter, but should receive the sense thereof from the Church and her Pastors, that it may be to them an arm of defence. Pro. Duply. 1  
Answer first, All this is answered fully in the return of the first question, to which place I refer the Reader, lest I make idle repetition: If the rule of right reasoning had been observed, nothing of this aught to have come in formerly, but here in its own proper place. I distinguished betwixt private men and private interpretations, then, betwixt the extraordinar gift of interpreting and the ordinar. Thirdly, Betwixt the privilege and the exercise. Private men have the privilege to search the Scriptures, you say it should be by no other than doctors; if that be true, than the Lord Jesus did not direct the people who heard him, to use prayer and meditation for knowing the Scriptures, but to go to their rulers, Scribes and Pharisees, who did what they could to make the Scriptures testify against him and all his. I appeal to the conscience or reason of any, if this exposition on the place can hold water? Or if an indvidual act, such as this, being performed by another is an obedience to a command? If this exposition be good, then when the Lord pronounceth the man blessed, who meditats in the Law day and night; the sense of it must be if his Pastors do it for him it is enough? Who will admit this? But the one is as true as the other.  
Secondly, You contradict yourself, for once you say that private men should not interpret Pro. An. 2 Scripture, but take it from the mouth of the church: then immediately you exhort them to do it, not superficially, but with attention, and we exhort to no more.  
Thirdly, You make all the people who are Pro. An. 3 private men, mad fools and Children by your comparison, in whose hand the word of GOD should not be put, than it must be taken from them; and how agreeth this with the former exhortation? What if this were told to the Kings and Queens who are Popish? By the testimony of your doctors, ye are all de clared unfit to rule others, for mad men fools & children cannot govern. In effect ye guide them as such in divine matters, for ye muzzle, and blindfold the people, all this passeth under the notion of Pedagogy. But sad is the case of such pupils, ●f they knew what belonged to their peace. Let ignorants be catechised, and trained in the ways of GOD, this may make them more discerning of the sense and meaning of the word of God. Seneca telleth, Coenant nobiscum quidam quia sunt docti, alii ut sint do●li. Some men sup with us because they are learned, others that they may be learned. The testimonies of the Lord make wise the simple, should they then be deprived of them.  
Question sixth, Ye agree not about the Pa. Qu. 6 rule, for some cast at the Epistle of James, others receive it?  
Answer, None of the pure reformed do Pro. Qu. so, it was only rejected by some Lutherians in which we do not own them.  
Secondly, The number of Scripture books is not the question, but whither these mantained by all be the rule of saith? Seeing all men are murable creatures and at their best state vanity: Pope's clash with Popes, Councils with Councils, Pulpits with Pulpits, let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be our rule, or the dictates of self contradicting men?  
Reply, You say none of these pure reform, Pa. Reply. reject the Epistle of James, and you disclaim the Lutherians who do so, and they you; for I am confident they will acknowledge none for pure reformers, who take an Epistle for scripture which they hold to be none. Then you say, the number of Scripture books is not the question, Sir, you move questions as you please, but hear Mr. Hooker one of your most learned Protestants, lib. 1. Eccl. pol. Sect. 14. pag. 36. of these things  saith he, the very chief is to know what books we esteem holy, which is impossible for itself to teach. Apply this to your only determiner of faith, in your first answer. And truly I think this should be the first question of all, to the pure reform, according to the pure word of God, as you call them, which are the books of the pure word of GOD? Now if you answer, these are mantained by all which you make the rule of faith, how few books of Scripture shall be this rule, if any at all? For there be few or none whereof some have not doubted or flatly denied. Saint Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum, and lib. de mor. Eccl. cap. 1. Saith, the Manichees did deny Moses and the Prophets, the Jews did deny the New Testament? What books of Scripture are mantained by all? For by that, you make the consent of all judge of canonical Scripture, how then can you disclaim tradition, and say immediately after men are mutable creatures, and at their best state vanity? Seeing upon the consent of men ye take up your rule of faith, and number of Scripture books. I know other Protestants allege for this, that the books of Scripture like the Sun show themselves to be such, to him who hath the spirit. But I would ask at such, why the Rev. St. James Epistle, the second of St. Peter, and two of St. John, did not show themselves to be Scripture to Luther, that spiritual man, and the Protestants very first Apostle in the work of reformation; in the end you say, Let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be your rule and determiner, or the dictates of self contradicting creatures? Where you seem to rubbe on Catholics: But Sir, this toucheth not them at all, for they profess not to believe self-contradicting creatures, but the unanimous consent of Councils and fathers, or the Catholic Church, known to be the only Church established by Christ and his Apostles, and by the continued succession of Popes, Bishops, and Pastors, the unity, universality, and gifts of miracles in all ages. etc. Which Christ hath called the ground and pillar of truth. 1. Tim. 3. 15. and against which he assureth us the gates of hell shall not prevail, Math. 16. 18. and which he hath commanded us to hear, otherwise to be holden as heathens and publicans, Math. 18. 17. so you see, that the written word maketh the Church our judge, which we should obey, and that ye who make so much of the written word, do not believe it when ye do not obey her. And here I remark that Protestant Ministers and preachers deceive the people, in that they ground their faith on the written word only, and Roman Catholics say they on humane tradition, and their Church's authority, which being composed of men is subject to error. Whereas the contrar is true, for Roman Catholics believe nothing which the written word (believing both the tradition of the Church and Apostles) doth not expressly warrant. As for the Church, what is more expressly said then what I have cited, both to prove that we are bound to hear her, Mat. 18. 18. and hold her authority infallible. Math. 16. 18: and the house of God which is the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3. 15. Neither doth it avail you to say, this is not said of the Roman Church, which is not the universal Church, but a particular one a strumpet, etc. For we speak not of any particular Church, when we say that the Church is infallible, nor when we say the Roman, the Catholic, do we understand the particular Church, at Rome? But that Church which professeth constantly the Romans faith, spread in saint Paul's time through all the world. As we call yet the Roman Empire that which hath its seat in Vien of Austria. Yea, Protestants calling their own the reformed Church, cannot say but we have one Church on earth, which Christ commanded us to hear constantly. And if the reformed Church be the true Church, than she must have taken the place from that church which was deformed, and had fallen into an error, and so deserved no more to be called the pillar and ground of truth, or to be heard. Moreover, the very pillars of the Protestant Religion, grant all the world to be in an error before themselves, and so against the express written Word must deny the infallibility of any Church whatever. For Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 18. saith, they made all the Kings and People of the earth drunk from the first to the last, and Hospinian epist. 41. saith, Luther's separation was from all the world. White in his defence chap. 37. saith, Popery was a leprosy breeding so universally in the church, that there was no visible company of men free from it. Jewel in his Sermon on Luke 11. The whole world, Princes, and people were overwhelmed by ignorance, and bound by oath to the Pope; which if it be true that the Church in former ages did err, the reformed Church may err, that themselves do not deny. Thence it followeth clearly, that the Protestant Church is not the house of GOD called the pillar and ground of truth, that she is not Christ's Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, that none are bound to hear her in matters of faith, being subject to error. And so Protestants may well desire men to read the Scripture and believe what they found there, but not urge any man to follow their doctrine, but in so far as they find it conform to Scripture, which all Roman Catholics protest they do not. As for traditions, are we not commanded to hold them in the clear written Word? 2. Thess. 2. 15. Hold the traditions which ye have learned, whither by word or our epistle. Protestants read documents, but documents by word and traditions are the same thing, on which place Chrysost: saith, It is evident that the Apostle did not deliver all things by writ, but many things by word which are worthy of credit as well as the other. That is Christ's word as well as his writ, therefore we call them divine and Apostolical traditions, Aug. lib. 5. de Trinit. cap. 23. speaking of rebaptisation, The Apostle, saith he, commanded nothing of it, but that customs which is believed to proceed from the Apostle, is opposed against Cyprian, in it, as many things are which the whole Church holdeth, and therefore are believed to be commanded by the Apostles, though not written. A●d in the first age, saint Dennis chap. 1. speaking of the Ecclesiastic hierarchy, saith, These our chief captains of Priestly function, did deliver to us the chiefest and supersubstantial points, partly in written, partly in unwritten institutions. Epiph. Haeres. 61. is of the same mind, we must hold traditions, saith he, for the Scripture h●th not all things, and Tertullian de praescrip: grounds his faith on the authority of the Church, and what tradition I believe, saith he, I received from the present Church, the present Church from the primitive, that from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ. Here I hope you see you must either admit traditions as  in themselves and infallible in their authority, or else disclaim both Scripture and Fathers. All that Protestants can say either against the authority of the Church, in general Councils, or Apostolic traditions delivered by her, is, that all her decisions and traditions flow from men, and so are not infallible. But I answer, neither were the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists who penned the Scripture, but men, yet I hope their writings are not fallible or subject to error: Because they were inspired directly and assisted by the Spirit of God. The Fathers of the Church have to this day that promise verified to them, Math. 28. 20. which was made as well to their successors as to themselves. As for that some Protestante speak of an invisible Church composed of the Elect, it is but a shift to delude the ignorant, for as it is a Maxim of law, Idem est non esse & non apparere, i. e. it is the same not to be, and not to appear to be in the matter of any pretended right, so in the matter of doctrine, an invisible Church and no Church is the same. For if I cannot see nor know the Elect, as being invisible to the eye of man, so I cannot know that the Church composed of them speaketh to me, or that this Doctrine I hear of any man is infallible, more than that he is one of the Elect.  
Answer, I am weary transseribing a number Protest. Duply. of word● without weight, that is a compleet rhapsody, and no return to the former question: If such digressions were heard in the School, the writer behoved to be sore censured. The question was, how the Scripture could be the square? Seeing all agree not about the number of the books, some cast at the Epistle of James as the Lutherans. And the answer I gave was, that although some Lutherans differre from us, about the authority of that epistle: yet we both agree here, that uncontroverted scripture is the determiner. And for the numeric question, it was sufficiently answered in the second answer to the first query; so we needed not this tau●oligie to make the Reader nauseat. If I had to do with a Lutheran, than I could prove the divine authority of that Epistle, but you do not deny it, therefore to what purpose should I insist on that subject against you. Mr. Hooker whom you cite, maketh nothing against us as is alleged, for that which he says, is first, that the light of reason rightly managed, is a requisite mean for the knowledge of scripture books, and what sayeth that against us, seeing we suppose the Readers of Scripture to be ●ational men, & that reason in its own line may be helpful to them for understanding scripture. Secondly, Mr. Hooker directly disclaimeth your traditions, page 86. and affirmeth, that they who betake themselves to that testimony as divine, have not the truth, but are in an error. Thus he condemneth you as erroneous, so it had been your advantage, to have spared this tradition: neither was it needful to tell us, that the Manichees denied Moses, and the Jews the New Testament. We have to do with Papists, who hold all the books of the Old and New Testament, which we hold for Canonic. At lest what some others make disputable, as Melchior Canus telleth us, you put it out of dispute, so you are not in bona fide to reason about their number with us, seeing ye question none which we maintain, albeit we justly call in question Apocryphal writings, which ye put into the Canon. Is it not safer to regulate our faith by these uncontroverted Scriptures, then by the dictates of mutable self-contradicting Popes? When Church Rulers have been fully corrupted, Believers have continued orthodox, as in the time of the Arrian persecution. The Fathers who lived the first 300. year, believed without either Pope or General Council as propounders of their faith. For then there was no such pretending to infallible supremacy. They had no infallible testimony from the Church, they acknowledged not her testimony to be such. And for aught I can learn, the●e be no testimony of your Church, nor statute enacting her testimony to be infallible. If so it is nor according to you de fide, however ye make a great noise amongst people with it. And if all the faith you have, depend upon the testimony of the present Church, which is your doctrine, your faith is not one with Abraham's faith, for the word of God did beget his faith, but it is the testimony & statute of the Trent Council that begett●th yours, and I would gladly hear from you, whither there was universal consent there or not? Such clashing and pocket orders, as the author of that history telleth to the world, will not permit you to say, without a blush, that the Council was unanimous and Gospel-like in their way. Therefore, unless it, be against us, all their otheracts are made up of ambiguous stuff, like the Delphian responses, this is purposely contrived to cover debates with general terms. And if their testimony, make the word of GOD Scripture to me living under Popery, what rule had they for their faith who made these conclusions? Their own testimony could not be the cause of their own belief: if you say that the testimony of the ancient Church was their rule, than ye go contrar to your own Doctors, who declare that the present Church of Rome is above all former councils, and their authority dependeth on her testimony. See Bell. lib. de Eccl. cap. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp. 1. quest. 1. Further that the supreme power of judging is not in the Council but in the Pope, that he is above a general Council, that he cannot be subject to it. See Bell. lib. 2. the Council cap. 17. Valentia tom. 3. disp. 1. Suarez disp. 5. de fide, and your own Vives in his comment on Augustins' 20. book de civet. Dei cap. 26. telleth us how little ye make of Councils, or of the ancient Church when they militat against you. Illa demum videntur iis Concilia quo in rem suam faeiunt, reliqua non pluris estimantur quam commenta mulierum in textrina aut thermis. i e. These appear to be Councils to them, which make for them, the rest are no more esteemed by them, than the sables of old women in the weaver's shop or sloves. Bris●●erius writing against Collag: a Jansenist as he is cited by learned Dalleus 
† See D●lleus de usu Patrum , saith, Councils are literae mortuae nisi animentur à praesenti Ecclesia. i e. They are dead letters if they be not animated by the present Church. This appeareth to be true from experience, for ye agree not with the primitive, either in doctrine, worship, or government. The ancients thought that Images should not be in the Church. See Epiph. epist. ad johannem Hierosolymitanum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum vidissem Imaginem pender● in Ecclesia contra authoritatem Scripturae. i e. When I saw an Image hang in the Church contrar to the authority of Scripture how grieved was I. But the Council of Trent appointed them to be had in houses and Churches, and that debitus honour & reverentia 
Sess. 25.  eye impertiatur i. e. Due honour and worship be given to them. The Father's thought that the Virgin Marie was conceived in sin so saith Ambrose, Augustin, Chrysostom, as Melchior Canus de loc. Theol. lib. 7. telleth. The Council of Trent, Sess. 5. will not conclude he● under Original sin. The Fathers excluded Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and both the books of the Maccabees, out of the canon of Scripture. So did Hierom in his prologue ad libros Solomonis. Epiph. lib. de Pond. & men's. cap. 2. pag. 162. Gregory Nazianzen. corm. 3. Athanasius epist. fest. But the Council of Trent anathematizeth them, who exclude these books out of the Canon, Sess. 4 Baptism was delayed till Pasch and Pentecost in the primitive Church, it is not so with you. The 4. Council of Carthage did forbid women to baptise, Canon 100 ye allow it. The Sacrament was administered in the primitive Church to all present, and they who did not partake were appointed to remove. Ite missa est, exite foras qui non vultis accipere Sacramentum. i e. Go, it is closed, go forth ye that will not receive the Sacrament: Now the words are muttered and administered before all. They took with their hand, and the bread was broken of old: Now it is not, for ye make whole wasers, and put them into their mouth. For fourthteen hundred years the Church appointed the Sacrament to be administered by bread and wine to the people, all Christians of whatever judgement, except Papists do so communicate as yet, Petau. de poenit. pub. lib. 2. showeth that it cannot be denied, nisi ab homine insigniter & supra omnem modum vel impudenti vel imperito: i. e. Except by a man remarkably and above all measure either impudent, or unskilful, that this was the primitive practice, yet the Council of Constance hoc non obstante, and the Council of Trent decree the contrar. The primitive Church heard nothing of the Pope's universal supremacy, or infallibility, which now by you i● made Summa rei. See Cyprian ep. 55. ●● Cornelius Bishop of Rome, and how he styleth him f●ater, etc. and he saith, that they were formerly chosen to officiat, Non sine consensu plebis, not without the Pope's consent ep. 68 Ipsa plebs habet potestatem etc. Is not this far from your imperious pompous way of Monarchy? how then can you so boldly aver, that ye have the unanimous consent of Councils and fathers for you, when indeed ye do not regard them so much as we. Hear your own Cornelius, Must. 
† See D●lleus ubi supra.  ep. Bi●ont. in ep. ad Rom. cap 14. Ego ut ingenue f●te●r, plus uni summo pontisici crederem, in his quae fidei misteria tangunt, quam m●lle Hieronymis, Augustinis, Gregoriis. Credo enim & scio, quod summus Pontifex, in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest, quia auctoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pontisice residet. i e. That I may ingenuously confess, I would give more credit to one Pope, in t●e things which belong to the mysteries of truth, then to a thousand such as Augustin, Jerom, or Gregory. For I know certainly that the Pope cannot err in these things that belong to faith, because the authority of determining matters of saith resideth in the Pope; yet ignorant people are made to believe that Papists have the consent and practise of the primitive Church along with them, and Melchior Canus, l●c. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num. 10. Sequi majores nostros per omnia, & in illorum vestigiis pedes nostros figere, ut pueri faciunt per lusum, nihil aliud est quam ingenia nostra d●mnare, judicio nos privare nostro & facultate inquirendae veritatis. i e. to follow our ancestors in all things, and to ●race their footsteps, and fix in them as children use to do in play, is no other thing but to condemn our own wit, and to deprive ourselves of our own judgement, and faculty of searching the truth. Salmeron in cap. 5. epist. ad Rom. disp. 5. asserteth, quo juniores eo perspicaciores sunt doctores, and citeth Exod. 23. follow not the multitude viz. of ancients. This is sufficient to prove, that as the Papists are jealous of Scripture, so are they of the Primitive Church her consent. But it is alleged, that ye have the word of God for your warrant, Matth. 16. 18. Matth. 18. 18. 1. Tim. 3. 15. To this I answer, that the first Text, is meaned of the collective body of the Church, which fall not away; this is clear from the context, for it is the Church builded on that confession mentioned by the Apostles: and an house so builded cannot fall, because it is builded on a rock, Matth. 7. 25. Yet it will not follow that there be no drops in it; for particular believers cannot totally and finally fall away, but that they are infallible who can say? see john 10. 28. and comyare it with 1. Cor. 13. 9 james 3. 2. beside, your own writters interpret it so, see Melchior Canus lib. 5. de loc. Theol. cap. 5. and Panormitan on the place.  
The second Text Mat. 18. is to be understood of a particular Church, which you grant is not infallible, so Chrysostom interpreteth the place, and it is further clear from the Connexion, for it is the Church, to which appeals should be made in prima instantia, this undoubtedly is a particular Church. But admitting that it is meaned of the universal church, your Pope nor your Church is not it.  
The third Text 1. Tim. 3. 15. holdeth forth no more than what is granted in the answer to the fourth question, or if you please to take learned Cameron his exposition, who knitteth these words with the 16. verse, you may do well. But what ever be the privileges of the true Gospel Church, which is the Bride of Jesus Christ, Rome hath forefaulted all these, and is but a leprous part of the universal Church, you grant that the church of Rome is but a particular church. Why plead you then for the whole privileges of the universal Church? Is not this absurd arrogance? Nor doth Calvin, Hospinian, Luther or White, speak absolutely as ye allege, but assert that the generality for a time was leavened by Popery which is truth. But what then followeth? That the mystery of iniquity did arise by degrees and over-runne all for the most we grant, so did the Arrian heresy; therefore was not Athavasius, and such as adbered to the truth, right in their way? The whole world in the Apostles time did lie in wickedness, 1. john 5. 19 Therefore were they not Sons of truth who endeavoured a Gospel reformation. Your last hold is tradition, and you say, we are commanded to hold them. 2. Thes. 2. 15. for this you cite Aug. Cyprian, St. Dennis, Epiphanius. To this I answer, we are not against Apostolic traditions, nor Church history in matters of fact, We make use of traditions there mentioned: But for your Legends, we deny that they are such and disclaim them. Have you Sir learned Logic? Why do you argument so, a genere ad speciem affirmative? Is this a good argument, Est annual, ergo est homo, he is a living creature, therefore he is a man? Can this be better, there were traditions delivered to the Church of Thessalonica, ergo, yours are these. Credat Judaeus Appella? Secondly, If there were unwritten traditions, why do you dare to writ these things which the Apostles would not writ? Thirdly, Will that argue the Scripture of imperfection? You may as well argue, the Minister writteth a book the sum of which he hath preached to people, Ergo, his book is imperfect. You have then to prove for your end, that these traditions mentioned, 2. Thess. 2. 15. were about matters of faith. Secondly, If so they be not where written in Scripture. Thirdly, That if they be not written, they be the same which ye deliver to the people, and by what authority ye press and writ them. But to take this text wholly from your misinterpretation, hear Theodoret, who saith, that the Apostle spoke not of divers doctrines, but of the same diversely delivered. For first he preached to the Thessalonians, and then did writ the substance of it. But as where ever ye find fire in the Scripture ye make it Purgatory, so where ye find tradition, ye make it pari ratione yours: Will ye listen to Bell. lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 10. and he will put all out of doubt, for he granteth that all in substance were written by the Apostles, which they preached to the people, or were  to salvation, Cyprian in his epist. ad Pompeium, admitteth not any traditions, but such as may be perceived to be in the Evangels, in the Epistles or Acts of the holy Apostles. Therefore it is a perfect rule to all discerners say I, and no more was at first asserted. Your Maxim Idem est non esse & non apparere, holdeth in law but not in divinity. For the soul is not visible yet who can deny the being of it. What is more in the Reply I judge not worthy the noticeing, and I am forced to make digression, because of an impertinent return. Is it not strange, that when I called men mutable creatures, and at their best state vanity, subject to clashing contradiction, and that the written Word is the only infallible rule for direction: that upon this tradition, universal consent, should be so prolixely commented on without any connexion. They who follow this reflecter must resolve to deviat from though high way.  
Question seventh, Your Church which ye Papists Quest. 7 call reform is but of yesterday, where was it before Luther?  
Answer, It is as old in its doctrinals as Protestants Answer. the Scripture, therefore not of yesterday. See what society from the beginning professed the doctrine mantained there, that was out Church. The Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, as taught by the Apostle Paul are our Church of old, so it is not new. Secondly, In all ages there have been and are, eminent professors of that doctrine which we maintain, as is abundantly proved by Flaccus Illyricus in his Catalogue, Testium veritatis, and learned Dr. Usher in successione Ecclesiae reform: which testimonies not Popish shaveling of what ever order, yet could answer. Thirdly, where was the church of Rome as now constituted, before the council of Trent? Nay more, was the Pope's supremacy and infallibility heard of the 600 year after Christ? Is not all Popish faith as such resolved into a lie, viz. the infallibility of the Pope or Council, which though errand untruths are the key of the Popish Religion. Fourthly, All the positives of the reformed Religion, were mantained substantially in the Primitive church, the first 300. years, (I speak not of changeable circumstances, nor integrals, but essentials) and the negatives could not be there, because the controversies were not then started. But ye Papists have amassed a body of humane inventions, & gross errors contrare to scripture, obtruding them under Anathema, to be the established doctrine of the Church. And because we of the reformed Profession will not own these, and call that which is new old, ye excommunicate us as Heretics.  
Reply, In your seventh Answer you say, Papists Reply. your doctrine is as old as scripture, and your Church as the Apostles; and this is common to you with all sectaries to claim the scripture and the Church, in the time of the Apostles. And like to that answer of the common people, we are all come of Adam and Eve. But I shall let you presently see, how contrar your doctrine is to that scripture, and how unlike your Church is to that of the Apostles the first 300 year. In the second part ye pretend that Illyricus and Doctor Ʋsher have sufficiently shown that there have been eminent men of your Profession in all ages, and that without a Reply of any Popish shaveling of whatever order. But Sir, I am sorry that you who are a Nazarian and not a shaveling, shoule be so ill versed in books of controversy, as not to have seen so many Catholic writters who demonstrat clearly, that of all these eminent men before Calvin you pretend to be yours, there is not one, hath holden all the same tenets with you and no more. For it is enough for you, that they descent from the Church of Rome, and sling at the Pope's authority, what ever tenets they hold in matters of belief, to call them yours. Which hath made Dr. Vane Chaplain to our late King, judiciously compare them to Sampsons' foxes, which were all bound together by the tails, although their heads went divers ways. So that when you call the Luthereans, Valdenses, Albigenses, Hussites, Catharists, Wicklessians, Grecians, Egyptians yours, you may as well call the Turks and Tartar's yours; if we trust all records which speak of their tenets. And as for the Fathers, hear if they were yours in the opinion of the most learnea Protestants. Dudithius apud Bezam, ep. 1. If that be true which Papists say, the Fathers with mutual consent are altogether on their side. Pet. Martyr 2. de verbo col. 1539. as long as we stand to Councils and fathers we shall always remain in the same errors. And fully confesseth that Hierom, Ambrose and Augustin, held the invocation of Saints, Chemnitius in ex. council. tried. art. 3. pag. 100 did not disput but avouch, that most of the Fathers, said the souls of the Martyrs, heard the petition of those that prayed to them, they went to monuments and invocated Martyrs by name. Whitgift in his defence, pag. 473. all the Bishops and writters of the Greek and Latin Church too, (who no doubt were the Fathers) for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of , Merit, Invocation of Saints. Judge then Sir if they were pure. In the third part you ask, where was the Church of Rome before the council of Trent? I answer you, even where she is now, except in Jappony, India, China, and some parts of America, where by their Christian labours, and by the blessing of GOD she hath been established since. Neither can you instance that she is not constantly the same in all points. Nay more say you, was the Pope's infallible universal supremacy heard of the first 600. years. Where it seems you must be very deaf, who hear not the voice of 1200. Father's speaking only in the four first general Councils. He who holdeth the See of Rome, is chief and head of all Patriarches saith right, seeing he is the first, as Peter, to whom all power is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, and who ever contradicteth this, is excommunicated. Can. 29. Concil. Nicaeni anno 325. Where 316 Bishops were convened. Secondly, Of 150. Bishops in the first Council of Constantinople, anno 381. Where the Bishop of Constantinople is decreed to be the chief next the Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, Of 200. Bishops in the first council of Ephesus, anno 431. where in the third action it is defined, that saint Peter was the head and prince of the Apostles, and that the power of binding and losing is granted to him, who in his successors liveth and exerciseth judgement unto this very day. Fourthly, Of 600. Bishops in the Chalcedon council, in the year 451. where in the third action, also Pope Leo is called universal Bishop, Patriarch of old Rome, and sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the name of Leo and sunt Peter, to acknowledge Leo Peter's successor. The Fathers in particular I do not cite, for their citations in this would make a volumn. Only I engage that of a 100 there be 90. clear for this. And not one against it. Is not Popish faith resolved into a lie, say you, viz. the infallibility of Pope or Council? You should have said Pope and Council, putting t●em together as the head, and chief members, which represent the whole body of the Church; As the Parliament doth the whole Kingdom, and then if you doubt of their infallibility, you deny the express words of Scripture, which calleth the Church the ground and pillar of truth, 1. Tim. 3. and which assureth us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Math. 16. 18. Yea, you take away all possible means, to know infallibly what is true Scripture, what is the true sense thereof, which is to make us doubt of all, and leave us no sufficient ground to believe undoubtedlie any thing. You take away Christ's promise to be with the Church to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 20. Yea, you take away an Article out of the Creed (I believe in the holy Catholic Church) and leaving men either to the dead letter of Scripture, which killeth many, or the private spirit which deceiveth more, or natural reason which can be a motive of faith to none, you cast lose all Religion, every one re●ecting or receiving Scripture as he pleaseth. Expounding Scripture as he pleaseth, and following in both no infallible rule or guide, but his own opinion, fancy & imagination. In the fourth part you say that all the positives of the reformed Religion, were mantained in the primitive Church the first 300. years. But if this were true, it would be made good not otherwise, but by the Father's writings in the first three ages after Christ. Now if they had all your positive tenets; why do your learnedest writters openly disclaim them, as I have showed formerly? Why saith Luther your Apostle, lib. deserv. arbitrio, cap. 2. the authority of the Fathers is not to be regarded: and in his Coll●q. cap. de patribus. In the writings of Hierom, there is not aword of true faith, of Chrysostom I make no account, Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, Cyprian is a weak Divine. But I must not insist on this, because you may in some measure deny the greatest parts of controverted points, betwixt you and us to be positive tenets. Albeit there be none of them but justly may be called so. For you not only deny, for example, the real presence, invocation of Saints, use of Images, that a man is justified by faith and works, etc. But ye positively believe, that Christ's Body and Blood is not really present in the Sacrament, that to invocat the Saints, is to give God's worship to creatures, that to make use of Images, is idolatry, that a man is not justified by faith only. Therefore I instance only two upon which all your visible reformation is grounded. First, That the whole visible Church may err. Secondly, That we should believe nothing but what is in the written Word. Now I have made it appear, reflecting on your sixth answer, that both these positive tenets are against the express words of Scripture and Fathers. How then did the Church in the first 300. years, hold all the positives and what you affirm? As for your negatives, and what you deny, you grant they cannot be there, because the controversies were not then stated. But this is a bold and open calumny, for not one point is denied by you, but the Fathers in the first 300. years have clearly asserted. And so the controversy betwixt you and us was sufficiently stated even then. You deny real presence, and transubstantiation, but in the second age Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. ad Antonium says, as Jesus Christ incarnate had flesh and blood for our redemption, so are we taught, that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnate. And in the third age, Cyprian serm. de coena Domini, saith, the bread which the Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh. secondly, Ye deny the sacrifice of the Mass, asserted in the first age by St. Andrew in the book of his passion written by his Disciples, I daily saith he, sacrifice the immaculate Lamb to Almighty GOD, who when he is truly sacrificed, and his flesh eaten, remaineth entire and alive. And in the third age by Origen hom. 13. on Exod. Ye think yourself guilty, and worthily if any part of the consecrated Host be lost by your negligence. thirdly, Ye deny Purgatory asserted in the second age by Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 58, seeing we understand Matthews prison which the Apostle demonstrats to be places below, and the least farthing is every small fault delayed to be paid till the resurrection, none will doubt but the soul will recompense something in places below. And in the third Age, It is one thing being cast into prison; not to go out thence till he pay the uttermost farthing, another, presently to receive the reward of faith. One thing to be affected with long pains, for sins to be amended, and have all sins purged with suffering▪ sayeth Cyprian ep. 52. ad Antonium. Fourthly, ye deny Prayer for the dead, allowed in the first Age by S. Clemens ep. 1. de sancto Petro, where he saith, Peter there taught to give alms and pray for the dead. And in the same age by Tertul. lib. de cor. militis, we make yearly oblations for the dead. Fifthly, ye deny invocation of Saints and Angels, recommended in the secong Age by S. Dennis Eccl. hierarch part. 3. cap. 3. saying, I constantly affirm, with the divine scripture, that the prayers of the saints are profitable for us in this life, after this manner, when a man is inflamed with a desire to invocat the saints, and distrusting his own weakness, betakes himself to any saint, beseeching him to be the helper and petitioner to God for him, he shall obtain by that mean very great assistance. And in the third Age, Origen on the Lambent sayeth, I'll begin to fall on my knees and pray to all the saints, to secure me, who dare not ask God, for the exceeding greatness of my sin. O saints of God I beseech you with tears and weeping to fall down before his mercy seat for me wretch. Sixthly, ye deny the making of the sign of the Cross and Images, but hear S. Dennis lib. 2. Eccl. hierarch. cap. 2. & 5. The sign of the Cross is so much honoured that it is often used both in Baptism and other Sacraments. And in the third Age, Tertul. de cor. mil. cap. 3. In every thing, we sign our forehead with the sign of the Cross, of which practice, tradition is the defender, custom the conserver, and faith the observer. And again the same Tertul. lib. 2. de pudic. The Image of Christ bearing a Lamb on his shoulder, were graven on chalices, and used in Churches. Seventhly, ye deny Freewill, which in the second Age, Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 72. affirmeth, not only in works but even in faith, hath Almighty God reserved liberty of will to man, saying, be it done to thee according to thy faith. And in the third Age, S. Cyprian lib. 3. cap. 52. The freedom of believing or not believing is placed in the will. E●ghtlie, ye deny merit of works, but in the second Age, Justin Martyr Ap. 2. boldeth it saying, We think that men who by works, have showed themselves worthy of the will and counsel of God, shall by their merits reign with him. And in the third Age, St. Cyprian sect. de Eleemosyna. If the day of your return shall find us unloaden, swift, and running in the way of good works, our Lord will not fail to reward our merits. Ninthlie, Ye deny the possibility of keeping the Commandments, against Tertul. in the second Age cited by the Centurists, and Origen in the 1. hom 9 on job. the baptised saith he, may fulfil the law in all things. Judge now Sir, whither it be not an open calumny to say, the controversies betwixt you and us, were not then started in the first 300. years: The Father's having taught even then so clearly our tenets, which nevertheless ye are not ashamed to call new with Dr. Pierce in his Court sermon, but see the two learned answers made to him, which may evidently convince you of boldness, ignorance, and error.  
Answer, You are wise by this your reply, Protestants Duply. for you leave the marrow of my answer untouched, which was this, That our Church in Doctrinals, worship, etc. is as old as Scripture. That you pass with a jeer, and say, that it is the language of all Sectaries. This calumny hath been cast of old upon pure doctrine, Acts 24. and their worship called Heresy verse 14, I wish that all Sects were such as we are, scriptural in their way. Ye are the greatest Schismatics I know on earth, departing from the Scriptures, and mocking others who adhere to them. The other assertion is, That this is the voice of common people, who claim descent from Adam and Eve. Is not this true? Are not all nations of men made of one blood, Acts 17. 26. It is grace and virtue which maketh the difference, Omnis sanguis concolor. And i● we have as much relation to scripture Churches, as multitudes have to Adam and Eve, we are not spurious but of a right extract. Ye probably must be a kind of men like the pre-Adamits, and of another descent. But one cheat is here remarkable, you promise to show how contrar our doctrine is to scripture, and when you come to answer, than you begin with Dudithius, and overleap the whole scripture. Your own Rainerius an Inquisitor, giveth this verdict concerning us, that we are said to have been from the beginning, and walked by the Scriptures. Secondly, You pass that concerning professors of our doctrine in all Ages, and will not signify one man who answereth Flaccius or refuteth Usher, but only you aver with Dr. Vane, to whom ye are much beholden in this, that they were not in all things ours. I know few discerning men who agree in all things. If we hold one foundation which Jesus Christ hath laid, that maketh unity and uniformity. All Christian Churches, except Romanists, make the Scripture the sole rule of their faith, and to this we accord. Were the Eastern and Western Churches essentially different, because of some discrepances about the time of Easter, etc. For Turks and Tartars they are without Christ, and you might more pertinently have spared the comparison of them with ancient churches and professors; if your charity were as much in your breasts, as in your books, and your respect real to the Saints in light. Thirdly, That which I said I will make good, that all the positive fundamentals of our Religion were mantained in the Church the first 400. years. This appeareth from the Creeds, and Confessions of Faith then made, yet extant. Let any read the Apostolic, Nicaene, or Anathasius Creed, the determinations of the Ephesian council written by Cyril of Alexandria, the Confession of Faith made by the council of Chalcedon, and there they will find exact conformity with the positives of our Religion. Popery addeth to these their own inventions, which we renounce, and this maketh the difference. To make this truth appear the more, I shall name these foundations. The doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, upon which our faith is builded. We hold that there is one GOD, & three Persons, that the world was made by GOD; and man the tenant, when the house was made, appointed to bring in his rent. That man was made according to the Image of GOD, in holiness, and righteousness. That he fell from his first state, and turned to the creature by transgression. That sin entered this, and death by sin. That he sinned as a public person, and involved posterity under a curse. That GOD so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, who was very GOD, made flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin: and died for our sins, and after burial, risen again for our righteousness. So that it is the blood of Jesus Christ only that cleanseth us from all si●. And eternal life is the gift of GOD through Jesus Christ our Lord: and when he paid the price than he ascended to Heaven, and the Heaven must contain him as man, ●ill the day of the restitution of all things. That he i● now a● the right hand of GOD, advocating and interceding for as many as the Father gave him, and shall come again and render ●o every man according to his works. When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and sent the Holy Ghost who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who createth saith in us, by which we are justified. Who enlighteneth, convinceth, comforteth, supporteth, directeth all the household of faith, and teacheth all the children to worship GOD alone, in spirit and in truth, and to call on his Name, through Jesus Christ the only Media tour betwixt GOD and man. Our Lord sent his Apostles, and set them in the Church commanding them to teach and baptise all Nations. To ordain Pastors for edifying the body, whose power and calling it is to preach the Word purely, to administrat the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord as it was first delivered, to rule their flocks as they that watch for souls, and should stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, to administer discipline according to the word of GOD, and to do every thing commanded there, which may bring men near GOD, and help them forward in their journey to Heaven. That Magistrates should be obeyed in the Lord. Parents honoured, and husband and wife dwell together according to knowledge, as heirs of the grace of life. That Masters should remember they have a Master in Heaven, and Servants be subject to their Masters for the Lords sake. That the Lord to whom we own all, should be loved with the whole heart, and have the flower of our affection, and that we love our neighbour as ourselves. That we should rather suffer, than sin, and glorify GOD in every station wherein he placeth us. This is the sum of the positives which we maintain, & he who will deny, that all this is contained in Scripture, and consented to by the Fathers, hath no understanding either of Scripture or antiquity. The negatives of our Religion are points of Popery denied by us, and condemned in the Scripture, contrar to all antiquity. Such as these. That the Pope of Rome is supreme infallible Monarch of the Christian Church. That he, and these who follow him cannot err in matters of faith. That he hath pre-eminence above the scripture, and may dispense with the law of GOD, concerning incest, murder, perjury etc. That he may depose Kings. Their service in an unknown tongue, is contrary to all pure antiquitity, so much is confessed by Thomas Cajetan, and Lyranus writing on 1. Cor. 14. Their praying on beads a late invention, Polid, Virgil, lib. 5. invent. cap. 9 Their carrying of the Host by a pompous procession is praeter veterem morem, saith Cassander consult. art. 22. not according to antiquity: That Christ is bodily present there, and should be worshipped, and that bread and wine is no longer there after consecration, is not older than the Lateran Council. That the cup should be holden from the People, is of one age with the council of Constance. That the Mass i● a proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of dead and living, was unknown to Peter Lombard, who saith from Augustin lib. 4. disp. ●●. that which is offered, is called a sacrifice, because it is a commemoration and representation of the true sacrifice made on the altar of the Cross, Augustin lib. 20. cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichaean, the flesh and blood of Christ before his coming into the world, was promised by the similitude of the leg●l sacrifices; in the suffering of Christ 〈◊〉, his flesh and blood was in the verity, and antitype itself exhibited; after the as●●●tion of Christ, it is celebrated in the Sacrament of commemoration. That none should communicate except such as make articulate confession to a Priest, was not known in the ancient▪ Church, saith Maldon sum. qu. ●●. art. 11. Where there was only public confession. That Images should be set up in Churches and worshipped, was abominated till the second council of Nice. The like may be said of Purgatory, worshipping Saints and Angels, withholding the Bible from people, etc. So the Romish Religion is new, and ours the good old way, quod primum verum, saith Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marc. cap. 5. It is true that the enemy did sow tares quickly in the Church, and the mystery of iniquity did increase by degrees; Yet these were not holden to be the side, and made articles of the Christian Creed, under the pain of Anathema, till the council of Trent, then indeed in stead of reformation, which occasioned that convention, the Trent Doctors, o● at least the plurality of them gathered the crotchets of some Fathers, the disputable opinions of some Schoolmen, and making a bundle of all together, did obtrude them to be believed by all Christians, under the pain of excommunication. So that the church of Rome as new dogmatized, is no older than the council of Trent, and ours is as old as Scripture, sensed by the purest antiquity. For further clearing, beside all I have said formerly, you may hear this more, how Suarez telleth us, that the council of Florence did at first insinuat, that there were seven Sacraments, but it was no article of faith till the council of Trent, the like may be said of the rest. So Popery is a superstitious superstructure, like an ulcer on the body, which was long in growing, at last did break out, and slain the garments of many in a world. When our Lord Jesus died, he left a Testamen behind him, which being opened, directeth all his subjects how to carry. Papists not content with this rule for ordering his legacy, upon a pompous design have form a dative, which they make equal to his Testament, which we disclaim, and honestly adhere to the first Testament, here is the rule of our Negatives.  
It is ●●●rasonick brag, for you to say, That of an 100 Fathers ye have 99 for your tenets, and as untrue that the four first general Councils were for the Pope's universal supremacy. The Fathers though the mystery of iniquity was then in the cradle, being taken up with other controversies, did not purposely fall on these tares, which scarcely were come to the blade then. For instance, the Fathers in the first 300. years whose books are extant, were Iust. Mar. who did writ 150. year after Christ, an Apology for the vindication of Christians to the Senate of Rome, after another of the samekind to Antonius the Emperor, a Dialogue concerning the verity of Christian Religion, called Tryphon, and some other letters exhorting to moral duties, holding forth the Roligion of Christians against Jews and Gentiles, but that which is Popery, the source of controversies in the Christian Church was unknown to him. The next is Ironaeus, who lived about the year of Christ 178. He did write five books against the heresies of his time, as the Valentinians, Gnostics, Ophites, the heresy of Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides. So Popery is not to be found in them, unless some of these heresies be found in their skirts. The ●hird is Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the year of Christ 196. who was a Presbyter of Alexandria, the subject he handleth is in three parcels▪ an exhortation to the Gentiles to renounce their Idols, a Pedagogy to the Christians, instructing them about their carriage, and his Stromara which is a Miscellany work against the followers of Basilides, Gnostics, etc. Origen lived about the same time, whose writings are so imperfect and vitiated, that we scarce know what to make of them, as Erasmus witnesseth in his edition. Tertullian did writ about the same time several books, as concerning Patience, the Resurrection, against the Jews, against Martion, Hermogenes, Praxeas, the defence o● Christians against Idolatry, etc. The Martyr Cyprian who lived anno 258. writteth some eplstles, treatises and sermons about the cases of his time. Lactantius and Arnobius flourished in the beginning of the fourth Centurie, and did writ against the Gentiles, but the Popish trash was unknown to them. So it is not strange albeit the Negarives of our Religion were not handled directly by the Fathers, seeing then the Popish controversies were not started, however the Jesuits do w●est some say of these Fathers for their own ends, yet an attentive Reader will find that they make not for them, as Scultetus and Dr. Forbes, Dr. Usher, and Dr. Morton have sufficiently proved. In the following ages they had to do with Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, but Popery than was under the hatches, and the decrees of the Trent Council wholly unknown.  
Further, controversies betwixt us and Papists, can hardly be decided by the Fathers, for some of them made retractations, others held forth the opinion of others frequently, than what they propose sometime, is esteemed by them probable, not certain; and all of them Printed since the Trent council, have been castrated by the Popish Index expurgatorius. Therefore they cannot be thought the sittest Umpyres' in our present debates; neither are they made judges, either by the Popish party or ours: for they appeal to the Pope, we to the Scriptures, and do make use of them as Commentators, and historians only. Further, the Fathers desire us to look on them, only as such. I shall ci●e three testimonies proving this to the full, One is that of Augustin, in his opist. to Hierom, concerning the interpretation of the 2. chap. to the Galatians. When he is pressed with the testimony of old authors, Ego didici, hunc honorem deferre tantum Scripturarum libris qui Canon ni ci appellantur, ut nullum eorum authorum in scribendo aliquid errasse, firm●t●r creda●, nec arbitror, mi frater, te velle tuos libros sic l●gi, tanquam Prophetarum & Apostolorum. i e. I have learned to give that honour only to the books of Scripture, which are canonic▪ th●t their authors, have not errod. And a little thereafter. I do not think my brother that you would have your books, so read as the books of the Prophets and Apostles.  
The second testimony is in his third Epistle to Fortunatus, Nec quorumlibet disputationes, tanquam Scripturas Canonic●s, habere debemus, ut non liceat, salva honorisicentia quae iis debetur, aliquid in eorum scriptis impro●are, si forte aliter senserint, quam veritas habet, talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse lectores meorum. i e. We ought not to look on the writings of men, as the Scriptures of GOD, but may disprove that which is not truth in their books, if they have not set down the truth, such I am in the writings of others, such I desire to be the readers of my own.  
The third testimony is that of Hierom, lib. 2. contra Ruffinum, where speaking of Origen and other Fathers, he saith, fier● potest, ut simpliciter ●rrarint, vel alio sens● scrips●rint, vel à librariis imperitis eorum scripta paulatim corrupta sunt, vel antequam Arrius natus sit, minus caute loqu●ti sint. i e. It may be they have erred and spoken in another sense, or their books have been corrupted, or before Arrius they have not spoken so warily on the point. If then we hold Fathers in their own room according to their desire, no wrong is done to them.  
Fourthly, That none think we disside the Fathers or Councils, it will be found that pure antiquity savoureth us more than Popery. This you deny, and citys for you Beza his epist. ad Dudithium, whereby your studied endeavour to deceive people, may appear, for Beza there is only answering an objection brought in amongst others by Dudithius, for resolution, that he might be confirmed in the faith by him. Wherein Beza doth judiclously give resolution. Will it then follow that Dudithius was of this opinion? So deal you with Martyr and Chemnitius who assert no such thing. It is known both of them were good Antiquaries, and confirm our tenets by several testimonies of Ancients. It is like you have taken these citations from your Index, and not from the Authors. Neither Luther, Calvin, Whitgift, Fulke, or any reformed Divine hold from Fathers or Councils their due. Yea, we reverence them more than ye do.  
You bring the four Councils for the Pope's universal supremacy and infallibility. If this be not it which you intent to prove, your answer meereth no● mine. This is a negative of our Religion, was it heard of the first 300 years? You say not so. But in the next 300. years was the Pope's universal supremacy or infallibility heard of? This you allege, and by providence contradict yourself, it is known that in the Council of Nice no mention is made of an universal, far less infallible Pope. You cite the 29. Canon of the Nicaen Council, whereas there were but 22. of them in whole, saith Ruffinus, lib. 1. cap. 6. Their sixth Canon is far from that. If that had been in their Creed they needed no Council, the Pope in Cathedra would have done all. And in the council of Constantinople they establish the power of their own Patriarch. Why then say you that he was established there universal infallible Monarch of the whole Church? Will ye remember better your connexion's? Was he Peter's successor according to the council of Ephesus? Then no universal Monarch. He was a Presbyter, an Elder, not a Lord over GOD'S heritage, see 1. Peter, 5. 3. Thirdly, Expone this, and reconcile it with the Popedom, if you can? Was he Patriarch of old Rome? Then no universal head, these two seem to clash, and the council wordeth it better. But why do you not mention his infallibility in your Reply; It is the koy of Popery, and let you it thus slip out amongst your hands? Not one Father or primitive Council is cited for this. The Council of Chalcedon saith expressly, that the Pope of Rome hath no privilege from Christ above others; but only because it was the seat of the Roman Empire, Act: 15. you will not then have the four Councils for you, except you coin some new acts as the 29. of Nice. By which also it may appear how groundless, and vain your boasting is of having 90. Fathers of an 100 for this point. The opposition of the Ancients thereto is clearly demonstrated by learned Morton in his Grand Impostor.  
Here that you seem not to be silent, you bring forth impertinently these texts of Scripture formerly explained, Tell the Church, etc. To which I refer the Reader for satisfaction: there be no more privilege there concerning the Church of Rome, than the Church of SCOTLAND, and not so much as it is how constituted and adulterated. We do believe an universal Church, but it is far from our thoughts that Rome is it. We allow Ministerial helps for expounding Scripture, but do not renounce the judgement of discretion in Christians. And concerning interpretation of Scripture, infallibility of Pope or Council, and the privileges of the universal Church, enough is formerly mentioned. And these your so often repeated cavils are abundantly refuted, and what you say, you did in your Reply to my sixth Answer, is refuted by me in my Duply thereto For this is Crambe recocta.  
Lastly, You cite some Fathers of the first 3. ages against our negatives, and would hold is in hand that they mantained them as Articles of their Creed. But ye cite spurious Authors, as origen's, Threni, or Lament: Cyprian de Coena, St. Andrew, St. Dennis etc. some of which your own writters call in question, see Bellurmin de Script. Eccl. pag. 83. & de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 9 Iust●n Martyr 
† In his Apology to Antonius the Emperor.  is brought for transubstantiation, which is a manifest untruth: For the words of justin Martyr are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. e. That sanctified Food, wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion is nourished, i● that, which we are taught to be the Body and Blood of Christ. If it be food, wherewith out blood and flesh is nourished, then where i● your Transubstantiation? There it is bread in substance, and the Body of Christ in signification and Sacramental relation. If you please, by this you may be convinced of your error, ignorance, and boldness. It is as untrue that Cyprian said or meaned so, except in a Sacramental sense, for in his 63. epist. he saith, Invenimus Vinum fuisse quod Sangu●nem suum dixit. i e. We find that it was the win● which he called his blood, and in his 76. epist. he saith, quando dom●nus appellat panem, corpus suum, & vinum sanguinem, populum nostrum quem portabut indioat adunatum. i e. When our Lord calleth the bread his Body, and the wine his Blood, he signifieth that we being many are one lump of bread.  
As for the proof of the Mass from St. Andrew, I can find no such book, and amongst all the Ecclesiastic writters in the first 300. years there was no mention made of him. If he making for your behoof could be produced as an Author, it is strange how Bellarm●n hath forgotten to name him. So I cannot take this author off your hand. But this is sure, Eusebius lib. 8. Dem. Evang. in fine calleth the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the memorial of his Body, the Image of his Body. Then it is no sacrifice, nor corporally the Body. And seeing it is really, relatively, and symbolically such, we would not have it now abused by negligence, Origen saith no more hom. 13. on Exod. we say no less.  
For Purgatory, you cite Tertullian in the second Age, and Cyprian in the third, neither of which were for it: For Tertull. lib. de Patien. saith, Christum laedimus, cum evocatos quosdam, ab eo quasi miserand●s, non aequanimiter accipimus. As if they who are called hence, and be with Christ, were in a pitiful state, having obtained their desire, Phil. 1. 23. and Cyprian de immortalitate, saith, Ad refrigerium justi vocantur, ad supplicium injusti c●piuntur, veloc●u● tutel● sidentibus, persidis poena. i e. The just a●e called to refreshing res●, the wicked are taken to punishment: safety cometh very swiftly to Believers, and punishment to unbelievers. And Cyprian saith, lib. adversus Demetrianum, Aevi temporalis fine completo ad aeternae, vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia, diudimur. Et ibidem. Quando illin● excessum fuerit, nullus jam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis ●effectus, ad mortalitatem sub ipsa morte transitur. i e. When men depart out of this world, there is no place thereafter for repentance, no effect of satisfaction, at death men pass over to immortality. It is true, they grant Probatory afflictions, and the fiery trial here. Some of them also deny full fruition to the Elect, till the day of judgement: But for Purgatory till the sixth Age it was not known; then Gregory the first mantained it, Dial. lib. 4. cap. 39 Neither can that prison Matth. 5 be understood of Purgatory, as shall be afterwards proved. I shall close this point with justin Murtyr resp. ad Orthod quest. pag. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. After the departure of the Soul out of the Body, immediately there is a separation of the just from the unjust: for the souls of the righteous are brought to Paradise, and the souls of the wicked are taken to hell.  
Then you prove Prayer to the dead, from Clemens epist. 1. the Sancto Petro, and Tertul. de cor. mil. I shall not insist on that Apocryphal Epistle, but for Tertullian, he and others prayed for a joyful Resurrection to them. And hence are some Panegyrics concerning them, which were rather to profit themselves then the party deceased, as Augustin telleth us in Enchir: ad Laurentium, they were Consolationes vivorum. You offer also to make out by St. Dennis that they in primo primitiva Ecclesia, prayed to Saints and Angels. As for the first citation, to you who profess to believe the Scriptures of GOD, and do yet stumble weak ones with thorny questions concerning their authority; it will not be unexpedient for me who cannot find such a writer in the second Centurie, (for you cannot mean Dionysius the Areopagit who lived in the 1. Centurie, nor Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived in the 3. Centurie.) To inquire I say of you, whither was there such a Saint? And if that be made out whither did he writ any book at all? And if so, if this be the book which you call his▪ I will not take the Pope's word for it nor yours, seeing both Hierom and Bellarmin leave him out of their history. When these questions are answered, I shall prepare an answer for his testimony. But it is more strange that you cite Origen who writing against the Pagan Celsus, in this point of prayer to Saints and Angels, lib. 8. pag. 432. 433. saith expressly, to whom we give the first fruits to him we send our prayers to the great high Priest, Jesus the Son of GOD, who is entered into Heaven. This is like your testimony from Dudithius, if that be Origen you cite for origen's, Threni, or Liment: to be spurious, some judicious do aver, as Erasmus so Barronius, tom. 2. ad annum. 253. here is a retractation. Your own Salmeron telleth us to more purpose, the reason why in the primitive times there was no invocation of Saints and Angels, Quia occasio daretur gentibus, put andi sibi exhibitos multos Deos, pro multitudine divorum. disp. 8. i● 1. Tom. 2.  
As for the sign of the Cross, it is true Tertullian is for it in these places named, and it was in use amongst Christians when they had to do with Pagans, and some who are not of your communion make use of it as yet; others think that seeing the occasion of the first making use of it is removed, it not being commanded in Scripture, and much abused by you, that it is more expedient to leave it undone: But, your abuse of it is not approved by Tertullian, so his testimony maketh nothing for you who do so. And for Images, it is an impudency in you to say, that there were any Images set up in Churches the first 300. years, what ever draughts might be in dwelling houses, or cups. For proving your shamelesness in this assertion, hear your own Lorinus on 17. Acts on the 15. verse etc. where, wit Vasquez and Durand, he telleth, that all Images were forbidden under the Law, and citeth for it Ex. 20. 3. then he showeth that under the Gospel in the first Centuries there were no Images, for this he citeth Lactantius and Tertullian, Augustin, and Arnobius contra Gentes, who saith that Gentiles, exprobrabant Christianis quod nullam Dei formarent picturam, occultabant quod celebant i. e. The Gentiles did upbraid the Christians because they would not make any Image of GOD, they did hid what they worshipped. That Adrian fancying the Christians as Pagans suspected, did build his Temple without any Images. And in Constantius his time, the Christian Chapels were called Templa Adrian's. Then he bringeth the decree of the Council of Eliberis, where it was provided that there should be no Images in Churches. Ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur. i e. that which is worshipped and adored should not be painted on walls. This council was celebrated in the time of Constantine in the fourth Centurie, and this is the 36. Canon of it. And till the second Council of Nice, which was in the 800. year, Image worship was abommable in the Christian Church. How then can you assert so great and absurd an untruth: Read ancient History and acknowledge your error. As for , we do not deny it in some sense●, and in the Jesuited sense, none of these you cite did maintain it. Augustin against Julian, and Pelagius opposed that, so do we. This is well proved by Jansenius Yprensis in his defence of Augustins' doctrine against the Jesuits. Vincentius Lyrinensis adversus Haereses, lib. 1. cap. 34. proveth that Pelagius was the first inventor of your , which is Arbitrium servum. As for the merit of works, Just in Marty understood not by it meritum condigni, but the obtaining of the end of their faith and labours. So Augustin, saith the Apostle Paul, electionis vas meruit nominari, lib. de praed. & gratia, and Cyprian readeth that 1. Tim 1. 13. I obtained mercy, misericordium merui. You keep the words which some ancients used, and we the sense, so ye deceive the People. In your sense they absolutely renounced it. Origen in epist. ad Rom. lib. 4. suiths, Vix mihi suadeo, quod possi ullum opus esse a nobis, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei poscat. i e. I can hardly persuade myself that there can be any work, which of debt deserveth a reward from GOD. Bernard in Cant serm. 67. non est in quo gratia intret, ubi jam meritum occapavit. i e. Grace hath no place to enter where merit hath occupied the room. Your own Ferus on Matth. chap. 20. S. saith, GOD hath freely promised (he rendereth freely) if therefore thou wouldst keep the grace and favour of GOD, make no mention of thine own merits. For out of mercy he will give all, yet thou must not be the slower to good works, yea welshould be more fervent, for doing of them, as becometh us well, who have so bountiful a Lord. Which words the Spanish inquisitors would have expunged.  
Lastly, You prove the fulfiling of the law, even as the rest, by Tertallian and Origen, who say nothing but that through Christ, who strengtheneth us we can do all things. This is the word of GOD Phil. 4. 13. which we will not disclaim. But the man who can fulfil the Covenant of works, needeth not a Saviour. Is it like they would hold it in your sense, seeing they disclaim merit, and said with us, In many things we offend all, and when we have done all we are unprofitable servants. Where is perfection then? The saw may be so fare fulfilled as to make us acceptable to GOD through Christ, but not to justify us. Now let the Reader judge impartially, whither it was ignorance in me, to say, that the primitive Church knew not Popery, and that the negatives of our Religion could not be allowed by them, more than by us. What they say obiter, concerning any thing of that kind, is for us more than for Papists. Papists Quest: 8  
Question eight. How prove you the tenets of the Church of Rome to be contrar to Scripture?  
Answer, Your doctrine forbidding Laics, Protestants Answer. (as ye call them) to read and search the word of GOD, is against the command of Christ, john 5. 39 this is written Scripture, which ye contradict by your practice. etc.  
Reply, In your eight Answer, you are so Papists Reply. confused in your method, so weak in your citations, and even sometimes so contradicting to yourself, that it needeth no other censure. Yet I will reflect briefly on every thing. You object first our doctrine, forbidding Laics as we call them, say you, (as if there were no true distinction between Church men and Laics: i e. a Minister and a Cobbler in Ecclesiastical functions.) To read the Scripture is against the command of Chr●st. Where first you object, as if there were any article of the Cathoilck Church, forbidding them to read Scripture absolutely. She forbiddeth them to read Scripture without leave of their Pastors and Directours, which is easily granted to any judicious person, as all the Converts of this Country know, whereof the greatest part have seen your errors in Scripture, and detasted them. Your citation is weak, and can prove nothing till it be made out, whither the words be imperatively taken, or rather indicatively. Ye search the Scriptures, so Cyril interpreteth it lib. 3. in john chap. 4. To whom Beza assenteth, advertisirg that the word should be rather taken in the indicative mood. So that you see I must have some other infallible judge, to tell me in which of these two senses it should be taken, before I build any thing on this place. Thirdly, As Christ in the same chapter proveth himself to be the Son of GOD by four testimonies. First, Of John the Baptist. Secondly, Of his works and miracles. Thirdly, Of his Heavenly Father. Fourthly, Of Scripture. So do we prove by four like testimonies the Roman Church. First, By the authority of the Fathers. Secondly, By miracles in all ages. Thirdly, By the authority of GOD clearly saying in all ages, by her unity, sanctity, in fallibility, This is my Spouse. Fourthly, Of Scriptures, exhorting all to read and hear them, not superficially, turning and shuffling them over as the Jews do to this day, and yet obstinately deny what they so clearly testify, but to consider and reflect on the Catholic verities there delivered, as, that Christ was truly the Son of GOD.  
Answer, If my Answer be weak it is the more easily refuted. But how can a Scripture Protestants Answer. argument be weak, except it be misapplyed, which you do not allege here? I had almost forgotten the reason, which is this, that all Scripture is like Aesop's fables to you, unless it be sensed and animated by your Church. Hinc illae lachrymae. Then you say I am confused in the met odd. I begin with the Scripture, than I go to the worship, etc. Is there any thing jumbled here? I know no rule tendered by Methodists for sorting Scripture citations, if they be pertivently cited. And whither you speak truth in ●athering contradictions upon me, it will afterward appear when I consider your answers to these 20. texts of Scripture, and compare them with your former Replies; it putteth me in mind of our Sea fouls, which can flee only above water, and slutter on the land. So you mount up with humane traditions, but can scarcely slutter when you mention Scripture, it is not your Element, this appeareth by your first Reply, and the rest are no better. For once you deny that the people (I said you call them Laics, not that we deny a distinction betwixt Pastors and people as you would insinuat. But to note your vain appropriating the name of Clergy, or the Lord's heritage, to your Priests, as if the people of GOD were not a part thereof, contrary to 1. Pet. 5. 3. and as if you had a commanding power over them. For the arrogancy of your Roman Clergy, Jerome called them Senatum Pharisae●um, the Senate of the Pharisees.) I say the people are forbidden to read the Scripture by you. And that some in SCOTLAND of your way are licenced to read them, if this were true, why is it a ground of inquisition abroad to have a Bible by them, and made a ground of persecution here in the time of reformation, if there be no countermand, why is it held a transgression?  
Secondly, The granting of a licence to some, implieth an inhibition, and ye are witty in licensing some few to read it here, and none in Italy or Spain. For there be no hazard to the Popedom here, which might be there, if they were not so muzzled. Next you say the w●rd john 5. 39 is not in the imperative but indicative mood, for that you cite Cyril and Beza. G●ving, no● granting that it is so, it maketh still against your practice: For they searched the Scriptures with his approbation, and our Lord referreth the people to them, as the rule of their direction for knowing him, which ye refuse to do, for ye must have another infallible judge to bear testimony of him.  
Thirdly, You desire people not to shuffle, but search the Scriptures. I am glad to hear you speak so; you yield the cause, we seek no more. Blessed be the Lord GOD of truth, Magna est vis veritatis, and blessed is the man who meditate in the Law of GOD day and night. For your application of the place it is selfish, and the similitude halteth on more legs than one.  
The second Scripture is that 1. Cor. 14. 
Protestants 2. Inst. § 2.  14. which forbiddeth your Latin service. If I pray in an unknown tongue, my understanding is unfruitful, etc. How shall one who occupieth the room of the unlearned say amen? verse 16.  
Reply, You reply that the word unknown Papists Reply. is not in the Original, but taken in by interpreters, neither is if great inconvenient, albeit men pray publicly in an unknown tongue, since preaching only is for edification, and information of the judgement, not prayer. I● there any scripture forbidding us to pray, except the understanding of the hearers be instructed? The high Priest amongst the Jews prayed in the sanctuary, and was separated from the people, therefore could not instruct their understanding, yet that was their form of public worship; And the Apostle in the same chapter, verse 5. To speak with tongues I forbidden not, I wish ye did all speak with tongues, and he desireth them to pray that they might interpret. And the Liturgies of the Church are interpreted to the people. This scripture maketh more against your Ministers, who with extemporary prayers, speak nonsense, which hath made one of your own Poets say, fools understand not us, nor wise men you.  
Answer, You have need to understand the Greek tongue better, that there be a difference Protestants Answer betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an unknown tongue, and when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it needed no other word for that comprehendeth barbarous language, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth the known tongue. Further, he desireth them to pray that they might interpret; Ergo, it was an unknown tongue. Varro lib. 6. de lingua latina, when he citeth Aristotle's book, entitled Absolet names, calleth them Glossae Aristotelis, any may see more of this in that learned Critic Mausacius 
† Mausacius in Harpoerationem. pa. 352.  If you will read the 7. verse, the equivalent of it is in the original, for he mentioneth, speaking in a tongue not understood, and is not that an unknown tongue? Then it is in a tongue to which the unlearned could not say Amen when one blessed o● gave thanks. Thus verse 16. and it is the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to refute that unedifying way at length by sundry arguments. Amongst which this is one, that the understanding was thereby rendered unfruitful. Therefore, the Apostle resolveth to pray with the spirit and the understanding also, verse 15. You absurdly contradict the Apostle by your practice, and add in terms, that it is no great inconvenient, albeit the understanding be unfruitful. He saith it is one. You deny it. Whither shall I believe the Apostle Paul or you: I am ashamed of your impudency herein. How dare you Palam & in ●s, contradict the Scripture? Your ragged reasons subjoined, Because prayer is not so much for the understanding, as Preaching and Catechising: Is there any scripture say you not to pray, except they instruct the understanding of hearers. I answer, the scripture is for it verse 15. I will pray with the spirit and the understanding also. And if this were not so, Parrots might pray, but we ought to speak because we believe. Your other reason against the Apostle is, That the high Priest amongst the Jews praying in the Sanctuary, was separated from the people, and did not instruct their understanding, yet that was the form of their public worship. Yea in the same chapter verse 5. The Apostle saith, and to speak with tongues he prohibiteth not. I answer, that the high Priest amongst the Jews, when he was with the people prayed in an known tongue, Num. 6. and when he was alone in the most holy place, where he entered but once a year, and that not without blood to typify Jesus Christ, he spoke also in the vulgar language of the Nation: And was not all their administrations in Hebrew their mother tongue? How then can you say that any of their worship was in an unknown tongue? As for that you add of the 13. verse, and verse, 16. it is so dark nonsense, ●hat to me now ye speak in an unknown tongue, and deserves no answer. He desireth them to speak with tongues, and interpret them to the unlearned for the use of edifying, that all might say Amen. What can be more clear against you?  
At last you come off this as formerly, and yield the cause, and say, that the liturgy of the Catholic Church is interpreted to every one, and the greatest part of the public prayers translated to the people and set down in their own prayer books. And this place of Scripture maketh not against us, but Ministers, who with their extemporary prayers speak non sense, which hath made one of your own Poets say, fools do not understand us, nor wise men you.  
I am glad to hear that this point which was deryed at the Council of Trent, is now granted, and if it be so, why jangled you so much formerly. But I find it is not so, for you are taught to equivocat. And what your greatest part meaneth, is unknown here, it is certain your Masses, Aves, etc. are yet muttered and worded in Latin, ye are ashamed to own it, not without re●son. For your reflection on our worship we are for reasonable service, and lively work, to a living GOD, not for none-sense, and would to the Lord your worship were as pure as ours is this day, many souls might be edified thereby.  
Thirdly, Invocation of Saints and Angels, is will worship, Col. 2. 23. How can we call 
Inst. 3.  on him in whom we do not believe, Rom. 10. 14. or lay stress of belief on a creature? Beside they know not what we say. Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledgeth us not, Isaiah 63. 16.  
To this your return, is, that I wrist the Papists Reply. scripture Col. 3. which speaks only of the duty of Masters and Servants, and not one word against the worship of Saints or Angels. And that place Rom. 10. 14. is concerning prayer to GOD only, not about prayer to Saints or Angels. Because we will supplicat men on earth in whom we do not believe. And the text Isaiah 63. 16. cited by you is meaned of the knowledge of approbation, as Hierom interpreteth the place. According to which it will rather follow, that t●ey did know what passed here below, and disowned a degenerated multitude.  
Answer, I confess if I had cited that place which you mention upon this subject, I had not only wrested but martyred Scripture. Protestants Duply. You may believe it never entered into my mind to do so. The place I cited was the 2. chapter of the Coll●ssians, verse 23. where worshipping of Angels is termed will worship. And what can you say to that? I would suspect that you purposely have omitted this scripture, yet this might as easily be refuted by you, as 1. Cor. 14. For he who said the one, said also the other. The 10. Rom. 14. you labour to interpret thus, that it is meaned of prayer to GOD, not of calling on men or Angels: because we will call on men on earth in whom we do not believe. The words are general, and the interrogative is equivalent to a negative. None can call on them in whom they do not believe. You say we call on men on earth. What do we pray to men? The calling here, is a part of religious worship, which cannot be given to the greatest Potentat in the World. Then you tell that the 63 of Isaiah, is meaned of a knowledge of approbation, like that, depart from me I know you not, id. est. I approve you not, so Hierom exp●undeth the ●ext, and according to this exposition, it w●ll rather follow that they did know w●●t passed ●ere below, and disowned a degenerated 〈◊〉, I unswere that exposition of Is. ●●. is contra●e to the str●●●o Interpreters. Yet to the connexion of the words. For it is a prayer put up to God, and the 〈…〉 to be this, Thou O Lord knowest how ●o help us, although Abraham knoweth no● what is become of us. So it is an opposition between divine knowledge, and that of Abraham; Doubtless thou art our father, etc. But supposing Hierom● interpretation to be true, it will not follow that they knew what was done on earth, but only this, that if Israel were on earth, they were so 〈◊〉 degenerated that he would not know ●is posterity. I'll close this with the testimony of your own Eckius in his Enchir. ch. 15. there is no warrant for invocation of S●ints ●r Angels from the scripture, and that the Apostie● either by word or writ left any thing behind them to be done etc. He might have said more, there be warrant for the contrar.  
Fourthly, Your worshipping of Images, is 
Inst. 4  an express breach of the second Command, which forbiddeth any sort of worship to any Image in Heaven or in Earth, Ex. 20. 4. And ye Papists being conscious of your guilt herein, have thievously stolen out the second Command, and divided the tenth into two branches, witness Beauties' Catechism, and your other writters.  
To this you answer, That the division of the Commands is not in scripture, so we cannot know the second or third. How then standing Papists Reply. by scripture your only determiner shall we judge of t●is? And if you come to authority or reason, I appeal to yourself whither it be Idolatry to worship Images? Seeing all Idolatry is against the first Command. It being the worship of a creature in the place of GOD. Therefore Bellarmin and others take what ye call the second Command, for a further explanation of the first, and so set down, but the substantial words, Thou shalt have no o●her Gods but me. Yet take not the rest out of the Bible, which is there set down at length. But Protestant's take away all the Commandments, saying, it is impossible to keep them. For there is no Command where there is no obligation of keeping, a●d Nemo ●enetur ad impossibile. Then reason makes for dividing the tenth Commandment in two. For as theft and adultery are forbidden by two Commands: so the inward desire of the heart after a man's wife and goods, should likewise in reason be rather forbidden by two Commandments, than Idolatry alone by two. But if making of Images, kneeling before them or worshipping them, not as Gods, but as things which keep us in mind of GOD, and his Saints, as the seventh general Council saith, as the holy books; Why did GOD make man to his own Image, and obliedge us to honour him as his Image? Why did he put two Cherubs on the A●k before which the Jews kneeled? Why commanded he the Jews to adore the same Ark as his footstool? Psalm 98. Why should every knee bow at the Name of Jesus? For the word being but a sign of the thing signified, is no better than an Image? And why is the place on which the Name of GOD was written, called the place of holy veneration? Exod. 39 29. Why do we honour the crown, ●ob royal sceptre, and signs of royal autho●itie? Why do we call our knight's worship? That is ● man deserving civil worship, as Saints and holy things do religious. Why do Protestants make their Fathers, Grandfather's, and Mist●ess-Images to keep their memory, rather than that of Christ and his Saints? Why in end hate they Christ's Image, rather than that of jupiter, or d●y false God, which they never challenge in any man's house? Or why leave ye whole the Devil's Image commonly painted at St. Michael's foot, when they broke the Image of the Archangel? Who loves the person loves the Image. Judge then whether Protestants love GOD or the Devil best, their hatred being only against the Image of GOD and Saints, not against these of false Gods and Devils.  
To this your Rhetorication, for it is no Reply, I answer first, That ye misreckon Protestants Answer. the Commandments, of purpose, that ye may make the second only an appendix of the first, and curtail it the more easily, because it giveth such check to your superstitions worship; but I will prove from scripture, reason, and antiquity, that the Commands should be distinguished, as I said, and t●e second is a command alone. First, It is clear from scripture, that there be ten commandments Deut 10. 14. Secondly, it is also clear, that the tenth command, Thou shalt not covet, cannot make up two; because the Apostle Rom. 7. v. 7. maketh it but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly, if ye will compare Exod. 20. 17. with Deut. 5. 21. this will also appear true, for in Exodus the house is put before the wise. But in Deut. it is said first, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and so these cannot be two precepts, otherwise the Pen-man might be challenged of disorder, for not keeping them distinct. Would he have thus jumbled, two different Commands, who can believe it? Fourthly, Ye mistake the meaning of the tenth Commandment, for it is not the inward desire of a man's wise by way of adultery, w●i●her deliberate or not which is there intended. That is forbidden in the seventh Command. Nor is it the desire of a man his house, or ox, by way of stealing: that is forbidden in the eight Command, but it is a covering of those by way of propriety, which is equivalent to that, Heb. 13. 5. Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with that which ye have. Now there being but one act in specie forbidden that last Command should not be parted in two. Fifthly, There be a waste difference betwixt the ultimate object of worship, and the manner of worship, which requireth two commands, and make up the first and second, one where of is, Thou shalt have no other Gods. The other, thou shalt worship the true and living GOD without Images, and this second Command is explained alone by the Penman in Deut. 4. 12. which is not usual in Scripture, upon a part of a Command. Sixthly, The ancient Fathers generally so distinguished them, your own Estius acknowledgeth on the 3. sent. didst 36. that Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 6. storm. distinguisheth them as we do, and calleth Thou shalt not covet, the tenth precept Athanasius de Synops. lib. 2. reckoneth them also after this manner, the second Non facies tibi simulacrum. The Author of the imperfect work on Matthew, commonly said to be Chrysost. hom 49. maketh this the second Command, Thou shalt not make any graven Image, Naziaz. in Carmin. Ambros. on the 6. chapter to the Eph. Philo. on the decalogue. so Josephus in the 3. bo●k of Antiq: are all for our division. So we have reason to divide the precepts thus.  
It is clear to any discerner ye take with the breach of the second Command: and Vasquez granteth no less, lib. 2. de adorat. disp. 4 cap. 4. It is true, sayeth he, our practice of worshipping Images, cannot be reconciled, with the second Command, nor with Deut. 4. 12. but Illa legis Mosaicae prohibitio, fuit juris positivi, & ceremonialis, quae tempore Evangelii, cessare, debet. Atque id quod alias jure naturali licitum est, ut imagines depingere, & illis ettam uti ad adorationem, in lege Evangelica, locum habere debet. i e. That prohibition of the Mosaical law, was of positive and ceremonial right, which ought to cease in the time of the Gospel: And that which otherwise were lawful, by natural right, as to paint Images, and also to make use of them for worship, hath place in the Gospel law also. So ye judge that Command, albeit one of the ten Moral precepts, which Moses calleth ten words, ceremonial, like the eating of Swins flesh. This is short work. Ye repeal the law because ye will not obey it. Now you say, It is not Idolatry & that it is set down in your Bible, albeit not in your Catechism. Where I observe a trick, ye permit not the people generally to read the Bible, it is a sealed book to them. But because they read the Catechisms, there must be castrat, lest that Command should make them detest your Idolatry. You say, It is not Idolatry, seeing ye worship not a false GOD. I return, that according to the number of your Cities are your Gods. By the vulgar practice, ye have a tutelary Saint for your horse, sheep, corn, , etc. Ye pray for Geese to Saint Feriol, for sore beasts to St. Agath●, for children to St. Giles, to St. Hubert for dogs, to St. Otilia for the headache, to St. Russia for madness, to St. Valentine for the falling-sickness: How then keep ye the first Command? Is not he God in whom I trust, and whom I do worship; as appeareth from Rom. 10. 14. Further, the worshipping of God by Images, is expressly forbidden in the second Command, as the worshipping of a false God, is in the first. And if Aaron's calf, Micah and Jeroboams Images, being worshipped, rendered the transgressors' Idolatrous, ye are also guilty. For they worshipped the true God, in an Idolatrous, false way. Yea, this was the sin of the Gentiles, when they knew God, thus they changed his Glory. Rom. 1. 21. 23. For this it is that john Monceius, in his book, entitled, Aaron Purgatus, dedicated to Pope Paul the 5. undertaketh to clear Aaron, Micah, and Jeroboam, from the guilt of Idolatry, because they did nothing but what Papists do. Melchior Canus lib. de traditionibus cap. 3. acknowledgeth that the worship of Images is condemned in scripture. And Cassander consult. 21. confesseth that the adoration of Images was condemned in the Council of Frankford, as, contrare to scripture. So these two heads of my answer that Image-worship is contrare to the second Command, and that precept stolen from the rest of your Catechism, is proved and granted. We shall now hear what more you will say, in the defence of your Idolatry, albeit it being far from the first question and answer, deserveth no answer. It is alleged we break all the Commandments, because we hold that no fallen man can perfectly fulfil them. To this I answered formerly, in my return upon the 7. question. But giving and not granting, that this were our error. Two blacks makes not a whit. None of us ever repealed any of the ten Commandments, or refused obedience to them: only we say, it is not perfect obedience, as was required under the Covenant of Works. And this is our regrat, but blessed be he who sent our Saviour to help us. As for the Cherubs and the Ark, I refer you to Esthius on Heb. 9 5. who will tell you that the Images of the Cherubims on the Ark, were placed not to be worshipped, but set there for signs of things to come. And the word Psalm 99 5. worship at his footstool, is not worship it, but before it: for it was a type of the Church in which we worship. And it is clear the people could not worship them, for they were in the Holy of Holies, wh●re the people did not enter, nor ever see them. And admit all were true which you allege, suppose there were a command for this, yet there is an express command against graven Images. And this rule is our reason of doing or not doing. This is Tertullia's answer to some in his days, who framed the same objection, lib. de Idololatria, by his general law he forbade any Image to be made: and by his special injunction, commanded the Cherubims to be set up. (Advert, he saith not, to be worshipped) stay thou till thou get the like warrant, and make no Image against the law for worship, unless he command thee as he did Moses. As for bowing at the Name of Jesus, we in this Church take not these words literally, for there be no knee● under the earth to bow; but he was ex●l●ed, th●t all should acknowledge hi● to be Lord and Christ. And they who take it otherwise, will not admit of your consequence; for if it be commanded, it is not an Image nor Will worship. For out pictures of friends, and persons whom we respect, they are like the hang about our walls. The ornaments of our houses are forbidden by no law ●s your Images are. And your bitter expression concerning our love to the Devil, is an unchristian sentence, and non-consequential, for i● amounteth to this only, we will not b●eak the second Command of the Lo●d o●t GOD, therefore we love the Devil, Hear O He●vens and give ear O Earth! Now Reader, if this dool be no● based the fault i● in me, not in the cause. For it is clear as the Sun that the worship of GOD is ●uch leavened by the Romish way. And albeit there were nothing else to say against them, serious Christians who study holiness, and tender their salvation and consolation, must sc●mner at their course. Yet for further satisfaction to the Reader, I shall handle here this point more fully, and digest it methodically.  
This controversy if it deserve to be called one (seeing it should rather be esteemed the denial of a principle in Christianity, than a controverred point amongst Christians,) is of great consequence. First, Because Idolatry, as saith Tertullian lib. de Idololatria, is exitium seculi, omne peccatum, the vuine of the generation infected, and a complex of sin: an Idolater is Homicida saith he, he killeth himself. It was that said Luther, as Melchior Adam●s testifieth in his life, which brought the Turk into Christendom. The Jews are reported in time of their captivity, to reflect with said sighs upon that as the chief ingredient in thei● cup. Albeit an Idol be nothing in the world, 1. Cor. 8. 4. nothing of that it pretendeth to be, nihil formaliter. Yet the Lord is a gracious GOD, and jealous, and that is a grievous sin which cannot go unpunished long, against which he hath in his word declared indignation, ● and served inhibition. Deut. 4. 12. Deut. 5. 8. Deut. 16. 22. 2. Chro. 33. 17. Ps. 97. 7. Ezek. 43. 8. Acts. 17. 22. 23. Rom. 1. 23. 1. ep. john. 5. 21. etc. Secondly, If the Romanists be such, we had reason to leave them. What agreement hath the Temple of GOD with Idols. 2. Cor. 6. 16. we had a fair call to leave her by a voice from Heaven, Rev. 18. 4. as the Christians had to sl●e from Jerusalem to Pella. Thirdly, If Idolatry be in the skirts of Rome, it must be high madness in any who live in the reformed Church, to hanker after and cleave to them. What will ye go to a Pest-house? Idolatry is a plague, learn to keep a distance, and take the wind of them. For if ye join again in affinity. Will not the Lord be angry? Ezra 9 14.  
In following forth this debate, a method for our better clearing is to be observed. First, What Idolatry is? And how it differeth from superstition and will worship. Secondly, Whether there be any difference betwixt an Image terminating religions worship, and an Idol, or if in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be promiscuously taken. Thirdly, What is the true state of the question, and whither the Papists be guilty of the breach of the first and second Command, according to the definition of Idolatry.  
Idolatry, is to be defined here by uncontroverted writters, for if Protestant Divines should only define the case, partiality might be alleged, as if we made a definition, to infer our own conclusion. Therefore to stop the mo●ths of adversaries in this, I shall define Idolatry from Scripture, antiquity, Popish writters, the testimony of a Jew and a Pagan, this is fair a●d square dealing, against which none can justly make any exception. Idolatry is religious worship, tendered to that which is not GOD. It is called religious worship, for it is not civil, relating to the fifth Command which is here handled. But that which is comprised in the first and second, consisting in adoration, trusting, prayer, vows, worship, swearing, dedication of Temples and days. When men give that to Images, Saints, Crosses, Relics, which is due to GOD, that is idolatry, by the mouth of the spirit speaking in Scripture, Ex. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them to serve them. Psam. 97. 7. Confounded be all they who serve graven Images, who boast themselves of Idols, worship him all ye Gods. Psalm 115. 8. They that made them are like them, so is every o●e that trusteth in them. Now then, service, bowing, trusting in, or to images is Idolatry, cursed and confounded by the word of GOD. Secordly, Ancients desine it thus, Idolatry is that Quae DEO fraudem sacit, honorem debitum, DEO denegans, & conferens aliis. So saith Tertullian lib. de idololatria, that is Idolatry, which p●●loineth honour from the Lord, and giveth it to others beside him, as adultery giveth conjugal benevolence to others, beside the husband or wife. Idolum saith Isiodorus in suis Origin: lib. 8. cap. 11. Est simulachrum, quod humana effigie factum & consecratum est. That is an Idol which is made like a man, and consecrated for worship. So the exhibition of Religious worship to that is Idolatry, according to him. Aug. epist. 119. ad Jan. saith, in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in sigmentis hominum DEI similitudo, quia nulla imago ejus coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse, nec pro illo aut cum illo. In the first Command (where he taketh in the second) to us every similitude of GOD is forbidden to be worshipped, because nothing should be worshipped with him, or for him, but He himself alone. Then according to him, worship given to any Image made with hands not being God is Idolatry. Then it will follow, first, that the Gentiles did not always worship a false GOD, as ye shall afterwards hear. And next, that the Images representing ●he true God, worshipped by them were Idols. So that worship must be Idolatry wherever it is. The Adultery of a Pagan and a Christian are one. So the Idolatry of the one and the other cannot be divers, whatever difference may be otherwise amongst them. Gerson sayeth, Varietas imaginum, plurim●s ad idololatriam pervertit. Thereby implying that statue worship, as practised by Romanists, was Idolatry. Josephus a Jew con. Appio. saith, it is abominable to place any Image in the temple of God, and declaimeth against Pilate for intending the like. It is known, how averse the Jews after the captivity were, from this way, whatever pollutions formerly they committed. Religious worship, rendered to Images, was detested by them, and reckoned Idolatrous. Varro a heathen, as he is cited by Aug. lib. 4. the civet: Dei, sayeth, that at Rome in the beginning, fuit purior Dei cultus, sine simulachris, centum septuaginta annis. Then by the twilight of Pagans, the worship is polluted, which is by Images. And in Pagan Rome, it was free of that 170. years. Afterwards they took in Images, and multiplied their Gods, so were they given up as the Apostle telleth, Rom. 1. 23. By all these it is evident that Idolatry is religious worship, given to that which is not GOD.  
Idolatry, Superstition, and Will-worship, may be thus distinguished. Superstition is according to the Etymolygie of the word, supra statutum, and may be in many cases where there be no worship at all. As when men are afraid of the signs in Heaven, Jer. 10. 1. 2. If they meet such a foot in the morning, if people be affrighted with dreams, vain divinations, as the falling of salt, etc. And be charmed from dependence by faith on the word of GOD. That is superstition, which ordinarily prophesieth according to their sentiments, all the fears they imagine. The Papists would willingly take with superstition, if we make Scripture the sole rule of faith and manners. In this they are not unlike some Witches, who will acknowledge, when pannelled, gross crims, such as adultery drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath breaking, that they may be thought the more ingenuous in denying Witchcraft. Bell. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 8. saith no less, Non est tam certum, an imagines DEI, & sanctae Trinitatis, sint faciendae in Ecclesia? It is not so certain, whither the Images of GOD, and the holy Trinity should be made in the Church? And he thinketh that worship given to these, to be founded only upon opinion. Therefore he must acknowledge it, at least to be superstition. Will worship is where there is no statute terminating it. As the worshipping of Angels Col. 2. and they go away from it, with this return, who hath required it at your hands? Thus all Idolatry is superstition, and Will-worship. For the Apostle Acts 17. calleth the Athenian worship such, and maketh use of a general smooth word, to dispose them the more, for hearing; or because, it may be there was no Image there, but an Altar to the unknown God. Yet all superstition, and will-worship, is not Idolatry, although all of them are damnable, Ezek. 43. 8. and religious worship should not be ex arbitrio humano sed imperio divino 
† Tertull. de Jejunio cap. 13. , in vain do they worship me, Matth. 15. 9 saith our Lord, who do so.  
There be no difference in scripture betwixt a consecrated Image and an Idol. If an image terminat worship, make it the brazen Serpent, it is an Idol. And that sculptile forbidden in the second Command, the Hebrew word signifying it, is Pesel, which is ordinarily rendered by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deut. 4. 16. and in the 4. of the Judges the word is twice rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a name given to paga idols Rom. 1 2 3 & the image of the beast Re. 13. 14 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the worship whereof no Christian can deny to be idolatry. Image in Latin is, quasi imitago, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is ordinarily tendered simulachrum, imago. Hypocrates Aph. 18. calleth the body of a man without the soul Idolum. The truth of this causeth Lorinus confess, that apud profanos auth●res. i e. Critics and Humanists, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeque late patent, & si latinitate utraque daretur eadem est significatio idoli & iconis. Sed apud Ecclesiasticos. i e. Popish writters it is not. So now let any reasonable man judge, whither biased Papists, or learned Critics, not involved in the controversy, can give the soundest sense of these words? And seeing the Hebrew signifying both is one, if it be safe to hazard. Salvation upon a distinction, merely nominal without a sure ground of Scripture or reason?  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scripture, and amongst Humanists are promiscuously taken, for the Hebrew word Gnabad, is indifferently taken, and signifieth service: w●ich is rendered by the 70. interpreters sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For instance Daniel 6. 20. the speech of the King Darius to Daniel, is thus tendered by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Daniel servant of the living GOD, is the Lord whom thou servest constantly, able to deliver thee from the Lions? In one verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken for one. And it is ordinar in the Old Testament to render the word Gnabad by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea more, in itself the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from dal, signifieth the most submiss service: so it is absurd to say it belongeth to Saints, and not to GOD, whom we should most humbly serve. And in the New Testament in more than 40. several places, as Pasor proveth fully, these words are synonyma, which I need not here transcribe, seeing the book is common 
† The Ap. Gal. 4. 8. condemns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as given to these which ● are not GOD, such are all saints Angels & Images. Ergo. . Now is it not great boldness in men to break the second Command, upon the pretended distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The state of the question betwixt us and Romanists is this, whither they by their worship break the first and second Command? and so are guilty of Idolatry, this they deny. And we prove by these following arguments.  
Arg. first, Who ever do give religious worship to that which is not GOD, are guilty of Idolatry, but the Papists do so. Ergo, The major is the definition, already confirmed. The minor is thus proved, they worship religiously Saints, Angels, Crosses, Relics, Images, bow down to them, build Temples, make Processions, light Tapers, which Hierom calleth insignia Idololatriae, therefore they give to these religious worship. Beside it is not civil worship, Ergo, it is religious, for there is no middle worship betwixt these two. Further the Council of Trent in the decree concerning Relics, appointeth worship to them, opis impetrandae causa. Is not this to trust in them for help? They give to Angels and Saints that which Peter refused from Cornelius, yet his pretended successor claimeth it thrice together; once at the door, the second in the middle of the room, and the third when they kiss his foot 
† See St. Amours journal. . They give that to Angels which the Angel inhibited john twice to do, Rev. 19 10. Rev. 22. 8. And say it was refused by the Angel out of modesty: whereas it is seriously forbidden with this reason, worship GOD, which is a sufficient rule, directing us to give religious worship to none but GOD. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy GOD and him only shalt thou serve. The distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serveth for no use here as is above proved. And when they say, that it is not as to GOD; let their Breviaries, 
† See Breviariam Abredonense● Printed at Edinburgh, 1508.  Rosaries, service books, testify the contrar, which giveth them religious adoration by prayer, praises, kissing, confidence. And will this satisfy a husband from an adulteress, that albeit she committed uncleanness with another, yet it was not with that conjugal affection due to her husband. Now how can such an evasion then, satisfy the conscience of a Papist, or sustain before the Lord Jesus who is the husband of his people? It is clear hence, that by so doing they break the first Command, and have other Gods beside him, whom they make Omniscient, Omnipresent, in whom they trust, from whom they seek aid and help.  
Arg. second, They who worship Images with religious worship, and break the second Command, are guilty of Idolatry, because they worship the work of men's hands. But the Romanists do this, Ergo, etc. In answering this they do not agree amongst themselves, some of them deny the Major, as Vasquez, lib. 2. the ador. disp. 4. cap. 4. for he confidently averreth that Illa Mosaicae legis prohibitio, meaning the second Command, fuit juris positivi & ceremonialis, quae tempore Evangelii cessare debet, he calleth it a ceremonial precept, which bindeth not us under the Gospel. This is short work, he repealeth the Law, because he will not obey it. But why may not the first Command be declared ceremonial, upon the same ground, especially by Papists, who make the second a part of the first. And if so, Paganism may be brought in by Romanists into their consistory, which many fear to be rankly rooted there. He who said, Thou shalt not bow down to a graven Image, said also with the same authority, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, Et è contra. This man hath few followers. Therefore some deny the minor, as Durand, lib, 3. dist. 9 quest. 2. who asserreth that they do not worship Images, but that which is represented by the Image. So it is relative worship, and the Image is a representative only, and memorial of the right object. Now this answore is naught, for if that be, why do they nor likewise worship all the creatures, seeing they declare the glory of God, and may be memorial? Secondly, the Council of Trent condemneth this gloss, which in its decree de imagini●us, sayeth, that debita veneratio iis imper●ienda est, i. e. due worship is to be attributed to them, viz, to Images. They according to their manner, do not declare what manner of worship should be imparted. But it is sure they mean not civil worship, therefore it must be religious. Thirdly, it is tendered to the Image itself, in prima instantia, therefore the Image terminateth the worship, and is more than a memorial. Thirdly, the vulgar cannot distinguish betwixt Versu● and Coram, Relative, and absolute worship: therefore to them it must be a snare. How dangerous i● it to cast and knit a snare for people, and stumble the weak.  
Some distinguish the Minor, as Thomas Bonaventure etc. and say, that the same worship should be given to the Image, which is given to that represented by it, whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet say they it is not Idolatry, because they worship not the timber or mettle, but the Image, in regard of its form or signification. And they worship not the Image of a false God, which they allege to be forbidden only in the second Command. So Aquinas part. 3. q. 25. Bonavent. lib. 3. dist. But if this answer hold good, than the Pagans were not Idolaters; For they denied that they did worship a stock or a stone. Aug. on Ps. 114. bringeth in the Pagan answering thus, Non simulachruin colo, sed ejus rei signum quam colere debet. And again, Non stipites colimus, sed quae illis regendis praesident numina. We worship no stocks, but the Numen which presideth over the Image. And upon the 97 Ps. Non illud colo quod video, i. e. the timber or stone, sed servio ei quem non video. I serve him whom I see not. Secondly, They who worshipped the brazen Serpent, did not worship the piece of brass, but the form of it. And they thought not that it had innate virtue, yet were guilty of Idolatry. Thirdly, It is clear from scripture, that some of the Heathen, especially at first, did worship by the Image the invisible GOD who made all things, Acts 17. 23. him whom ye ignorantly worship do I declare unto you. Yet were Idolaters. And Rom. 1. 23. They changed the glory of the incorruptible GOD, into an Image made like man. It was the incorrubtile GOD his Image, and withal Idolatry. But fourthly, If only the Image of false Gods worshipped, make Idolatry, than Israel was not guilty of Idolatry: But Israel was thus guilty, Ergo, etc. It is image-worship whither of the true or false Gods which is here forbidden. For it is certain that the Golden-call was intended by them to represent the true GOD. Exod. 32. 5. To morrow is a feast to the Lord, and 2. Chro. 33. 17. They sacrificed in high places, yet to the Lord their God only. The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel, Ps. 106. 20. And of Micahs Image. For be confidently sayeth, Now know I that the Lord will bless me, Judges 17. because I have a Levit to be my Priest. They used not Levits, for the worship of false Gods. Further, the speech of Stephen seemeth to prove it strongly, Acts 7. 40. 41. for speaking of Israel's worshipping the Calf, he saith, The Lord for this gave them up to worship the host of Heaven, Now when sin is punished by sin, that sin which is the judicial punishment, useth to be more gross than the antecedent sin, which is the procuring cause; but the worshipping the host of Heaven, is not so gross as the worship of an Ox: therefore they did worship GOD at first by the representation of a Calf, yet were Idolaters. This answer than cannot satisfy the conscience or reason of any man. And admit that the image of false Gods is forbidden in the second Command, how dare Papists without warrant, and contrar to the word, make the Image of the true GOD, which he hath expressly forbidden? Deut. 4. 12. Seeing Omnis cultus saith Tertullian, de Jejunio, should be ex imperio divin●, non ex arbitrio humano. Lastly, We are forbidden to worship the likeness of any thing in the Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath. Now the Lord GOD is in the Heaven above gloriously, therefore we should not make his Image, for to what can ye liken him? saith he. Isaiah 40. 18.  
Bellarmin de Imag. and Gregorius de Valentia, distinguish the Minor another way, and reject the two former answers as extreme. For first, they say that they worship Images properly, so they are against Durand a great Anti-Thomist, who maketh them only memorial. Secondly, They say, that they give them not worship equal to the Pattern, so they renounce Thomas and all his adherents, Valent. lib. 3. disp. 6. saith, it is not sicut DEO, that they worship the Image of the Trinity. Bellarmin saith further, that it is not Aeque certum an Imagines Trinitatis sint in Templis coll●candae, & reperendae. Yet say they, that veneration suitable to them is to be rendered. Which is he ambiguous phrase of the Council of Trent, like the Delphian oracle. If this answer hold good, than Thomas and all his Clients are guilty of Idolatry, for they give veneration to Images equal with the Pattern, all the Thomists say sicut DEO, so to the Image.  
Secondly, Cultus religiosus est accidens hominis, if we speak Physice, now gradual difference in these altereth not the kind of worship. Therefore, according to the rules of Logic, the worship is one with the worship of Thomists; or else they disclaim a maxim, by making the one Idolatry, the other not.  
Thirdly, We are forbidden to bow down to them, therefore the meanest degree of religious worship is forbidden in the second Command. And they who break the least Command, and teach men so, shall be least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 5. 19 Lastly, the seduced people know nothing of this difference. Yea Bellarmin thinketh it not fit, that in concione ●oram populo, it should be divulged; and he hath reason to say so, seeing they cannot conceive the groundless distinction betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for their Clergy men will not make it hold water.  
Fourthly, Some as Eckius in his Enchir: answers nothing but this to the argument, that it is the tradition of their Church, and Command of their Pope, which they judge themselves obliedged to obey. If this answer be relevant than they were not faulty, who with their traditions, made the word of GOD of none effect, Matth. 15. 6. And Papists are too like the Pharisees in this. Secondly, By that Logic, the Turk may mantain his worship of Mahomet, for his Church and Mufti authorise it. Thirdly, The Pope in his Conclave may bring in the Alcoran the next day, for that may have authority from them contrar to the word of GOD.  
Arg. third, If Image-worship be condemned by all pure antiquity, than this worship is not only a breach of the second Command, but contrar to the custom of all the Churches of Christ. Upon which argument the Apostle layeth stress, 1. Cor. 11. 16. But the first is true, Ergo, etc. The Minor is proved thus. Many of the Ancients, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, etc. Were against the art of stat●e making, Epiph. in his ep. to John 23. of Jerusalem, abominateth the putting them up in Churches; and saith, it is contrar to scripture that any Image should be in the Church of Christ Now if they were against the making of them, against the hanging of them in Churches, much more against teligious veneration given to them. Secondly, the council called Eliber: which is as old, if not older than the Council of Nice, made a decree, that no Image should be in the Church, ne forte quod in parietibus pingatur, colatur, lest that which is painted be worshipped, and till the second Council of Nice, which was in the 8. Centurie, no such thing as image-worship was approved in the Christian Church. Thirdly, It is an ordinar objection made by Celsus, and all Pagans against Christians as I said before from Lorinus. Ye have Nulla Templa, nulla simulachra, nullas arras, quod colitis celatis. To this objection Origen and Arnobius answer, yielding the matter of fact, and vindicating their way, which they could not have done, if Images had been in use amongst them. Further when Adrian did build a Temple for himself, the Pagans suspected that it was for the Christians, because it was sine simulachris, without Images, whence it is clear, that the Image worship cometh nearer Paganism, then Primitive antiquity. See D●laeus de Imagine.  
Arg. fourth, That which notwithstanding of all distinctions, draweth and driveth people to Idolatry, is abominable, but by the concession and confession of some learned Papists, the Romish worship doth involve people into Idolatry, therefore it is abominable. The Major is proved by reason, that when the people made an Idol of the brazen Serpent, the statue was brocken, and called Nehushtan, although at first it was appointed by GOD. The Minor is thus proved by the testimonies of learned Romanists, as Polyd, Virgil. de invent. lib. 6. cap. 13. Many are now, saith he, become so mad, that they worship the Images of wood and stone, as if the● had sense in 〈◊〉, and put more confidence in them then the● do in Jesus Christ, or other Saints to whom they are dedicated. Cassander consult. de imag. saith, It is too manifest that the worship of Images hath so prevailed, that Christians seem to be nothing inferior to Pagans in adoration of their Idols, they make them with as much vanity, and adore them with as much devotion. From Scripture, reason, antiquity, the confession and concession of adversary's, it is sure and clear that Papists commit gross Idolatry, from which all good Christians should flee and make their escape.  
Fifthly, Ye mulitat the Sacrament of the 
§ 5. Inst.  Supper, contrar to the institution of Jesus Christ, Matth. 26. 27. by withholding the Cup from the people: yea contrar to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul which be received from the Lord, 1. Cor. 11. 25. where all the Communicants for the most were common Professors. And alb●i● our Lord command this to be done, till he come again without any substantial alteration, yet acrilegiously, hoc non obstante, as saith your Council of Constance, ye withhold the C●p ●rom the people, and give them only the Bread.  
The answer given to this is as followeth, that Papists Reply. Protestants in denying real Presence, against the express words of Scripture, This is my Body, this is my Blood, which is shed for you, not only mutilat the Sacrament, but take it clear away. You give sufficient occasion to other Heretics, to say that Christ was not otherwise in the Crib, or the Cross, than ye say that he is in the Sacrament, Scripture not being more clear for the one than the other. So that denying the real presence, ye destroy and ruin in a manner the incarnation, and very ground of Christianity. But Catholics, neither take it away from any, nor give it mutilat. Seeing they profess to give Christ's glorious and living Body, which is not separate from the Blood, and who so receiveth the one receiveth the other. It was instituted not only for a Sacrament, but for a sacrifice, and so I grant that both kinds is requisite on the Altar, but it should nor be given to every one, otherwise the very Disciples of the Apostles, had not known how it should be given. For St. Dennis lib. de Ecclesia, he asserteth the communion of Saints under one kind, and St. Cyprian de Lapsis, affirmeth the same of the sick. Yea, when Christians in the Primitive Church in the time of persecution, did carry it home, they did eat it, but under one kind, as Tertullain telleth lib. ad Uxorem. More, Christ himself did give it under one kind, Luke 24. verse 30. as learned Fathers expound. And the Apostles, Acts 2. 42. and Acts 20. 7. who then can challenge a necessity of taking both kinds? What St. Paul did then was lawful? But what Christ and his Apostles did was no less, which showeth that the Church way follow, either of these examples, for good reasons, as she thinketh ●i●.  
Answer, Your mutilation of the Sacrament is so clear, that I admire how you can deny Protestants Duply. it, did not the Council of Constance establish it, hoc non obstante, i. e. notwithstanding the institution, etc. Your citations for proof are mismarshalled. For first you cite St. Dennis, Cyprian, Tertullian, and then Scripture, which showeth your respects for the word. But I cannot follow your Method in this. Therefore know, that the place Luke 24. v. 30. maketh nothing for you. You say Fathers interpret it so, but tell us not who they are, so their interpretation is no more but your word; but to show that there be no mention, in that place of the Sacrament. First. There was no cup at all there, at lest none is mentioned. How then can you make it a Sacrament, seeing you say to us that both kinds are  to a sacrifice, and the Sacrament of the Supper is such say you. Reconcile yourself with yourself if you can? Here there was no Sacrifice, Ergo, no Sacrament. Secondly, It is sure this was an ordinary meal, honoured with Christ his presence. And for proof of this read Jansenius, on these words. There be some saith he, who would take an argument from this place, that it is lawful under one kind to give or receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which opinion is neither certain, nor hath it any liklyhood of truth. We are commanded to eat and drink at that table, how we shall make eating, eating and drinking too (saith he) can hardly be perceived.  
That breaking of bread, Acts. 2. 46. is interpreted, to be eating their meat at home, with gladness and singleness of heart. Oecumenius, Lyra, Cajetan, Carthusian, say, it is only meaned, de communi victu, non de Eucharistia. So saith Lorinus also on the text. Existimo, hic de Eucharistia non esse sermonem, sed de victu quotidiano, vel convivio, quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant.  
So that place Acts 20. Lyra, Carthusianus, Cajetanus, make it corporal refection only, for they say, the Disciples did conveen to eat with Paul, before he went away, and this is proved from the 11. v. But grant that place, Acts 20. to be meaned of the Sacrament, which is probably mantained by others, it will no more follow, that the Apostle did mutilat it there, then that he preached without Prayer, seeing the one is no more mentioned than the other. Lorinus saith, he could not make use of this text, for Communion sub una specie, against an adversary.  
Your citation from St. Dennis maketh little for you. For supposing his testimony to be ●eal, the administration of it to Infants was contrary to the institution, as well as under one kind. We know Infants can drink before they can eat, if any such thing was, it is liker an administration to Infants, then to discerning Christians; It is true that they used to carry home the bread, as you imply from Tertullian and Cyprian, but did always take the cup in praesentia. But to put this out of doubt, see Cassander Consult. 22. Communion under one kind was not in the Church, saith he, till Aquinas his time, anno. 1265. And is it not against your light and reason then, to argue so against the institution of Jesus Christ? Our judgement about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, will be heard a none, but it will be no ground for you to mutilat divine ordinances, and clip treacherously the King of Saints his coin.  
Sixthly, Ye add to the Sarament of Baptism, 
§ 6. Inst.  Matthew 3. 11.  
Here your Reply is, that there is no command Papists Reply. of Christ against it, and if it be against Christ's command, because he hath not commanded it, than it will follow, that to call Baptism a Sacrament, is against Christ's command, for neither hath he commanded this, but by his Church, which also commanded that.  
Answer, Here we have consitentem reum, that 〈◊〉 Christ hath not commanded salt, Protestants Answer. 〈◊〉, etc. to be added in the administration of the Sacrament. If it were a circums●●●ce of the action, the true Gospel Church 〈◊〉 command the●e: But it is a material point of the work, and by parity of reason, ye may ●●de ●●lt, sp●●tle, oil, horny or milk, ●o the Sacrament of the Supper. Neither is it reason to ●rgue from t●e name to the thing. W● call it Baptism with the Scripture. And seeing his implieth washing with water, ●● is gr●●● superstition to do this without a warrant, which hath ●o relation to washing. 〈◊〉 would have m● resemblance with that then salt. The name Sacrament is acknowledge I not to be a Scripture word; But what Logic is th●●? The seals of the Covenant are named Sacraments by the Church, Ergo, we may add materials to the work without a warrant. The practice of the Baptist objected by me seemeth unanswerable, for you fail by it as by a rock, which is not candid dealing. Yet it is your ordinar manner to pass with silence material arguments.  
Seventhly, Ye add to the Bible humane 
§ 7. Inst.  traditions, which ye equalise, and in a sort prefer to it. This is point blank contrar to the Word, Deut. 4. 2. Rev. 22. 18. If any man add to these things, GOD shall add to him the plagues written in this book, so ye have ●o fear a plague in due time.  
Reply, These are open calumnies, made Papists Reply. to deceive the people in Pulpits, as I have showed, reflecting on your sixth answer. And prove again summarily by this Syllogism, what is expressly contained in Scripture, is not contrar to it: But this is expressly commanded, 2. Thess. 2. 1. Hold fast the traditions which ye have received. Neither are your citations of Deut. or Rev. to any purpose. For when it is said there, If any man shall add to these things, GOD shall add to him the plagues written in the book. Of necessity it must be understood of these books only, adding any thing as a part of them, otherwise it will exclude all other Scripture, as well as tradition. But it may be you think the Revelation the last written book of Scripture, and that St. John there did speak of all the Bible. But this is a conceit out of ignorance, seeing Chemnitius your great Gun, says, his Gospel was written after the Revelation. And some say so of his Epistles, in the very last of which and last verse, he says, I have many things to writ unto you, but not with pen and ink, but I trust to come unto you and speak face to face. But ye would not have believed him speaking face to face, who will believe nothing but that which is written.  
Answer, You again defend traditions, by your old argument, A genere ad speciem affirmative, Protestants Duply. which is none concludent, as I have proved fully already upon the sixth question, to which I refer the Reader. And your answer to the 4. Deut. and Rev. 22. confuteth yourself. For you grant that it is not lawful to add any thing as a part of these books. Then say I, it is as unlawful to add traditions as a part of the Bible, and make an entire object of faith with both, which is your doctrine. If the Pirrat was faulty for taking a ship, Alexander was more faulty by taking of Nations. We will put nothing to the Scripture that way. For than we might make a new Bible, and nothing into our Creed, but what was written by the Pens of it. You make me ignorant of the time when the Revelation was written, and goes about to father that on me, which came not into my mind. How far and wherein we hold traditions, Vide supra, on Quest sixth, I have no delight to make repetitions.  
Eightly, Ye misregard the Lordsday, and 
§ 8. Inst.  celebrate days of your own devysing, contrar to and without any warrant from the Word, see Gal. 4. 10.  
You reply that these are calumnies, for we Papists Reply. are taught to keep the Lordsday most religiously, and with it the holy days of Christs-Birth, Circumsion, adoration by the Kings, presentation in the Temple, the feasts of the Mother of GOD, of the twelve Apostles, of some Martyrs, and other Saints, upon the same ground of Apostolic tradition, and ordinance of the Church, which the Scripture commandeth us to hear & hold fast, & so what we do in this, is neither contrar to Scripture, nor without warrant from the written Word. And your citation may be as well applied against your observation of days of humiliation and . For that place forbiddeth only Heathenish or Jewish days, or dismal days, superstitiously keeped on frivolous remarkes. See Hierom on the place, Aug. count. Argenant. cap. 16. and in his epist. 118. cap. 7. and hear the same Aug. speaking of all our holy days in express terms, which Protestants taking away, what St. Aug. saith may creep in, both ungrateful forgetting of Christ's mysteries, and unkind oblivion of his Saints.  
You call this Argument a Calumny; but it in too well known how small regard is had Protestants Duply. to the Lords day throughout the Pope's Dominions. And how fare other days of humane institution, are by you preferred to them. And for Aug. whom you cite, as the main patron of them, he was so far from approving the trash of his time, brought in by the devices of men, in the worship of God, that in his 119. ep. he sayeth, If they continue, they will become Heathenish and Judaize in many things. So according to Hieroms exposition on the text, Gal. 4. 10. concerneth you, for some of your stust is Judaical some Paganish. Polyd. Virgil de invent. lib. 4. in proaemio, sayeth, That a very world of Jewish and Heathenish ceremonies, pestereth the Lord's field. Agrippa de Vanit. cap. 6. sayeth, That Christians now, are more oppressed with ceremonies, than the Jews were. The Jewish holy days were but few in respect of the Romish, for they had but their Passover, Pentecost, feast of Tabernacles, of Trumpets, Reconciliation, New-Moons, Purim, and Dedication, the most of which were of divine institution. These have holy days for every Saint, All saints, all souls, for the Cross, Corpus Christi, two daye● every week, Lent fast, etc. without any warrant from scripture, or pure antiquity. For Aug. sayeth, ep. 86. against Urbicus, we are indeed commanded to fast, but I find not the days prescribed in the Evangelicall or Apostolical writings. The same saith Socrates, that it was left by the Apostles to every man's free choice, lib. 5. cap. 22. and Erasmus on the 11. of Matth. complaineth, that in Hieroms time there were few holy days beside the Lord's day, but now they were unreasonable and burdensome, because of their multitude. Thus you see neither Hierom, nor Aug. savour your holy days, unless it be in your Utopian tractate contra Argentinant: for there is non-such among his works. You might easily perceive that Gal. 4. 10. doth not militate as much against our days of humiliation or thanksgiving, as your holy days, if you wo●ld consider. First, We have more regard to he Lordsday, nor any of these, this we desiderar mainly in you, for as ye prefer humane traditions to the Scripture, so do you these your days, to the Sabbath of the Lord. Secondly, Our days of humiliation and thanksgiving, are not nimious for number, nor one rous to the people: but yours are such, that many of your own complaine on them, as Polydore Wirgil. in proaemio, and o●hers. And if Aug. complained so of these in his own time, what would he say ●ow, if he were living? Will ye hear what he saith, Epist. 119. Omnia talia quae sanctarum Scripturarum autho●itatibus continentur, nec in Conciliis Episcoporum statuta inveniuntur, nec consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roborata sunt, ita ut vix, aut omnino nunquam, inven●ri possunt causae, quas in eyes instituendis, homines secuti sunt; sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo. Then he saith, all such things which stumble the weak, and are detrimental not founded on Scripture, are to be cut off. And again, albeit it cannot be found out, Quomodo contra fidem sint. Yet, ipsam Religionem premunt seruilibus oneribus, ita ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum, because, non humanis praesumptionibus ita subjiciuntur. Is he not clearly then against your way? Thirdly, In observing the Sabbath, we regard at that time the work for the day, but in the days of fast and thanksgiving, we regard the day occasionally for the work. Fourthly, We have in observing these, no cognation with Jewish or Pagane times, whereof ye may be impeached, and cannot plead not guilty.  
Ninthly, Ye condemn marriage as carnal 
§ 9 Inst.  to some, contrare to the Apostle Heb. 13. 4. and make it a Sacrament to others. So ye confound yourself, making it both Sacramental, and Sacrilegious to the elect of God; whereas Enoch walked with God, and begat sons and daughters Gen. 5. 22.  
You reply to this, that we Ministers are addicted Papists Reply. to marriage, and therefore should not offend that it is called a Sacrament. Thou that it is so called Eph. 5. and by the Greek Fathers who understood their own language. And that ye condemn it not as sacrilegious in any but such as take on the vows of chastity, poverty, etc. And that it is malice in Ministers to call Virtues, Vices.  
Here you contradict yourself, for in answer to the sixth Question, you denied that Protestants Duply. 1 the word Sacrament was at all in scripture, which is true, and yet now you allege, that it is to be found in the 5. Eph. and marriage is so called. Beside your contradiction, you speak ignorantly, by telling th●t the Greek Fathers, who understood their own language, called marriage a sacrament; whereas the word is Latin, and not Greek. If that place of scripture be read by any, it will so●n appear, that marriage betwixt man and woman is no● called a mystery, but that which is between Christ and his Church verse 32. For the marriage of Ministers, I se● not why it should be blamed, seeing it is holy in all. Heb. 13. 4. Nor how any should take on the vow of chastity, who have not the gift from God. The Apostle sayeth, it is good in time of persecution, for the present distress for a man not to be married. 1. Cor. 7. It is Bonum utile, but it is better to marry then to burn. A chaste life, is commendable in any Christian, and a Caelchs' state, may free him of many cares and snares: but to tie all Clergy men to it, whither they have the gift from GOD or not, is a sin. And your encroarchment on the divine ordinance, and appointment of GOD, hath filled your Church with whordoms and adulteries, your Cloisters and Nunneries with abominable uncleanness, and murders of children. It is too well known how the vow of chastity is kept by your Churchmen: And if any doubt of it, let them read the late relation of the Ambassador of Venice, concerning the present state of the Church at Rome, and he will tell you, that some of the most eminent Cardinals there, will frequently be under Lues Venere●. Is it not better to marry then to sin thus? I appeal to your own conscience.  
Tenthly, Ye teach for doctrine, the Commandments of men, contrar to scripture, 
§ 10. Inst.  for it is reproved Matth. 15. 9 And do die your worship wholly with there coloured antic gestures, so that in your worship ye are more like to Monkeys, then reasonable men, ●nd g●ddi● stage-players, then solid Christian●, who worship God in spirit and in truth  
Reply, This ci●ation is often answered. It Papists Reply. is not known of what gestures you speak, as if ●uer you did see the gestures of worship of the Catholic Church. But one thing is sure, that it is a very childish calumny: Our gestures being so grave that they move men to dec●●●ion and do accompany GOD'S w●rship with decency, Majesty, better than your gaping like distracted men, your affected sighs and howl. You cite again two words of Scripture, that we should worship in spirit 〈◊〉 in truth, to condemn reverend and grave gestures of the body in time of worship, as if men were pure spirits.  
I answer, that albeit I have of seen your Protestants Duply. worship, yet I have heard the form of it from sundry discerning ●en, who had seen it, and told me how Apishand H●●●●onick it is. And it is strange how an● ca● deny it. Seeing the reacting of the Earthquake, of the ren●ing of the vale of the Temple, of the darkness about the time of the P●d●on, your cross, your kiss, your kiss, your whisper, washings, anointings, spi●●ings, breathe, fal●ings, etc. What are they but many idle observations? Yo●● incense on your Altars, your candles wherewith ye burn daylight; do they not savo●● of Judaisme and Paganism? And are far more like stage work then sincere worship. And i● these be not the commandments of men, why produce ye not Scripture for your warrant? We are not against reasonable service, both with the spirit and body, but think that bodily exercise alone, profiteth little, and the marrow of the work, is to worship GOD in Spirit.  
Eleventhly, Ye think it lawful to equivocat in some cases, to dispense with lawful 
§ 11. Inst.  Oaths. But Scripture says, It is a snare after vows to make enquiry, Pro. 20. 25. And that the man shall only inhabit the holy mountain, who speaketh the truth in his heart. Ps. 15. Thus ye Popelings are scarce for moral fellowship, seeing no words can tie you. Doleful experience proveth this: in that your Council of Constance murdered John Huss and Hierom of Prague, contrar to the solemn warrant for security of their lives. And then said by way of poor defence, that faith was not to be keeped to Heretics.  
To this it is replied thus, In your eleventh Section, you are not ashamed to set down in Papists Reply. writ, that we think it lawful to l●e, which no Catholic did ever writ or say. But ye Protestants brought in your Religion by lies, as if the whole Church before them had erred in matters of faith, and making poor ignorants believe, that Catholics do adore stocks or stones, give GOD'S worship to Saints or Angels, think to be saved by their own works, without the merits of Christ, that there be nothing required for remission of sins, but tell them to a Priest, that the Pope giveth pardon for by gone sins and sins to come, all which are open sies. So they continue it by lies and gross calumniesꝭ, which maketh the people though wearied of many alterations and innovations in their Religion, yet profess it outwardly, as if there were none better. As for equivocating, I grant it is a probable sentence, (although no article of our Creed,) that men may equivocat in some cases, but not in answer to any just interrogative before a lawful judge. And as for that you say in some cases, we dispense with lawful oaths, it is true, for there be many oaths with which we not only dispeace, but put a tie on men not to keep them, etc. But when oaths are lawfully made and continue lawful in all circumstances, both for GOD'S glory, and the greater spiritual good of the people, we dispense with none. As Vows of chastity, obedience to the superior, and Pastors of the Church. But I hope you will hardly persuade any, that Popelings as you call them, (not regarding Kings, and Queens of that profession, more than if they were bonnet-makers in Dundee,) are searce for moral fellowship, as if no word nor oaths could tie them. There being many old men, yet living who remember, some to have seen, and some to have heard that in the time, the Catholic Religion did flourish in this Kingdom men's words were better than their bands now. And that since the reformation, which is but a hundred and three years ago. There hath been more rebellion, falsehood, and perjury, then in 300. years before. Neither had John Huss nor Hierom of Prague, been in any danger in the Council of Constance, if they had keep: the conditions, upon which security was promised to them. And so faith is only not to be keeped to Heretics, when they keep not the conditions upon which it is promised: which is common to them with all others, and the Council of Trent hath declared Sess. 15, that to vi●lat the least part of public faith given to Heretics, is a thing punishable both by the law of GOD and man.  
There be here many words and little Protestants Duply. more. You grant that in some cases equivocation is taught as a probable durie; but deny that it is lawful to lie. Is not equivocation lying? Are they not both contrar to speaking the truth in the heart? A liar should have a good memory. Otherwise, I see he will soon contradict himself, as you do here. Well then, ye will pass with equivocations, unless it be before a Bench. This is your Topick. Will it not clearly follow, that ye are not for moral fellowship which is extra judicial? So, if, I be to bargain with a Popish person, a Court must be convened, and there he will possibly speak truth to a Judge, but otherwise he is taught to dissemble with me. That this is your doctrine, and lies also taught by you, see it fully proved by learned Mr. William Dowglas, in his late Treatise de Aequivocatione, which you cannot refute nor refuse. Your dispensing with oaths, you say is, when the oath is unlawful. But I entreat you tell me, if you judge the oath of alledgeance to a lawful King an unlawful oath? For it is clear ye dispense with such, as shall appea● afterwards. Or is the marriage betwixt single persons who are not within degrees of affinity, or consanguinity forbidden by GOD, lawful? It is a● true that ye lose such. And was it not a lawful oath that the Emperor gave to John Huss and Hierom of Praguo? Yet the Council of Constance dipensed with him, and broke to them, as their death did demonstrat. You say they failed in conditions, but do not set down particulars. This is an invention of your own, what condition did they fail in, can you tell it? Tutus accessus, & recessus, was promised to them not keeped, few of your writters adhere to this childish evasion, but tell us plainly that the Emperor had no power to do so, and therefore the Council wo●ld not stand to it. You may justify if you will also, by so●●e device of this forge, the murder of Count-Edgmount and Horn, contrar to the tenor of their safe conduct, under trust by Duke de Alva. The Council of Trent seeing the odium, this tenet brought on Popery, speak after their manner in general terms, for vindication in time to come. But this n●t I hope will catch few fowls, unless there be a particular renunciation of that damnable error which I desire hearty all of you to do. Was there not an act of the Council of Constance Sess. 19 saying that the safe conduct was salva justitia? The Germane Protestants refused to come to the Council of Trent, upon their assurance, because of the tenet at Constance not clearly renounced. You say, that our Doctrine is carried on with lies, we desi●e not to lie for GOD, nor mis-state any question betwixt you and us. Truth can stand upon one foot, when a lie will need many props, like an old house. If we should fraudulently deceive people, how could we expect a blessing, or assistance from the GOD of truth? It is my wish to the Lord that this may be our Motto, which was the Apostles, 2. Cor. 13. 8. But I remark in your large discourse one notable lie, you say there be old men in SCOTLAND who did live when Popery flourished, and can yet witness what moral honesty was amongst men then: such old men must now be six score years old ●t least, for you must allow them to be fourteen years, before they could discern the carriage of neighbours and Ancestors in commerce and bargaining, and it is 106. years and above, since the Reformation. If I knew where such old men lived, I should have some account from them: but you did not wisely tell us that they were here, seeing one of that age is not to be found with us, far less many. Although this be an untruth, yet I find you speaking some truth here, for you call without any ●●●●nution, that work a Reformation, and so indeed it wa●, although ye hate to be Reform.  
Twelfthly, Ye teach a practice that lawful 
§ 12. Inst.  Magistrates may be deposed by the Pope. Ye will canonize the kille● of such, contrar to the Apostle, Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and submit to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake. If your Pope had his will, there would be no Kings, at lest none reform: And Kings have not reason to be content, that there be a Pope, nor yet indulge tr●●fiqueing Papists, seeing it is certain that none holding their tenets, can be a loyal subject to a Protestant King, & scarcely to any other. Papist Reply.  
Reply, In your twelfth Sect: you make us teach, that lawful Magistrates may be deposed by the Pope, and that we canonize such. Where citing Rom. 13. and 1. Pet. 2. you sight with your own shadow, and make up tenets contrar to Scripture, which Catholic detest and abhor. But this is proper to Heresy, and particularly yours, to cause rebellin from lawful Princes and Magistrates, as it did every where, even in its first beginning witness the revolting of the Princes of Germany, against the Emperor. The bloody war of the subjects in France 20. years against their King. Holland against Spain to this day, the Suitzers amongst themselves. SCOTLAND first against Queen Mary, and then our late gracious King. Nevertheless, Ministers are so bold as to speak this, who can neither be subject to Kings, Magistrates, nor Bishops, if they oppose their whimsyes in the least. Every one of them taking greater power to himself, than Catholics gives to St. Peter.  
Duply, Any one may here perceive a Protestants Answer. studied shift, by way of recrimination. Because ye date not declare yourselves herein. And do you indeed detest the Doctrine of the whole Canonists, the whole Jesuits, that the Pope may depose a lawful King? If it be so, I am glad you renounce this point of Popery. But because you say, I fight with my own shadow herein, to show how ignorant and impudent you are in this denial. Let any read either the bull of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth the Emperor, or of Sixtus the 5 against Henry the third King of France, or of Pius the fifth against Elizabeth Queen of England; and there ye will find this tenor, Nos in supremo justitia throne collocati, supremam in omnes Reges & Principes Terrae universae, cunctosque populos, gentes, & Nationes, non humana sed divina institutione obtinentes nobis traditam potestatem, declaramus, praecipimus, jubem●s, etc. Viz. That none of their subjects should own o● acknowledge them. For your better information in this particular, know that the power of the Pope in this particular, is one way explained by the Canonists, and another way by the Jesuits. For the Canonists say, that the Pope hath jura omnia caelestis & terrestris imperii sibi à Deo concessa. The Jesuits that Pontifex ut Pontifex, non habet directe ullum temporalem potestat●m, sed solum spiritualem, tamen indirecte, ratione spiritualis, habet potestatem quandam, ea●●que summam, disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum. See more of this in Dr. Barclay, de potestate Papae in Principes Christianos. They hold it beyond doubt, that in ordine ad spiritualia, which is a broad charter, the Pope may depose any King, and lose their subjects from all allegiance to him, cum subest causa rationalis 
† Anno 1654. When it was Printed at Naples, by authority, that the Pope should not exercise jurisdiction civil in the territories of Spain, without the King's leave, this was condemned at Rome by Innocent the tenth. . Secondly, They hold that Bishops may omnem movers lap●dem, and that is a broad word, ne degant sub Haeretico Principe, Baron: anno 438. Sect. 89. Thirdly, When the knowledge of the fault is evident Subjects may lawfully, if they have sufficient strength exeem themselves from subjection to their Prince. Bani●s on Thomas quastion. 12. and that ante judicis sententiam declaratoriam.  
Lastly, Private persons may kill an Heretical King, after sentence is given against him Suarez defence. fidei Cathol. lib. 6. cap. 4. only their tenderness appeareth in this, that the King be not constrained wittingly or willingly, to be the cause of his own death, the sense is thi●, if you can poison him by his gloves, garment or saddle, you may do it. But by meat or drink you may not, for than he taketh his own poison. So John Mariana de Reg. instit. lib. 1. cap. 7. Is it not then true, that by principles of doctrine, no Papist adhering to the Pope can be a loyal subject to the King? As for our Reformations ye look on all such with an evil eye. But our doctrine in the reformed Church, concerning the Magistrate is such, that no Christians on earth give him more than we do. Witness out Confession of Faith, to which we will adhere while we live, what ever the scripture and pure antiquity giveth to Kings, that we willingly tender for conscience sake. All sound Protestants do abhor and detest the murder of our late Sovereign Lord the King, and we in this Nation did protest and declare against it, for which our Commissioners were committed close prisoners, and sent with a guard to the border. As for the Reformation abroad, I desire that famous Mr. Baxter his Key for Catholics, and dissuasive from Popery, may be read by you, who hath written so well on this point, that I hope all men satissiable may be satisfied with his reasons, which I need not here transcribe. See also the testimony of the Ministers at London against that horrid murder, to which testimony we do still adhere and then adbered. But Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione, etc. 
† See Bilson of Subjection, page 382.  Doth not your great Cardinal Allen, writ an Apology, for Stanles treason against Queen Elizabeth. Doth not Bellarmin show lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 8. in how many respects Kings may be deposed by their subjects? Did not Pope Sixtus the fifth, make an Oration at Rome, in commendation of the Friar who murdered, Henry the third King of France? Was not Tyrones' treason commenced, and commended by your Party, who then did take on the co●● of Arms, and sound the trumpet of rebellion. When the Pope's Bull roared in England against Queen Elizabeth, how many treasons were hatched and evil humours bred in the people?  
Thirteenthly, Ye say, we are justified partly by faith, partly by works, but the 
§ 13. Inst.  Scripture saith, that we are justified by faith without the works of the law, and that the man is justified to whom the Lord imputeth faith without works, Rom. 4. 6. and that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast. Neither can any good works be wrought by us, till we be justified and sanctified, how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit? Nor can we understand any good work which the law doth not require, seeing it was tendered under the Covenant of grace. Beside, our best worksare leavened with many imperfections and debt for the present, so these cannot absolve us for bygones, or the time to come: And whereas the Apostle James chapter 2. speaketh of Justification by works, his purpose there is only to declare what justifieth faith. Now justifying faith must be a lively working faith, and if it be dead it availeth not, and if he hint at personal justification, which verse 29. implieth, it is before men; and that before the Tribunal of GOD, there all must say, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight no flesh living ●●n be justified, Psalm 143. 2. And the Church must confess, that all her righteousness is ragged and as a menstruous cloth.  
Reply, In your thirteenth Section, you denying Papists Reply. that we are justified by faith and works, do both contradict scripture and yourself. It in the Epistle of St. James, chap. 2. verse 20. 24. You see then how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. No wonder after this ye contradict yourself, when you grant that faith is justifying, or made justified by works. For what is it to say that works justify faith? But that faith without works is not justifying. And so that faith justifyeth not all, or no other way then as it is decompanied with good works as two conjunct causes. For as the Philosopher saith, causa causae est causa causati. But what needeth any reasoning, if this place be not clear to a Minister, what it clear to ignorants in all the scripture? Wherefore ye had done better to reject the Epistle of James with Luther, then to acknowledge it for scripture & to deny that we are justified by faith and works, the two parts of Christian duty being belief and life. Yet to show that the place of St. James is not to be taken according to the letter, you cite three passag●● excluding works of the written law from justifying, but not excluding works of grace and the Gospel. The first whereof expoundeth the rest, and St. Augustin them all, de fide & operib. cap. 14. saying, St. Paul speaketh of the works of Abraham, in so much as they proceed from the law, excluding the spirit and grace of Christ. Then you say, neither can any good work be wrought by us, till we are justified, for how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit? To which Question, I answer with our Saviour in the Gospel, ask how a good tree can bring forth evil fruit: as David committing adultery. For if you understood the one, you may easily understand the other. Which if you do not go to the school and learn the distinction betwixt simpliciter and secundum quid, betwixt good and evil simply and in part. For as there be few so good, but they do some evil: so there be few so bad, but they do some good, being assisted by GOD'S actual grace, albeit they want sanctifying grace. Yea, very good actions may be done with some little imperfection; which maketh the Prophet compare our righteousness to a menstruous cloth.  
Duply, You are like to yourself all along in this reflection, for I cannot call it a return, Protestants Duply. seeing you have a flourish of fectless words, for catching women and children: but do not touch the arguments proposed, for justification by faith without the works of the law. My first argument was this. That the Apostle Paul saith, we are justified by faith without the works of law, therefore not by them. You say, he meaneth not of works of grace. What then? Of sinful works before Coversion? And is it indeed like, that sinful works can be called by the Apostle worke● of the law, seeing these are transgressions of the law? Or that the justiciaries amongst the Romans in the days of the Apostle, were so gross as to assert, that sinful works justify a man which condemn him. Secondly, you say, that justification by faith contradicteth scripture, James 2. 24. which place I explained and reconciled with the 4. of the Romans, and all you say to that is, that I contradict myself. I said works justify faith, for my faith is known by my works to myself and others. But that will nor say, that works and faith justify the man. So I clash not with myself here. And for your Maxim, causa causae est causa causati. If I understand this, you contradict yourself in the application of it; for faith being the cause of works and justifying the man, works are the effect of justification, not the cause of it. Hence the Apostle James saith, show me thy faith by thy works, O man! For it cannot be shown without works. v. 18. Albeit we say that faith alone justifieth, yet that Fides sola in approhendendo, non est solitaria.  
My next argument was, that a man must be justified before he can work well, therefore works are not the cause of justification. I hope you will not say, that the effect is antecedent to its cause, if you have read Ramus Logic. And that a man must be justified before he can work well, I prove thus. He must be sanctified, Ergo, etc. a corrupt tret cannot bring forth good fruit, Matth. 7. 18. Ere you have not something to say to this, you close with Pelagius for a defence, and speak nonsense. For you say, that you answer with our Saviour, by a distinction of that which is simply such, and secundum quid. In what part of the Gospel is this Logic to be found? For it is clear from the verse above cited, that our Saviour denyeth simply the thing, so he granteth it not secundum quid. Some good acts you say, may be done by evil men, being assisted by actual grace. I would know if actual grace can be in exercise, where habitual grace is not at all? then if men habitually evil, in an unconverted state, can do any thing well? That something materially good may be done by them, as well as sin may be committed by the regenerated, I doubt not: but that they can do aught upon a good principle, for a good end, by a good morive, I deny it simply. Now if they be not such they cannot justify a m●n. For nullum agens potest agere, extra Sphar●m suae activitatis. Till he be sanctified he cannot be be such, till he be justified he cannot be sanctified. Works justify no more the man, than the fruit maketh the tree good.  
My third Reason you leave untouched, which was this, that the present time requireth all our work, Ergo, it cannot justify us for bygones or the future, What is now debituns, cannot pay my bygone debt, nor free me for the time to come. And you grant all I have said in the fourth, that our best works are unperfect, and so cannot hold water before the Tribunal of GOD. I am glad to hear you grant so much, for then where will works of supererogation and merit appear.  
For further clearing of our Doctrine of Justification, take notice, the Papists and we thus differ. First, They say there is a two fold justification, one, whereby a m●n unjust is made just; for attaining this, there must be previous dispositions by the acts of faith, fear, hope, love, which fit the man for his justification, some of them term this, Meritum congrui, others say, t●at this is the free gift of GOD not deserved by works. The second Justification, is, that whereby ● man being just is made more just: this they say is merited by their works, and proceedeth à DEO & arbitrio simul, both from free will and GOD. So Molina. Here they confound justification and sanctification; And by this way we are not compleetly justified till we die, ere the work of sanctification be perfected fully, we must be Saints in light. Secondly, That free gift of grace, is parted betwixt GOD and freewill, if this Doctrine hold. For Bellarmin saith, we cooperat with GOD in justification itself, and the beginning of faith. So by it that emphatic place, Rom. 8. 34. cannot be interpreted aright, it is GOD who justifieth. If man had no part nor hand in the Creation, how can he have it in the first Conversion, seeing that is a new Creation? Thirdly, They make the formal cause of justification, inherent righteousness, which is ragged by their own confession, as appeareth from this reflecter. Then it is no fit covering for our nakedness, for itself needeth a covering. Can it satisfy divine justice, being so imperfect? Augustin telleth the contrar, on Psalm 42. Whosoever liveth here, albeit he live righteously, if that righteousness be strictly judged, woe to h●m. Fourthly, It is not safe nor comfortable for ourselves. That same Father telleth us again, de bono perseverantiae, cap. 6. ●e live more safely when we attribute all to God wholly, then when we commit ourselves partly to GOD, partly to ourselves. Now this inherent righteousness, as put on in the second justification, is the bir●h of merits and freewill say all Papists, then positively and mostly thy own. The merits of Christ are a far off cause, causa formalis immediata, is thy own righteousness; the consideration of this made Bellarmin confess, the justif. lib. 5. cap. 7. tutissimum est in sola DEI misericordia conquiescere: It is safest to repose on the mercy of GOD, not on thy own righteousness. A dying Christian serious about salvation, will indeed find it safest and surest. We again mantain that a converted man is under previous law work of conviction, contrition, humiliation, and the fallow ground of the heart is thus prepared, and broken up by the ploughing of the Word: but a man may come this length and go no further, the dispositions have not always a  connexion with that new birth. Nor is the seed of faith still sown in such as are under the spirit of bondage. He who pasteth of these powers may fall away. There be a relative difference between these acts in the Elect and others. Secondly, When faith the free gift of GOD, Phil. 1. 29. is sown into the hea●t and planted there, as it is native to the child to seek the breasts, so it leaveth and leadeth the man in its first motion, to the righteousness of Jesus a Mediator, who is The Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23. 6. and he maketh mention of his righteousness, even of his only. The Lord hath so appointed it, he is made of GOD to us righteousness, 1. Cor. 130. faith apprehendeth that, as the ship-broken man doth a plank, whereby he cometh to land; by that we are justified before GOD. Inherent graces cannot satisfy the justice of GOD, nor make perfect obedience to the law, nor pay the penalty which it requireth. But Mediatory righteousness can do all this. So the causes of justification are these, the final cause is the glory of GOD and man's salvation. The efficient, the favour, mercy, and good will of GOD. The meritorious, the obedience of Jesus Christ. The formal, the imputed righteousness of that blessed Mediator. The instrumental cause or condition, (as some word it) is faith, Rom. 3. 24. 25. so we are justified by faith alone, as Abraham was before GOD, and this giveth glory to GOD, Rom. 4. dethroneth the boasting of men, and is the sure safe scripture way. Now when we say that faith alone justifieth, by laying hold on his righteousness, and applying it, we still hold that faith which justifieth to be pregnant with good works, such as love, heart-cleansing, new obedience, patience zeal, and other fruits of the spirit. This adversaries deny not to us. Bellarmin doth us this much right, for he acknowledgeth that we hold good works to be  to the justified, Non necessitate efficientiae sed prasentiae. So they justify our faith to ourselves and others: but faith justifieth the man, and works have no place in that act. We do not deny that good works have room, and are necessary for working out of our salvation, they are via reg●●, but in the point of Justification they are excluded. Our justification is the Lords act of gracious absolution tendered to us through Christ. When we receive the sentence, faith the hand of the soul layeth only hold of it. And it is not said in Scripture, love in his blood, or patience, or real in it, but faith in his blood, by which we are justified, clothed, and covered. Remission and righteousness cometh in this way. This animateth all our graces, and we hold justification and salvation of free grace, Ephes. 2. 8. 9  
Fourteen, You set up free will in fallen man, almost as it was under the Covenant of 
§ 14. Just.  works in the state of innocence; and do attribute Election partly to that Idol. More that without Christ we may merit congruously and naturally dispose our souls for grace. But the Scripture saith, Rom. 11. 6. Election is merely of grace, and if by grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise grace were no more grace, but if it be of works, than it is no more grace: otherwise works were no more works. Nay, We cannot of ourselves as of ourselves think a good thought. 2. Cor. 3. 5. and without Christ, we can do nothing. john 15. 5. being by nature children of wrath dead in sins and trespasses.  
Ye say we set up free will in fallen man, as it was in the state of Innocence: whereas we Papist Reply. put great distinction betwixt free will in these two states, as you may see in our School Divines; yet Christ by his grace, hath so set it up, that with the same grace a man may choose to do good and refuse to do evil. Both Scripture and Fathers are clear for this. Scripture, Deut. 30. 19 I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. And 1. Cor. 7. 37. He who hath determined in his heart, not having necessity, but having power of his own will to keep his Virgin. Is not here free will asserted, necessity clearly excluded? How then can you call it an Idol? or, if a man have not free will, wherefore sorveth preaching, and exhortation, to persuade a man to that which is not in his power? Protestants say, there is no good action in the power of a man: Why then do they persuade Roman-catholics to turn Protestant, seeing Conversion being a most holy and good work, is nor in our power or freewill? Or how could it stand with GOD'S wisdom to command men what they could not do? Or with his justice to condemn them eternally, who had not freewill to obey his Commandments? Hear St. Aug. lib. de Fide contra Manich. chap. 10. Who will not cry out it is a foolish thing to command him who hath not freedom to obey what is commanded? And it is an injury to condemn him who hath no power to fulfil them. And again, lib. de Gr. & lib. Arbit: cap. 2. GOD hath revealed to us in Scripture that in man is freewill, because GOD'S Commands would not perfect man unless he had freewill to do them. Gregory hom. 12. on Numb. O Israel what doth the Lord thy GOD require of thee? Let them be ashamed of these words, who deny freewill in man. How should GOD require of man, unless man had in his power what to offer to GOD requiring? Doth he not here speak to you, and clearly against you? Now whereas you cite Rom. 11. 6. Election is merely of grace, you put in the word (merely) which is not in Scripture: And whereas it is said, if it be of grace than it is no more of works, that is meaned of natural works, without grace, or works of the law. As answer these Doctors, whose sentence you here impungue: for without grace, you say well with the Apostle, we cannot think a good thought, and without Christ we can do nothing, John 15. 5. Wherefore it is another calumny, when you make us say that without Christ, we may merit congruously, which we hold for Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Heresy.  
Duply, You reason for  upon Protestants Duply. Pelagian grounds, as Jansenius, Ipr. who was Popish, hath abundantly proved in his learned work. If you would read and consider him he would satisfy and refute you. But seeing you gift us with him, and so with Augustin, for in these be is totus Augustinus. I shall only say this by way of position. First, The natural man hath no freedom for spiritual good, as before the fall, because he is the servant of sin. Hear Aug. contra du●● epist. Pelagian. Liberta● illa quae fuit in Paradiso, periit per peccatum. Propter quod natura humana Divina indiget gratia, dice●te Domino si vos filius liberaverit vere liberi eritis. He granteth a freedom for evil, but of ourselves, as of ourselves, we cannot think a good thought, we say the same with Scripture and Antiquity. Secondly, We hold that in some moral acts a man hath freedom, whither by a new gift, or as the remainder of the first, I shall not disput, E. G. He may elocat his Virgin to be warried, or not, according to the text cited by you 1. Cor. 7. 37. this we do not deny. Thirdly, Commands, threaten, exhortations, are means appointed by GOD, to make us who are nilling willing to do good, yet so, that it is he who worketh in us both to will and to do, Phil. 2. 13. Who worketh all our works in us, Is. 26. 1●. So the place you cite Deut. ●0. 19 maketh nothing against us; for as Augustin saith, jubet & javat, and the Elect get grace ●o obey, these who are approven, will thus be made manifest, so it is not in vain for us to exhort Papists to be converted, for wisdom wi●lbe justified of her own children. And did not our Lord upon this account exhort the obstinate Jews to reformation. Yet your atgument from exhortations is against him, and his way, as much as against us. We have a will, moral faculties of willing and nilling, and are not stocks. Augustin throughout meaneth no more, and admit that Origen be of your mind, Scripture saith the contrar. If election be of grace without works, is it not clear that it is of mere grace? For these two are opposite here. You say you do not refuse that, not set up freewill in man as before the fall, and appeal to your Schoolmen for my information. I answer you make use of the word (grace) as Pelagius did add frangendam invidiam, but indeed Adam had no more power over his will, than ye give to lost man, which I prove thus: Adam could plead for no more but the posse by his creation, and the velle if he pleased to choose or refuse obedience. But all your Jesuits give this to man after the fall, that positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum, (which doth take in the decree, the concourse and grace itself, in the sense of all your Dominicans at jest, who impugn this description,) yet potest agere vel non agere, therefore he hath as much now as before the fall, according to your Divinity. Albeit you condemn Pelagius yet ye are wholly his here. See I beseech you Jansenius on this subject. Yea ye make yourself differ from another contrar to the Apostle, 1. Cor. 4. 7. For two having equal grace objective and subjective, it is the will which casteth the balance, and maketh it efficacious in one, not in another. This is the doctrine of Schoolmen. So ye have your will to thank, your will to invocat for any good. And what more said the Semi-Peldgians or Messalians then the Mass-men do here aver? Your Council of Trent saith the will potest dissentire si velit, your schoolmen whom you desire me to consult in this matter are of the same tenets. The council, saith Sess. 6. chap. 5. that one is converted and mother remaineth in his infidelity, the cause is in their will, in that one entertaineth the other rejecteth the grace of GOD. Molina disp. 12. to hold this, saith he, is a matter of faith. Eckius in his Enchir, saith, that the beginning of our Salvation we have from God's mercy, but it is in our power to yield to tha● divine inspiration or not. Aquinas contra Genres lib. 3. saith, it is in the power of freewill to hinder or not hinder the receiving of divine grace. Molina again telleth that the persaverance of men in good, dependeth upon their own co-operation with grace. By grace they mean no more but a moral suasion externally offered, or an objective inclination of the will, but no effectual determination at all. So indeed at the command of the will, grace is either useful or not, permitted to enter in or shut out of doors. Who perceiveth not this doctrine to be derogatory to the honour of GOD and power of free grace? Therefore we say with Augustin in his Ench. cap, 32. DEUS nolentem praevenit ut vel●●, volentem sequitur ne frustra velit. The Lord by his grace maketh nilling men willing, and willing men are assisted by the same, lest they run in vain. The will of man (saith he, who was the hammer of Pelagianism) is libera quia liberata. It's free because it's freed. See Aug. de side ad Petrum Diaconum, cap. 32. Firmissime tene & nullatenus dubites posse quidem hominem, quem nec ignorantia literarum, nec aliqua prohibet imbecillitas, vel adversitas, verba sanctae Logis & Euangelii sive legere, sive ex ore cujusdam praed●cator●s audire sed ut quod audit percipiat etiam cord & mandata DEI facere velit, nemo potest, nisi quem DEUS gratia sua praevenerit, data divinitus bona voluntate atque virtute. i e. Hold thou it most firmly, and no ways doubt, that a man whom neither ignorance of good letters, nor any infirmity or adversity doth hinder, hath power both to read the words of the holy Law and Gospel, and to hear them from the mouth of the Preacher, but to take up and receive in his heart what he heareth, and to be willing to do the Commandments of GOD, no man is able but he whom GOD hath prevened by his grace, having given to him good will and virtue. Aug. lib. 1. contra duas epist. ●el, cap. 19 Christus non dicit, nemo potest venire ad filium nist Pater duxerit, ut ill●c aliquo modo intelligamus praecedere voluntatem, sed dicit (traxerit) quis autem trahitur si jam volebat, & tamen nem● venit nisi velit, trahitur ergo miris m●dis, ut velit, ab illo qui nevit in ipsis hominum cordibus operari non ut homines, quod sier● non potest, volentes credant, sed ut volentes ex nolentibus fi●nt. i e. Christ doth not say, no man can come to the Son except the Father lead him, that then in some measure we should think the will of man to preceded, but he saith, (except the father draw him) but who is drawn who before was willing, and no man comes except he be willing, therefore man is drawn in a wonderful manner, that he is willing, even by him who knoweth to work in the very hearts of men inwardly, not that men (which is impossible) should believe not willing, but that of men nilling they should become willing. Moreover, we have need of grace to keep grace and continue in it. Hierom ad C●esiphontem hath an excellent saying, non fussicit mihi, saith he, quod semel donaverit gratiam nisi semper donaverit. i e. I will not be satisfied to get the first grace, unless I get a constant tack of it. How contrary is this to the doctrine of Jesuits the Re●der may consider, who indeed give more to the will of man, then to the grace of GOD. If Tertullian be judge, this will be found in them a heresy, for adversus haereses, he saith, true faith dictareth this in defending the true GOD, and whatsoever in his, we make it only his: for he will be copartner with none in these works: as without him we can do nothing, so it is he who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. For further knowledge of Jansenius tenets I will here set them down. The Jansenists, Dominicans, Augustine's, and most of the Gallican Church, do follow the doctrine of Augustin, about free grace, and mantain these five propositions.  
First, Al●qua DEI praecepta, hominibus justis volentibus, & conantibus secundum praesentes qu●● habent vires, sunt impossibilia, deest quoque iis gratia, qua possibilia siant. So they say, that the gracious cannot fulsil the whole law, but have need of a Saviour.  
Secondly, Interiori gratiae, in statu naturae lapsa, nunquam resistitur. Men may resist external means, but esticacious grace is prevalent.  
Thirdly, Ad merendum & demorendum in statu natura lapsae, non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione. The Lord may draw a man freely to his duty, yet necessarily.  
Fourthly, Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratia interioris necessitatem ad singulo● actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset voluntas humana resistere, vel obtemperare. By this all the Jesuits are heretical, who defend the victory of the will over free grace.  
F●fthly, Semipelagianorum error est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse.  
These Propositions were judged and condemned at Rome by Pope Innocent the tenth. Albeit he professed himself not to be versed in these matters, being no Divine but a Canonist. 
† Non sum Theologus, said the Rabbj. sed Canonista.  The Ambassadors from the Gallican Churches reasoned most earnestly for them, and held forth clearly that this was the ●enet of Augustin, and all Catholic Doctors except the Jesuits. Yet notwithstanding, anno 1653. the Bull came forth against the efficacy of grace, and all the followers of Augustin, the tenor whereof followeth.  
Primam, Praedictarum propositionum aliqua DEI praecepta hominibus just is volentibus, conantibus secundum praesentes qua● habent vires, sunt impossibi●i●; deest quoqueillis gratia qua possib●l●● si●nt, temerariam impiam blasphemam anathemate damnatam, Haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.  
Secundam, Interiori gratiae in statu naturae ●apsa nunquam resistitur, Haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.  
Tertiam, Ad merendum & demerendum, in statu ●aturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate, sed libertas à co-actione sufficit: Haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.  
Quartam, Semipelagiani admittebant, praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem, ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei, & in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset voluntas humana resistere, vel obtemperare, falsam, & haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.  
Quintam, Semipelagianum est, dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum fuisse, & sanguinem fudisse, falsam, temerariam, scandalosam, & intellectam eo sensu, ut Christus pro salute duntaxat praedestinatorum mortuus sit, impiam, blasphemam, contumeliosam, Divinae pietati derogantem, haereticam declaramus & ut talem damnamus.  
Hence it appeareth that the present Papal Church, is contrar to the Doctrine of Augustin, etc. is a condemner of all the Dominicans, Jansenists, Sorbonists, and of the Doctrine of free and efficacious grace, making the will umpire in all these matters, and owneth the tenets of the Molinists only. And that since the Council of Trent it is not what it was formerly: therefore erroneous then or now, so not infallible. When the Bull was proclaimed, the Commissioners from the Gallican Churches determined amongst themselves, that if they were required to subscribe the Pope's sentence, they would rather suffer than subscribe it, except in their own sense. i e. Excepting and securing the grace of Jesus Christ, effectual by itself,  to all actions of piety. And by this it appeareth that they could not judge him infallible in Cathedra. And beside many at Rome and in Flanders cried down the decree, and spoke often of the necessity of a Council seeing the doctrine of free grace was impeached, and Pelagianism brought into the Church of Rome. It must be evident therefore, that Pelagianism and Semipelagianism being the main ingredience in the doctrinals of Rome, concerning grace, they do frustrate the grace of GOD, Gal. 2. 21. and give the victory over it to the will of man in all cases. How gracious a Papist keeping these principles can be, let the Reader judge, and how numerous their Party is, it is easily known.  
At the same time the Pope condemned a book called the Hours, Printed at Paris, and commended by the French Divines, because efficacious grace was there mentioned; and the second Command was translated thus, Ye shall not make an Idol, or graven Image to adore them. When one of the Commissioners from the Gallican Churches did complain upon the sentence of the Pope, against a book so generally approved in France. Mr. Albizzi the Pope's Secretary said, that the translation was one with that of Geneva, and what ever Scholars might conceive of it, the People would readily mistake it, and not fall down before the Images. One of the Commissioners answered, that this Doctrine would be also valid against the translation of Scripture, for the second Command behoved to be thus translated, he answered, that the Pope was not obliedged to hear Parties, and answer reasons, and the Gospel we●e not the Gospel, if the Pope did not approve it. This is high-language, yet the Court strain at Rome. Yea, the operation of grace is heresy, if he call it so. See more of this in the Journal of St. de Amour, concerning the five Propositions, who with other Commissioners from the Gallican Churches relate this.  
Fifthteent●ly, You lay too much stress on the work wrought, as Satisfactory 
15 Inst.  Penance, Extreme Unction, the telling over of Prayers, the outward receipt of Sacraments, Bodily Austerities, etc. And put these in stead of Regeneration, so  for each Christian, and of inward duties which have the promise chief, terming all such fanatic, whereas Scripture saith, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see God. john 3, 3. And, except ye be conve●ted and become as little children, ye canno● enter into the kingdom of Heaven, Matth, 18 3. and bodily exercise profiteth little, 1. Tim. 4. 8. Duties rightly done are well worth their own room, but to turn us back under the Gospel to the Covenant of works, i● a fascination, and making void of the grace of GOD, Gal. 2. 21. Gal. 3. 2 and this error leadeth you to condemn Infants unbaptised for the want of that work wrought, whereas the promise is to us and to our children. Act. 2. 39 and we have all freely, not by merit.  
Reply, You calumniat us here again, Papist Reply. saying, that we put bodily austerities in the place of Regeneration, wherein you contradict yourself, granting that we hold Baptismal Regeneration absolutely : so that a man cannot be saved without it, according to the clear words of St. John 3. 5. How then can you say that we hold bodily austerities in stead of Regeneration? How can Minister● be so carnal or sensual, as to speak, against bodily austerities. Which Christ coming into this world, did cho●se, saith the devout St. Bernard, concluding that either licentious men in a world are deceived, who choose them not, or else Christ. Serm. de nativ. But as for the work wrought, it seemeth you understand it not, when you ascribe it to the telling over of Prayers, for it hath no place but in the Sacraments: which of themselves work grace, either in these that cannot work, or put a stop, as Infants or others. And when you say, the promise is made to us and to our children, Acts 2. 39 Either you must acknowledge yourself a Jew, and to be of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, or else with the Apostle and Catholic Church. In the same place, say, We are made the children of Abraham by Baptism and Regeration, as verse 24. and 41. proves.  
Duply, That which I said ye grant viz. the receipt of Baptism, ex opere operato, to Protestants Duply. Regenerate, but with a restriction to Infants. By which evasion it seemeth ye understand nor well your own teners, for the Council of Trent Sess. 7. Can. 7. & 8. speaketh otherwise, they anathematise them who deny, that Sacramenta novae legis conferunt gratiam ex opere operato semper & omnibus non aliquando, & aliquibus. So they speak of all the Sacraments of the New Testament and not only of Baptism: and if they limited it to Infants, it could not be omnibus but aliquibus only. And Bellarmin who understood Popery leaveth you alone here, for lib. 1. cap. 12. de Sacram. Bapt. he saith, Baptism ex opere operato confert gratiam, qua vere & formaliter justificatur homo. Then he is not speaking of Children. If it be so all Baptised are Regenerated immediately, even your Indians, whom ye drive by droves to the font-stone, and turning from Heathnism is true Conversion. Yea, all baptised are saved and none of them damned, this is indeed an easy way to Heaven. That place John 3. is not chief meaned of Baptism, otherwise all unbaptized persons should be damned, which is not true, and they who say so are cruel to Infants. And wherein I pray you do I contradict myself here? Seeing your external Regeneration is not that Scripture one meaned, John 3. and Matth. 18. and 2. Cor. 5. 17. If all such be new creatures, we have none in the visible Church, come to years, but converts, new creatures, regenerated one's born again; and can you say so, without a blush? I mean by the seed of Abraham, the heirs of promise, with the Apostle Gal. 3. 29. What you challenge in this I do not understand, and I doubt if you understand yourself: for the blessing of Abraham belongeth to us Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Bodily austerities for mortifying sensual corruption I did approve, if they be put in their own place. So you fight with your own shadow here, We are for fasting, humble-walking, and all the acts of Scripture-self-denyal, we hold commanded duties for mortification, such as fastings, etc. to be very useful for holding the body in subjection, and for subduing sensuality. Secondly, we deny not but the Lord will in fatherly wrath chasten his children here for their sins, as he did Israel in the wilderness, Moses, David, jehoshaphat & many more, according to that Amos 3. 2. Thirdly, this chastisement, whither voluntar or not, is not satisfaction to divine justice, nor proper penalty of the law, because the satisfaction of jesus Christ is completely perfect, but it could not be so if any satisfaction were laid on us, see Dallaeus 
† Dallaeus de satisfactione.  who hath a learned Treatise concerning this truth. Fourthly, If we cannot satisfy, we merit nothing that is good at the hands of GOD, but must say with Bernard on Cant. Serm. 61. Misericordia tua, merita nostra Domine; thy mercy O Lord is our merit●. Salvation, deliverance, Heaven, happiness, and all our welfare is of the Lord. We get these, gratis. The Papists may be ashamed to tell the world of congruous merits before Conversion, of commutative justice, betwixt GOD and man by the dignity of their works after conversion, and their refusing to have Heaven gratis. Andradius the interpreter of the Council of Trent, Orthod. explic. lib. 6. saith, The reward of the just is not freely given, but Heaven is set to the sale for our works. T●pperus saith in Explic. art. Lovan. tom. 2. art. 9 GOD forbidden that the just should expect eternal life as the poor man doth his alms, it is our conquest, our triumph, and the prize due to our labours. Valentia tom. 3. disp. 7. telleth, that the works of the faithful, are satisfactory for the punishment of sin. Bellarmin bringeth forth a new evasion, the just if. lib. 5. cap. 10. saying, that Christ merited, that we should merit. So that the merit of our works is from his merits; this is plaster to daub with. For where do we read in Scripture that phrase? He hath suffered for us that we should be holy in all manner of Conversation, and serve him in righteousness and holiness, but no where that we should merit eternal life, the gift is wholly from him, so it is written, Rom. 6. 23. Secondly, This is petitio principii, for the question betwixt Papists and us, is, whither we are unprofitable servants when we have done all? So speak we with Scripture, they say we are meritorious men. Thirdly, Suarez saith, Tom. 1. in Thomam disp. 4. another thing, that good works are in themselves and of their own nature meritorious, therefore not such, because of Christ his merits. Otherwise saith he, we could not be said to merit. We say, this is the way to clip the satisfaction of Christ Jesus, & the value of the price paid for us. What good works we do are mixed with imperfections, and are too few, alas, if the Lord accept of them, and reward these works with temporal or spiritual blessings, it is not for the merit of the work, but of free grace and mercy, and for the merits of Christ merely. So we may be freely rewarded; see Matth. 5. 46. Luk. 6. 32. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are promiscuously taken. We cannot make amends to GOD nor satisfy his justice, but his promise is sure, not according to our merits, but his own mercy: so we must inherit eternal life, this is Aug. doctrine on Ps. 88 and Chrysost. on Col. 2. Your satisfactions and merits are contrar to Scripture, pure antiquity, dishonourable to Jesus Christ, and prejudicial to souls. Now you see this reflection might have been well spared, for it is no reply at all to what I said.  
Sixteenthly, Ye foster looseness and prophainess 
§ 16. Inst.  by telling tales about Purgatory, the use of prayer and sacrifices for the dead. But the Scripture saith Heb. 9 27. after death cometh judgement, which must be understood immediately, otherwise it might be said after birth cometh judgement, and in the grave there is neither work nor invention; neither is there any place appointed for people after their removal hence, save Heaven or hell.  
Reply, The telling of men that after their Papist Reply. sins are forgiven, they must suffer for the temporal pain due to them, is not a way to foster looseness, but rather to terrify all who believe from offending GOD in the least, seeing all such must be chastised, either by GOD punishing, or man doing penance, and that voluntary, either here, or in Purgatory hereafter, according to the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. 15. If any one's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he shall be saved, yet so as by fi●e, which place Augustin citing on Ps. 37. saith, and because it is said, he shall be saved, that fire is contemned, yet that fire shall be more grievous than whatever a man can suffer in this life. Purge me O Lord and make me such a one as shall not need that mending fire, etc. Now doth St. Paul or Aug. here tell tales? Or can that mending fire by which a man is saved, be more grievous than what he can suffer here? Or can it make a man lose to pray with Aug. thus? But it may be he was doting here, as when he said Mass for his Mother's soul, as we read in his Confessions, committing both sacrilege and Idolatry, (as commonly Protestant's say) to please an old w●fe after her death. You add that Scripture saith, after death cometh judgement, and in the grave there be neither work nor invention. What maketh this against Purgatory? Do Catholics deny that we are justified at the very moment of death before they go to Purgatory? Or that they work in the grave. But how is it true say you, there is no place mentioned in Scripture save Heaven o● hell, to which the godly and wicked do go? Albeit all go to one of these places, yet is there not a prison mentioned, from which a man shall not go till he hath paid the uttermost farthing, Matth. 5. 25. which the Fathers expounded to be Purgatory. viz. Hierom on this chapter, St. Cyp. ep. 52. Tertull. lib. de anima. and doth not St. Paul above cited, speak of another fire than that of hell?  
Duply, You have Rhetorications in defence Protestants Duply. of Purgatory, which I pass, and touch reason or testimony produced by you. You mention two texts of Scripture, the one is Matth. 5. 25. where we are commanded to agree with our adversary quickly, etc. this place proveth no Purgatory prison. For first, It is allegoric, and so cannot be argumentative, on a controverted point. All that is here intended, is, that brethren should dwell together in love, and forgive other their trespasses against them, as is clear from the context. Secondly, If it were meaned of Purgatory, it would make the Lord their adversary, they behoved to be delivered up to the Devil, for he is the Jailor of the prison: Now it is strange divinity to say that the Lord is an adversary, and the Devil a Jailor, to the man whose sins are forgiven him. Thirdly, If this prison be Purgatory, than there is commutative justice betwixt GOD and man, for such here pay the uttermost farthing. And who can say to the Lord, forgive me, have mercy upon me, and yet be of this judgement, that he can pay all his debt by that mending fire, and not owe any thing to free gracious pardon?  
Fourthly, It maketh punishment to purge away punishment, which is Repugnantia in adjecto. For you grant that the filth and blot of sin is removed here. Your own Jansenius interpreteth it not of Purgatory, Concor. in locum. The other Scripture is 1. Cor. 3. We shall be saved yet so as by fire, that is not meaned of purgatory fire, but of probatorie fire in this life, not hereafter. Let any man read the chapter, and he will see this the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to show what was doctrinally or practically erroneous should be put to the fiery trial, when judgement should begin at the house of God, as the Apostle Peter speaketh, 1. Pet. 4. 17. your own Pererius interpreteth not this place 1. Cor. 3. of purgatory.  
You say Ancients interpret these Scriptures, so namely Augustin, Tertullian, Hierom, Cyprian. I would first inquire at you, how you can cite the Commentars' of any private men on Scripture? Seeing you aver before confidently, that the sensing of Scripture and interpretation thereof belongeth to the Church of Rome, and to no private persons, Augustin, Cyprian, etc. were not the Church of Rome, but private Doctors. Yea, they were never members of this Church as it is now constituted, being great strangers to supreme infallibility and universal Monarchy engrossed in the person of the Pope. They lived in, afric the one at Hippo, the other at Carthage, and were Bishops there. Tertullian was a Presbyter, and forced to leave Rome for the aspersions cast upon him, by some envious Doctors there; which was the first thing tempted him to Montanism, as it is told in his life; he was formerly free of it. When you interpret Scripture, you are bound to bring one of the Pope's decretals, or a Canon authorised by him for the meaning of a text, otherwise you are inconsistent with your own opinion. But that which now you bring from these ancients, is as I conceive fully satisfied and explained in the eight Duply, to wh●ch I refer the Reader. You bring back hither and thither with your impertinencies. All you have to do here if you would keep rule, is to answer Scripture arguments, seeing these taken from antiquity have been debated formerly in their own room. Yet to tell Augustine's mind about the sense of the 1. Cor. 3. it is not so as you cite it, he thinketh the text hard and difficult, but doth not build Purgatory on it, he is in that at a stand what to say, and will not define the interpretation, but modestly thus, Non ideo confirmo, quoniam non refello, Aug. de Civit. DEI. lib. 21. cap. 24. Tertullian is so far from it, that he saith lib. de patientia. Christum laedimus, etc. We wrong Jesus Christ, if we shall say, that these who have their sins forgiven, are in a state to be pitied. But in Purgatory if the suffering be so great, they are to be pitied. Cyprian de mortalitate, is of the same mind, all who are in Christ, when they go hence reign with Christ. Ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire: Let him fear death who will not go to Christ. You say, these in Purgatoty are in Christ, then saith Cyprian, they go to Christ not to Purgatory, Justin Martyr saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediately after death the souls of the righteous go to Paradise, and of the unrighteous to hell, resp. ad Orthod, quast. When you would have them then holding Purgatory, you bring them under contradiction, and are bound to reconcile them with themselves; for any such clashings you may thank your Index Expurgatorius. The Fathers indeed speak of probatory mending fire here, of loca refrigerii before the Resurrection, of Fluvius igneus after it, this is the opinion of some. Hence ariseth your citations, but for Purgatory they knew it not. It is the Blood of Jesus Christ which taketh away the guilt and filth of sin▪ Now that this erroneous opinion maketh men lose, reason proveth it. For men who believe that they may live loosely here, and yet go to heaven, are tempted to prophainness, ipso facto, whatever be pretended to the contrar; especially when it is told them withal, that some Soul-Masses for a little money may be had to free them quickly thence. And our experience in this land maketh it out also, because many lose livers hanker after Popery, and hate to be reform. You answer just nothing to the 9 Heb. for if judgement cometh immediately after death, where is Purgatory then? That judgement is not temporane but eternal, it is one with Eccl. 11. 9 And I would gladly know, if this Tenet can hold with that scripture Rev. 14. 13. They who die in the Lord rest from their labours. And if so they are not punished henceforth. This purgatory fire of your own kindling, maketh a hot kitchen to the Pope, but purgeth no soul at all. For Purgatory was no● decreed to be the side, till the Council of Lateran, under Innocent the 3. the Florentine under Eugentus the 4. and the Tridentine under Pius the 4. so it is not old. Many of the Father's supposed that the saints received not full reward till the resurrection. Aug. though dubious about it else where, yet in one place, De verbis Apostoli, serm. 18. sayeth, There be two places, there is not a third, we are ignorant of a third (meaning Purgatory,) yea we find in scripture that there is none such. In the Greek Fathers there is no mention of it saith Roffensis. And whereas it is objected, that Augustin said Mass for his mother Monica. He sayeth only, that seeing she prayed so frequently for him, he was bound to send his best wishes after her, if they could avail. But speaketh very doubtfully of the matter in his book the civet. DEI. Beside the Ancients prayed for these whom they thought to be in Abraham's bosom, for a joyful Resurrection and full fruition to them. The prayers of the Romanists are for men in misery, prisons, in a place next to hell. So the one and other differ much. But the matter is, that your gold groweth here, it is your livelihood, your Mexico, this maketh you so contend for it.  
Seventeenthly, Ye commit murder and 
§ 17 Inst.  allow it contrar to the sixth Command, witness the Massacre at Paris, commended by the popish Orator Muretus, whose book is Printed by authority?  
Reply, The testimony of a private Orator, doth not make the articles of our faith. And Papists Reply. if this fact was done by private Animosities, neither Religion nor reason can allow it. Nor do any Catholics approve it, except they who think it was done by the King's authority, to punish rebellious subjects whom he could not otherwise crub.  
Duply, This Oration of Muretus' wherein he commendeth the Massacre, is licenced, Protestants Duply. and Printed by authority, so it is not the mere testimony of a private Orator, but publicly allowed. And whereas you say, that no Catholics approve it, except these who think it was done by the King's authority. I answer, the fact was, clearly murder, a breach of the sixth Command, and admit the French King who then was young had consented to it, will that justify the breach of a divine precept? How can that consist with Acts 4. 19 I am bound actively to obey my Superiors in the Lord, ad arras, religion, reason, craves no more. Your own Thuanus hath not this poor evasion for justifying this murder, but calleth it a bloody barbarous fact to murder men living peaceably. And that universal flux of blood which flowed so abundantly from all the passages of that young King at his death, proclaimeth more loudly to the world the unlawfulness of it, nor all the Rhetoric of Muretus can wipe off. For as an excellent Poet saith on that subject,  
Maribus, ore, oculis, atque auribus undique & ano,  
Et pene erumpit qui tuus iste cruor,  
Non tuus iste cruor, sanctorum at caede cruorem,  
Qu●m ferus hausisti, non poteras, coquere.  
Eighteenthly, Ye call yourselves the Universal Church, which was never attributed 
§ 18. Inst.  to the Church of Rome in the Apostle Paul his time; notwithstanding that then their faith was spoken of through all the world Rom. 1. 8. Beside ye are but a particular Church at best, not so numerous as we and the Greek Church are, with whom we join in one Confession, except about the manner of the Procession of the Holy Ghost As witnesseth their Confession set forth in the name of the Greek Church, by Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople, and printed Anno 1633. which book can easily be produced. Whereas ye brag of Unity, ye are great Schismatics, renting the universal Church, and taking the tittle from them to yourselves. Ye are miserably divided within, as appeareth from the strong factions of the Council of Trent, and these hot skirmishes amongst Jesuits Dominicans, and Jansenists lasting to this day. Moreover, the scripture calleth Rome, B●bylon, the scarlet whore, according to your own Interpreters upon Rev. 17. 18. which Babylon is to be destroyed.  
Reply, You accuse us for calling ourselves the Universal Church, and yet would willingly Papists Reply. take that title to yourselves, if the common practice in all Ages, to your shame and discredit did not oppose it. None acknowledging your Church under this title, but all generally ours. But I have heretofore told you why the Roman Church is called the Catholic, as being the Mother Church constantly since the Apostles times, which hath a power of head-ship and jurisdiction over all the rest, holding communion with her through out the world. Then you say, we are but a particular Church, not so numerous as ye and the Grecians, with whom ye join in one Confession of Faith, except about the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost. Which it seemeth you hold but as a trissle, although it maketh no distinction betwixt the second and the third Person of the Trinity: for where there is no Procession and relative opposition in the Trinity, there is no distinction say Divines after john Damascene, yet notwithstanding, ye join with this in the confession of faith, albeit they plainly disclaim them, in the censure of the Oriental Church, where chap. 7. 12. 13. 21. they hold Transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, an unbloody sacrifice, prayers to the saints, and for the dead, whatever you allege of that confession of faith printed only in the last year. But however, this showeth the Protestants weakness, and wavering faith, that they claim the Grecians and Lutherians, albeit both do openly disclaim them. Neither do you prove better our division amongst ourselves, seeing all the parties in the Council of Trent, subscrived the Canons thereof, nor doth the hot skirmishes betwixt Jesuits and Dominicans in school questions, hinder their Unity in all the tenets of the Catholic Church, both being willing to subscribe them with their blood, as amongst Jesuits many do to this day. As for Jansenists we altogether disowne them, and to make you more numerous, if ye please, are well content that in many things you call them yours. I am content also Rome be called the scarlet whore, Rev. 17. 18. viz. Rome under Pagan Emperors. But was not the Church of Rome then in her greatest integrity and virginity, under the Apostles St. Peter and Paul, who praising, her faith as spoken of through the world, both declare her Universality, and speak of her pre-eminence.  
Duply, I had reason to challenge your usurpation Protestants Duply. of the Catholic title, for your own Pighius Eccl. hierarch. lib. 6. cap. 3. saith, Quis unquam per Romanam Ecclesiam, intellexis universalem? He thinketh it absurd and repugnant, and so it is. As for the Grecians I can presently produce their Confession, 
† See it set down after the Preface.  Printed not the last year, but 30. years ago and upward, wherein they disclaim seven Sacraments, the unbloody service of the Mass, prayers to Saints, or for the Dead, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc. And Dr. Rivet in his 3. Tom. pag. 1257. setteth down at length, how the Jesuits by money and moyen of the French Ambassador, accused the same Cyrillus of treason before the grand Segniour, and said, that he favoured the King of great BRITAIN: by which accusation he was for a time thrust out of charge, and forced to flee anno 1627. but afterwards by the good providence of GOD restored, the Greek Church would own no other Patriarch during his absence, and how sore he was persecuted thereafter, see Hornbeck in his Summa Contro. As for the Jansenists you gift us with them, calling them ours. So Augustin and the Dominicans are ours also in this, so your unity and universality ●s not so much as you pretend. You grant also that the scarlet whore, Rev. 17. and Babylon is Rome, but under the Heathen Emperor, and not as it is now under the Pope. Your own Ribera refuteth you fully in this, for he saith 
† So saith Sixtus Senensis, and Baronius, also.  that it must be meaned of Apostate Rome in the time of Antichrist, because she is called an adulteress, the mother of harlots, but there can be no adultery, where Marriage was not once. Secondly, The people of GOD are required to leave her lest they partake of her plagues. But they were never incorporated with Pagan Rome as Christians, for they had no communion with Pagan Idols, Ergo, if your Church be the Mother of Fornications, and less numerous than these who hold the Scripture for the rule, in no sense can ye be called the Catholic Church.  
Ninthteenthly, Ye make the Pope Christ's 
§ 19 Inst.  Vicar on Earth, Peter's successor, the head of the Church, an infallible man, a Demi-God. Whereas all the Apostles were equal in power and dignity, Matth. 20. 26. And Cyprian lib. 3. de unitate Ecclesiae, saith, hoc idem Petrus quod reliqui Apostoli, pare● consortio, & dignitate. Peter was one with the rest of the Apostles in dignity and fellowship. Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. 2. cap. ult. Nec Paulus est inferior Petro. see August. ad Hieron epist. 97. and Hierom ad Evagr. and Cyprian epist. ad Quintum (71.) Prophets and Apostles were not infallible except in penning the Scripture. Did not Moses speak unadvisedly Psalm. 106. 33. the Prophet Elisha professeth that the case of the Shunamit was hid from him, 2. Kings 4. 27. Nathan gave forth a verdict to day, and made a retractation to morrow, 2. Sam. 7. Peter controlled the Heavenly vision, and knew not what to do Acts 10. 17. And shall your sinful Popes than be infallible, who will believe it? Is it not then lamentable, that ye resolve your faith into humane testimony, yea, into that which is a very lie, the Pope's infallibility? Were it not safer to make Scripture your ground, then to build upon this sandy foundation, and so river yourselves incurably into error?  
Reply, You run out upon the Pope's titles, till in the end you make him a Demi-God, Papist Reply. imputing this as that by way of calumny to us. Whereas all the Apostles were equal in power and dignity, say you, Matth. 20. 26. Where (brist only forbiddeth spiritual Superiors, to exercise that power with pride and tyranny, as did the Princes of the Gentiles, but with humility and meekness as himself did. Yet he there expresseth a greater and a lesser, a superior and inferior amongst them, as he saith more clearly in Luke 22. 26. he that is amongst you greatest, let him be as the lesser, and he who is chief as he who would serve them. You cite Cyprian, saying, the Apostles were equal in dignity, but suppresing the following words, that Christ disposed the order of unity; beginning with Peter, whom in his epist, ad Julianum, he calleth, both head and root of his Church. All that followeth is, that Moses spoke unadvisedly, the Prophet Elisha was ignorant of some things, the Prophet Nathan made a retractation, and St. Peter controlled the Heavenly vision. To show the Prophets and Apostles were not infallible, save in penning the Scripture, and so that the Pope is not such. This is but a vain rhapsody, to colour your own unsettled belief and contradiction in doctrine, but nothing against us. For suppose they had erred in these things that concerned not their doctrine, all that you can infer by comparison is, that the Pope may err in the like. But as in penning the word of GOD they were infallible, were they not also in preaching of it? Or is not the high Bishop in all Councils as in the representative Church, infallible in subscribing, approving, and confirming her decrees? If the same decrees of the Council be infallible. So that when you deny the Pope as head, with the Bishops in general Councils as chief men to be infallible, you deny the infallibility of the Church, which I have sufficiently showed, reflecting on your sixth Answer.  
Duply, You labour to prove imparity amongst Protestants Duply. the Apostles from Luke 22. 26. and would have us to believe that the Papal Monarchy is there; which is like the consequence of Mr. Vaux in his Catechism, proving Image worship from the second Command. For it is clear from verse 30. that albeit Kingly government was in the state, yet it should not be so in the Church. And that tyranny is not the only thing forbidden here, appeareth from this, that somewhat is interdicted to Churchmen, which is granted to others, but tyranny is licenced to none. Compare Matth. 20. 25. with Luke 22. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other. Then it is not only inhibited here. Beside, the 20. Matth. which you call unclear is most clear, he that will be greatest, seeking to exalt himself, shall be least, for he shall be abased. And be who is called greatest in Luke 22. is opposed to the youngest, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse▪ So by this opposition, the greatest, is the eldest or the greatest in gifts, who should be humble, self-denied Ministers, as if they were not so privileged. See 1. Peter 5. 3. To the place of Cyprian cited, ye answer nothing. Only you allege that I suppress what followeth, & in stead of the citation you take yourself to another place ad Julianum, where he calls Peter first in order, and this we do not deny. But what will that make for his visible Monarchy? For sure I am, dic Ecclesiae, Matth. 18. will resure that to the world● end. This is confirmed by Cyprians own practise, for saith he, Cyprian epist. 6. ad Clerum de cura Paup. Ab initio Episcopatus mei, nihil statui agere, sine consensis cleri & plebis. See Cyprian epist. 52. all Antonium, and there you will perceive that your Pope is not like Cornelius of whom he speaketh, for he was chosen Clericorum omnium testimonio, & plebis qui adfuit suffragio. The faithful Martyr was much for peace, unity, and order, and being infested with the Novatians he saith, inde sunt nata schismata, quod sacerdoti DEI non obtemperatur, and telleth that by way of regrate: But when he writteth to Cornelius he calleth him frater and no more. Where then was your Popedom? But ye equal your Pope to the Prophets and Apostles who penned the Scripture, which is an odious comparison not worthy of an answer. But forgetting yourself you say, the Pope in the Council, than it is not the Pope alone, of whose Monarchy we are here speaking, and ridiculously you subjoin if the Council be infallible, what language is this? The Pope is infallible in subscribing the decree of a counsel if the Council be infallible, I say neither of them is infallible, so your faith is resolved into a lie. You would seem to hang the Pope's infallibility on the sentence of a council; if it be so, the Pope sealing their decrees is infallible accidentally, and relatively not in himself, Others hang the infallibility of the Council on the Pope, so a fallible council may consequently be infallible, and if he ratify the sentence of a Session, it is all one with an Oecumenick-council. All these crotchets are the pillars of your faith, which are wormeaten props, to which I have spoken formerly in answer to your mentioned reflection.  
20. Ye make Christ as many Body's a● their be administrations of the Supper, 
§ 20 Inst.  by that your Transubstantiation. Whereas Scripture giveth him but one natural Body, which the Heaven must contain till the restitution of all things Act. 3. 21. And we believe in our Creed that he ascended to Heaven, from thence he will come to judge quick and dead. Ye break not the Bread contrar to the Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. 16. Yea, ye deny that Bread is there after the consecration, contrar both to sense and reason. And whereas Christ entered within the Veil, not that he should offer himself often. An unbloody sacrifice, expiatory of sin under the Gospel, is contrar to Scripture, Heb. 9 22. Heb. 9 25. And by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. Ye make as many bodily offerings of Jesus Christ, both for dead and living, as there be Masses.  
Reply, You have many false accusations Papists Reply. as formerly, but no witness or warrant. It is to be altogether ignorant of our terms, to say, that we give Jesus Christ as many Bodies as there be administrations of the Sacrament of the Supper. For, as we teach one and the same Body, is given in every one of our administrations. So we believe that he ascended to Heaven, that the Heaven containeth him, and from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. But we believe also, that he is really present in the Sacrament, in as many places as it is given in. Which you nor any man else cannot show to imply contradiction, and yet ye delude the people, as if there were an impossibility in this? When you say we break not the bread, it seemeth you know not how either the bread is broken or given. If we for greater decency, prepare the bread in a just greatness, for one man before it be given, so did ye of old cutting it in pieces, albeit now ye break and by't about. What you say in end, of his once offering himself, in a bloody way on the Cross, it is true, but if you understand it in an unbloodie manner, & on the Altar, it is false. Otherwise Christ should not be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck, Psalm. 110. Sir, for all these passages of Scripture which you have cited in thi● your eight Answer, which you see make nothing either against us or for you, look to the Touchstone of the reformed Gospel, and you will see the Scripture altogether ours.  
Duply, You pass over all the scriptures, Protestants Duply. which I have cited against Christ's corporal presence, or bodily offering, with a strong denial, calling it a calumny. Sir, is this right reasoning think you? Sure I am, if whole Christ be corporally present in every sacrament, then when it is administered at Rome, Milan, etc. there be as many bodies there as sacraments. And by this tenet, do not the words of consecration make Christ on the altar, as well as by the holy Ghost he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin? And doth nor his corporal presence take away his ascension, sitting at the right hand of God and his return? because he is bodily already here. He is a Priest for ever, by the infinite virtue of his once offering, which needeth not be repeated, as the Apostle reasoneth well, seeing it is not imperfect, but only applied by faith, and this is all our salvation. As for the distinction of a bloody, and unbloody offering, it is a device like the rest of your humane inventions. Show me scripture for i● if you can? This you are bound to do at the least, seeing now we are on scripture arguments, and I brought scripture to the contrar. You call it real presence only, I am for real presence, spiritualities are realities. Your tenet, if you understand it, is corporal presence. See Bell. de Ench. lib. 1. c. 2. & 5. the body of Christ is in the sacrament, with the whole magnitude thereof, and that same body which is in heaven is on the altar, either than he must have many bodies, or else one body having magnitude and dimensions, must be in many places at once, in heaven and earth both, which is impossible, seeing it implieth contradiction. Theodoret. dial. 2. against the Eutichian heresy, telleth us, that the sacramental signs change nor their nature, but remain in their own substance and shape. It is said, john 6. 56. He who eateth my flesh shall live by me. And ye interpret this place of sacramental eating, ergo, all who take the sacrament shall live according to your gloss. Although Christ had a spiritual body after his resurrection, yet he had a true body, because he said to his disciples feel, and see, saith Aug. ad Dardanum ep. 57 Now than he hath true dimensions, and when he appeared to the Apostle Paul going to Damascus, Aquinas thinketh, that for the time he left heaven, Summa q. 57 And when he came in amongst the Disciples, the doors being shut, Theodoret saith, that they made passage for him as their Creator. And the ancient Hierom speaketh with the scripture, that the Angel removed the stone from the grave. Although his risen body be glorified, yet it is a real body, and they who are for transubstantiation make it fantastic, without any warrant from the word. For Bellarmin acknowledgeth in the forecited place, that this tenet of corporal presence cannot be clearly proven from scripture, and lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 19 Tollitur verborum Domini obscuritas, per patrum consensum. And Andradius de caena Domini, Licet transubstantiatio ex scriptura probari nequ●t tamen furor est non credere ecclesiae hac in●e. And Scotus lib. 4 dist. 11. von extat ullus locus scripturae cogens nos admitte e transubstantiationem sine ecclesiae declaratione. And addeth that aunt Lateran concilium, non fuit d●gma fidei. Further, this taketh away the sutableness betwixt the sign and thing signified. If transubstantiation be, the bread and wine nourish not the body. How can accidents nowrish the body? How can they be without a subject? How Capernaitan like? can reprobats ear the body of Christ? You refer me to the Touchstone, I wish rather you had touched pertinently scripture or reason in your answers, then that you should shift satisfaction to the Reader with a reference to a book, which possibly he cannot find, I have seen that already, and an answer to●r printed twelve years ago by Dr. Guild who is now at his rest, and his answer is yet unanswered, if you have time it may be worth the while to peruse it for your conviction. Now I beseech you to lay aside interest, prejudice, passion, and weigh again these twenty scripture-arguments, it may please the Lord to discover how Antiscriptural your way is, who knows what the Lord may do by weak instruments, when his word and truth is on their side.  
Question ninth, But seeing we maintain Papists quest. 9 the Apostles Creed, why did ye separat from us?  
Answer first, The Apostles creed, commonly Protestants Ans. 1 so called, is a notable confession, to which we own all respect, and do make constant use of it. Yet your own Lessius de vera fide, in his appendix page 17. sayeth, that symbolum Apostolicum is not sufficient test for knowing a pure Church. Ye know Socinians will say it, who are scarce Christians. It mentioneth nothing to be believed concerning the fall of man, the work of conversion, the two sacraments which are sealing Ordinances. So it is the whole scripture, which tryeth best Christians and Churches. We did separate because of Idolatrous superstitious worship, by setting up Imagery, which the Lord hateth, Deut. 16. 22.  
Secondly, We separate only from these 
Ans. 2.  errors, and cleave to the Scriptures and primitive, pure antiquity.  
Thirdly, We were persecuted, fugati fuimus 
Ans. 3.  non fug●mus, what fire, faggot, bell, book, and candle could do, that we endured before we break off.  
Fourthly, when the light of the Gospel 
Ans. 4.  broke up we had a clear call for separation, Rev. 18. 4.  
Reply, In your ninth Answer you say you did cleave to Scripture and pure antiquity, Papists Reply. and only left our errors. You had said better, that you had left Scripture and pure antiquity, by so doing. For whosoever separateth from the true Church, which Scripture commandith us to hear, leaveth it. But ye were persecuted, this I grant of your first Apostats, Luther for sacrilege in marrying a Nun vowed to GOD. Calvin for Sodomy burnt on the shoulder, Knox for incest. And so are all knaves, persecuted by laws. Should they then turn outlaws and rebels.  
Duply, In stead of refuting our Reformation, Protestants Duply. and the reasons of our separation from Rome, you fall on raising without any reason. For Luther, Calvin, and Knox were excellent men of GOD, as their lives and writings testify. But if your Popes were such, Platina hath done them wrong. You may say as safely, I am brunt on the shoulder and have committed incest, there be no more warrant for the one then for the other. And for lawful marriage, I see not what divices of men could deny that to any called to it, seeing the Lord granteth the liberty. Stapleton a virulent adversary, yet in this more for the truth than you are, in his preface ad autidota Evangelica, speaketh thus of Calvin, Est interpres Scripturae diligens elegans & suavis, & Comentarii ejus perutiles sunt. He is far from calling him a knave. Florimond Raymond, de nat. haeres. lib. 7. cap. 10. speaketh thus, Fatendum est Calvinuns fuisse ingenio admirando acuto & promptissimo in imaginationibus suis, in conceptionibus suis exornatissimo, etc. And for his vindication from these calumnies which you injuriously fix upon him, read your own Papyrius M●ssonius, Elog. par. 2. pag. 431. where his life is set down, and Bolsecus refuted who was the author of these lies. If faithful Historians can have any trust with you, these three worthies whom you labour to blot, were as faithful holy Ministers of the Gospel, as lived in the Church for many hundred years formerly. Your own writters blame your Popes and Clergy men, but they were either Apostats or constant adversaries who blot Luther and Calvin. It is told by your own that Pope Sixtus the fourth licenced the Cardinal of St. Lucy and his family to use freely that sin not to be named, in the three hot months of the year. And Johannes a C●sa Arch Bishop of Beneventum legate to Pope Julius the third, set forth a book in commendation of Sodomy, there is more warrant for this report then for the Incest of Knox, or Sodomy of Calvin. Yet who will delight to ●ake in such puddles, chaste ears, should abhor such speeches. Michael the Archangel brought not in time of dispute, a railing accusation against the Devil; but you spare not to accuse the brethren who are now dead in the Lord, falsely. Is this the right way to promove the truth? Absit. But lies being your refuge, I leave you to the GOD of truth for answer, and shall only take notice that you leave all the four grounds of our separation from Rome, unrepealed and entire. So by your silence it appeareth we had reason to leave you, for ye Papists hate to be reform. 
† This your own Espencaeus regrateth on chap. 1. to Titus.   
Question 10. What call had your Reformers Papists qu. 10 to go about such a work?  
Answer, They were Ministers lawfully ordained, the Bishops of England and Doctors Protestants Answer. of Germany etc. For Calvin he was thrust forth by Farrel and Virer, and ordained by laying on of the hands of the Presbytry, according to the rule, 1. Tim. 4. 14. So was our Knox, Wishhart, Willock. etc. They were like Scribes fitted for the kingdom of God, and furnished with things new and old. And being Officers in an army where they did clearly see the captain of salvation injured, did lift up their voices like trumpets and show the people their transgressions, which was the duty of their office according to their oath.  
Reply, Ye take your first Ministerial ordination Papists Reply. from the Bishops of England, Doctors of Germany, and hands of the Presbytry, where by Bishops if you understand Catholic Bishops remaining such, you must understand, they neither could, nor would give any power, to preach against the Catholic Church. No Bishop having power to destruction, but to edification of the Church. As also you must understand, the Catholic Church was yet in her integrity, having lawful Bishops, whom ye should have constantly followed. If Bishops turned Protestants. I ask from whom had they their power, but from the Catholic Church, which no doubt had suspended them in the exercise of their Episcopal function, for their disobedience and separation from her. As for the Doctors of Germany, they might well make Luther a Doctor, but not a lawful Pastor or new Apostle, nor could there be a presbytery of pure reformed Ministers to consecrat Calvin, he being the first Reformer himself. For by the word Presbyter, ye understand an Elder in the New Testament, and so by the word presbytery you must understand a convention of Elders in the Session, which is the first place indeed for a Sodomist, called for setting him on a pillar, rather t●en in the Pulpit. But true it is ye had no ordination in the beginning, but every one did preach at his own hand, pretending the goodness of their doctrine, did give them sufficient power and call, as all other Sectaries do commonly in the beginning. Protestants Duply.  
Duply, There was a necessity of, Reformation pleaded for, by many under the Papal tyranny. This was denied, and school questions made articles of faith, which caused some officers of the house first write against them, and preach down such profane errors, as Indulgencies, etc. Now I ask, if the case and exigence be such, whether might not a Popish pastor, by virtue of his ordination, judge himself bound in duty to decry the sins of the time, and endeavour reformation a● Savanorola did? especially seeing every ordained man is a pastor of the Catholic Church, this is power for edification not for destruction. Admit the Bishops of England did continue Papal, it was their duty to purify the worship, throw down Idols &c if they were Reform, than the more fit were they for reforming others. When Athanasius separated from the Arrians ceased he to be a Bishop, or was he holden to be silent in his apology to the Emperor, he pleadeth for the contrare. Had not the Doctors of Germany power to preach against Indulgencies, and were they not Presbyters also? You bewray your ignorance concerning Calvin, he was not the first reformer, Farrel, Viret, and others were before him, who thrust him out into the work of the Lord. You have as little skill of Presbytry by taking a Session for it. But it seemeth your mistake hath been studied to vent your malice against Calvin. If ye were as free of superstition and Idolatry as he was of Sodomy, the offerings of the Lord would not be so injured, nor his Name polluted.  
Question eleventh, Ye want uninterrupted succession, which the primitive Church Papists qu. 11 claimed still, as appeareth from Aug. contra Cresconium l●b. 2. cap. 3. and ep. 48. This was one of the weapons whereby they did b●at the Donatists?  
Answer, The ground of separation of the Donatists, was the personal vices of men, Protestants Answer not the doctrine professed in the Church. For in that they agreed with the universal Church, as is clear from the above mentioned ep. Now we did not separat from Rome, because their Popes (whom they take for a patron) have been Atheists, Heretics, deniers of the soul's immortality, Whore mongers etc. as their own writters confess, in the lives of Silvester 2. Alexander 6. john 22. and many more, but because ye apostatised from the Apostles doctrine and corrupted the worship miserably, so these testimonies concern not us.  
Secondly; If interrupted succession make void the Ministry, ye Papists have none at 
Ans. 2.  all. For ye often had Anti-popes', and the Council at Pisa deposed two Popes at once, as Heretics departing from the faith. The Council of Constance deposed john 23. for denying the immortality of the soul and the resurrection. Behold then your succession, and the infallibility of your Popes. Eugenius the fourth, was deposed by the Council of Basil; and all the following Popes were his successors, albeit the Council judged Faelix the fifth to be Pope. Yea further, this place hath vaiked for many years together, so that a line of immediate successors cannot be drawn by yourselves.  
Thirdly, We have a lawful Ministry, as 
Ans. 3.  powerful as the world affordeth, honoured by the blessing of the Lord by begetting souls to himself, and many can from their experience say, that it hath been the power of GOD to their salvation; how then can you challenge our Ministry? Is not this near of kine to that old Antichristian question proponed to our Master, by what authority dost thou these things? And if personal succession had such weight as you say, the Priesthood under the law had been at a great loss. For the line of it was interrupted oftener than once before the coming of Christ, yet he commendeth submission and obedience to them so long as they did sit in Moses chair, and no further, Matth. 23. 1. So that in Ministers it is the Doctrine and not the Genealogy of persons that is so much regarded.  
Reply, In your eleventh Answer, you grant personal vices are not a sufficient ground Papists Reply. of separation from the Church, and say that Protestants did only separat themselves from the worship miserable polluted, and because the Roman Church had Apostatised from the Apostolic Doctrine. But Sir, let me ask you, when the Catholic Roman Church (which before your Reformation at least was a true Church) Apostatised? And who was a competent judge to declare her Apostasy, and give you leave to separat? Was ●t Scripture, as according to your first rule you must say? Then I ask if two or three under pretence of a Reformation, may adhere to what they think to be in Scripture, against the judgement of the whole Church at that time? Which assuredly all must grant who teach that the true Church may err; and so give the same liberty to all Sectaries, which they take so boldly to themselves. But albeit you say, your separation was not from our personal vices, yet you impute in the by going heresy, denying of the souls immortality, whoredom to two or three of our Popes, Silvester the second, Alexander the sixth, John the twenty two. How justly we shall presently see. But however this were true, it could no more wrong the Pope's authority in his Canonical decrees, than David's adultery, or Solomon's Idolatry in penning Scripture. Neither is it a great wonder that amongst 240. Popes, there have been two or three evil. Since even amongst twelve Apostles there was one Judas. Nor do Catholics canonize all their Popes although for these three whom ye name wicked, they have 33. most famous Martyrs and Saints. What ever they teach as private doctors, as it makes no law in the Church, so it cannot derogat in the least to their decision, and doctrine as Popes. But to answer for these three, what Martinus Polemius, and the Magdeburgh say against Silvester the second as a Magician, is known by all the learned to be mere fables, imputed to him for his eminent knowledge and learning in the Mathematics, which made the ninth Age wherein he lived to call him a Magician, because of its gross ignorance. Alexander the sixth is also blamed for lewdness, by no impartial writer. And what Calvin saith lib. 4. instir. against John 22. is known to be error and lies speaking of him as Pope, whatever was his opinion as a private Doctor, of the soul before the day of judgement, which he disclaimed to be his at his death, professing and protesting that he had never any belief but that of the Catholic Church, saith John Williams lib. 11. hist. cap. 19 But Heretics speak of Popes as Rebels of Kings, discontented subjects of Ministers of state, and criminals of their lawful judges, which no wise man will much regard, Then to show that we have not an uninterrupted succession, you speak first of Anti-popes', as if they did interrupt the succession of Pope's more than Usurpers the succession of Kings, Secondly, Of Popes deposed by Councils, but you cannot, instance that any lawful Pope was deposed by any general Council what ever, Thirdly, You say the See of Rome hath vaiked for many years. To which I answer, as Kings die not, so neither Popes, as it doth not interrupt the succession of Elective Kings, that after the death of one there be long debate before the Election of another, the royal power then residing in the Electours, so neither interrupteth it the succession of Popes and their Election. You speak nothing of your own succession, because ye have none. You brag much of a powerful Ministry, but shows no call you had to the Ministry from GOD, nor his Church, so we had good reason to challenge it, albeit you call this an Antichristian question, to ask at new upstarts who pretend to reform the Church, who gave you a call? because the Jews had such a question to Christ. But Christ John 15. 24. saith, if he had not showed himself to be the Son of GOD by his words and works which none else could do, no man had been obliedged to believe him. Yet ye will have us to believe you, are lawful Ministers, without succession or a call, and that Luther and Calvin were extraordinarily sealed for Reformation, without the least sign, mark, or miracle, showing that they were sent for that end? So that in Ministers you conclude it is the Doctrine more than the Genealogy of persons, which is so much regarded. As if preaching of true doctrine were sufficiant to make a man a Minister without any ordination or call; the Scripture expresseth another thing saying, how shall they preach except they be sent. And as to seek true successsion of Bishops and Pastors in the Church from the Apostles and their successors, were to seek their Genealogy and Birth. Such answers are made to deceive the ignorants, and to let any rational man know, ye have no lawful successsion at all, however, ye intrude yourselves into the Ministry upon pretence of doctrine, as all fanatics and sectaries do.  
Duply, Here is multum scribere, and a rabble of ragged discourse to small purpose, Protestants Duply. passing from Succession, which was the question, to a call which was formerly answered. In the first part how poorly plaster you over the crimes of your three Popes, by giving Calvin, and the Magdeburgenses, and the ages wherein they lived the lie. And is this all your vindication of them? That it may appear this covering to be too narrow, for so foul faults, not only have Calvin and the Magdeburgenses said so: but Platina, B●r●nius, Sigonius etc. Are these also liars? These are not authors like Bolsecus the Apostate, but such as ye will not deny to be credible witnesses, Silvester the 2. lived in the eleventh Centurie, and not in the ninth as ye mistake. Once he was called Gerbert, and studied the Mathematics saith Onuphrius, then turned a consulter with the Devil saith Platina, for instance this is brought, that he enquired curiously how long he would enjoy the Papacy? And the response he received, was till he laid Mass in Jerusalem. Within four years thereafter, he was saying Mass in the corner of the Ro●d-Church which is called Jerusalem, and ask how the Chapel was called, it was answered by some Jerusalem: Then he knew that his death was near, and becoming to be sad, he confessed his sins before many witnesses, whom he exhorted to beware of ambition and commerce with the Devil. Some say that he desired his body to be cutted, and laid on a cart, etc. This his tragedy is recorded also by Polid. Virg. de invent. rerum. lib. 5. Nauclerus vol. 2. gener. 34. If these be your Matheticks I will learn none of them. So it is sure by testimony of your own, that Silvester was a Magician.  
Next ye say that John 23. your Pope is wronged by Calvin, for saying that he denied the immortality of the soul, and ye alleadg● what ever was his opinion as a private Doctor, of the soul before the day of judgement yet that he recanted his error, and died in the faith of the Church. If Calvin wrong him, Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. wrongeth him also for he saith the Cardinals resisted him in this gross tenet; and doth disput whither it was heresy, seeing it was not defined in a Council. Nauclerus saith that many Divines hold this Pope to be an heretic. And his successor Benedict did publicly condemn him and it. Erasmus in his preface to the 5. book of Irenaeus, saith, that he laboured to propagat this heresy in France, and being challenged, was compelled to recant, which he did coldly saith Nauclerus. Had ●o● Calvin then reason to say, that this Pope was heretical? Otherwise why was he put to recantation?  
Thirldy, Ye say that Alexander the 6. was blamed by no impartial writer. Was not Guic●ardine 
† Guice. lib. 1.  impartial? What think ye of Phil. de Coming. 
† Phil. de Bello. Neap.  was he partial also? They give us this relation that he came by bribes to the chair. And when Charles the 8. intended war against the Turk, the Pope advertised Bajazet, and promised for a sum of money to make a stop to the expedition, which the Turk undertook to pay. Was not this a holy Father? Further, Onuphrius telleth that he was much given to whoredom, and did beget four sons and two daughters, whom he avouched. His family was stained with incest. So that a Poet in these times did write this Epitaphe on his daughter;  
Hoc jacet in tumulo, Lucretia nomine, sed re  
Thais, Alexandri filia, nupta, ●urus.  
His death was tragical, for having prepared a bottle of poisoned wine, for some whom he invited to dinner, was poisoned therewith by the ignorance of his Cupbearer, and fell into the ditch which he prepared for others; his candle was thus put out, and he left an unsavoury snuff behind him, as his Epitaphe witnesseth, written by ja. Sannazarius, who when he hath mentioned his many faults (into which puddle I love not to raike) shutteth up all with this,  
I nunc Neronis, vel Caligulas nomina,  
Turpes vel Heliogabulos.  
Hoc sat viator, reliqua non sinit pudor,  
Tu suspicare, & ambula.  
Then you reflect upon the society of the Apostles, where there was one Judas. But when he fell did he not cease to be an Apostle, and fall from his Ministry? But your Popes continued such till their death infallible; and they erred as men, but not as Popes. This could not be said of judas though once an Apostle. They are liker to judas then any of the rest of the Apostles. But to make such a head of Christ's Church upon Earth is a strange paradox. O but ye say, David and Solomon fell, yet were penmen of holy Scripture. Ans. They penned no Scripture while in that state. I hold the Negative you are bound to prove the Affirmative, but will never do it. Their repentance was more than ordinar, witness Psal, 51. and the book of Ecclesiastes. O if your Popes had a grain weight of their repentance, soon would we hear other language from them and you. Then you say, that Heretics speak evil of your Popes, as criminal persons do of a judge. Was Platina a criminal person or heretic, and yet he marketh eminent vice● in more than 33. Popes. Read him and resent your expressions, or refute him as ye do Calvin with a broad lie and no more. You put us to it to tell the time when Rome became Idolatrous and vicious in the worship, etc. Which was the ground of our separation. This belongeth to the former question. Yet to this I say with reverend and learned Bishop Usher, Rome was not built in a day, nor the great dunghill of errors which now we see raised in it in an age, therefore it is a vain demand.  
Secondly; There be a difference betwixt open Heresies which oppose the foundation, Protestants Duply. 2 and Apostasy which the Spirit hath evidently foretold, should be brought in by these who speak lies in hypocrisy. 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. The impiety of the one is notorious, the other mysterious as the Apostle re●●●eth it, 2. Thess. 2. 7. they who watched against the one, might sleep while the seeds of the other were in sowing, or peradventure might have a finger in bringing in this Trojan-horse under the name of devotion.  
Thirdly, Albeit we cannot ●ell day & place, when and where errors did at first begin, yet that will not make error truth. The 
Dup. 3.  S●ddueces taught their was no Resurrection, nor Angels, can any man tell under what High Priest this error was broached? Shall it be a truth for that? So ye have damnable errors, but when the first seed was ●owne of these t●res, probably men sleeped, and an adversary hath done it. Your Anti-popes' made an interruption of succession and possession, otherwise their work was non ens. If so, then where is your uninterrupte I succession? And if it be nor such, you speak nothing to the point. You say, I cannot instance that any lawful Pope was deposed by a Council. I hold no Pope lawful, and your Schoolmen say, the Council cannot depose a Pope, so it is an unlawful sentence. But seeing it appeareth you are of the contrar mind, I produced the instance of Eugenius the fourth, deposed by the Council of Basil, and all the Popes were his successors, albeit the council judged Falix the 5. to be Pope. But after your manner, you pass with silence, what you have not mind for. You say vacancy for many years maketh no interruption, because the Pope is like an elective King, and the power in the interim continueth in the Electours. This is lose language, for once ye make the Popes like the Kings of the Nations against Matth. 20. 25. then ye make no inter-Regnum, but seat the power in the Electours. If so, the power is not of GOD but of man, contrar to Scripture, john 19 11. Rom. 13. all that Electours have is the application. And if it be theirs originally, than they may depose a Pope by the Conclave. For ejusdem est author are & exauthorare. That saying the King dieth not, is meaned of hereditary Kings. The Pope is not such, and you will not say it. For Elective Kings, the Kingdom by his death wanteth a King, as a Burgh doth a Provost. If then the seat of the Pope vaiked so long the Church was headless for many years. How make you out then the line of uninterrupted succession? You come over again upon the call of our Reformers, to which I answered formerly, that o●r Ministers are called of GOD, is proved by the success which some of them had in converting, confirming, convincing souls, see jer. 23. 32. they who run unsent profit not at all, but they have edified many and turned them from darkness to light. We say not that the call of Luther and Calvin was immediate, and wholly extraordinar. But admit it were so, it needed not miracles; for the Baptist wrought no miracles, yet was called extraordinarily. What our Lord Jesus and the Apostles did that way, are ours for use, and aggravateth the sin of those who will not believe Gospel truths. The place cited by you I●. 15. implieth no more, yet it is well known that Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wishart, Welsh, Davidson, were more then ordinar men, and had the spirit of prophecy in some measure. But we will not lay weight on these things, seeing we have a more sure word of prophecy, to which we are bound to take heed. And this doth warrant us to purge out the old leaven with both out hands, that we may become a new lump. And no more is designed by our Reformation.  
To conclude this then, Our first Reformers had as lawful ordination, as the Roman Kirk could give them. And this is a strong argument ad hominem. Secondly, The power which that ordination gave them, you say was to edification, we are persuaded they made use of that in a Scripture way, and edified more in one year than ye did in many. If any man called to the work of the Gospel oppose the errors of many, can that strengthen Sectaries? Did not Paphnutius oppose a whole Council, and was commended for it, because he walked according to the rule, and had Scripture on his side? Did not Athanasius oppose the whole world, almost turned Arrian, and who ever blamed him for so doing? The case is the same, these called men adhered to the divine commission and opposed the errors of Popery. Their praise therefore must be in all the Churches of Christ.  
Question twelfth. Ye are so broken amongst Papists Quest. yourselves, that ye look not like the primitive Christians, who had one heart and way?  
Answer first, Our breaches are our burden before the Lord, and a stroke upon us, for Protestants Ans. 1 the abuse of that great gospel-light, under which we have long lived, but not for coming out of Babylon.  
Secondly, Ye Papists are more divided, 
Ans. 2.  for we all agree in doctrine and essentials, but ye skirmish about that so frequently, that if the judgement of the Roman Church be the sentence of your Church, it is hard to know what people shall do, tied to believe as your Church doth. For sometime the Council is put above the Pope, sometime the Pope above the Council. The pragmatic sanction of France is allowed and subscrived by many, cried down by others. Some will have a divine predetermination on the will, others only moral suasion. Some are for mediate concourse of the first cause with the second, others for immediate. If Unity be a convertible note of the Church, ye are none.  
Thirdly, Perfect Unity in all things, is not to be expected here, so long as we know but 
Ans. 3.  in part. 1. Cor. 13. 9 If whereto we have attained we walk by the same rule, the Lord will reveal more to us in due time. Phil. 3. 16. If any should have said that the Church of Corinth was not true because of some divisions, or that therefore these of Corinth should return with the foolish Galatians to the covenant of works, it had been a Solecism in reason, yet no greater than this, to allege that some differences make us no Church.  
Reply, In your 12. Answer, you grant your breaches amongst yourselves, as your burden for the abuse of pure Gospel light. How can Papists Reply. ye all agree in Doctrine, except in so far as the abuse of the Gospel, which is (to say true) all the unity ye have. Neither is it wonder ye do nor agree, seeing ye do not acknowledge the high Bishop successor to St. Peter, who as Hierom saith, was chosen for this amongst the twelve, that a head being constitute, the occasion of Schism might be taken away. Secondly, You pretend that Catholic Romans are more divided than ye, because sometime the Council is put above the Pope, sometime the Pope above the Council. But find you this as an article of the Catholic Church? What ever hath been the opinion of sacred men, yea of Fathers and Councils thereanent, yet they were never confirmed nor owned by the Church for an Oecumenick decree. And suppose both sentences were decided, it is easily answered, that the Pope is approved to be above a Council not approved by himself, and a Council approved by a Pope is above a Pope alone, wherein there is no disagreement or contradiction. As for the pragniatick Sanction, as it hath no reference to matters of faith, so it maketh nothing for your purpose, no more than praedetermination, seeing all Catholics who hold it, think it taketh not away freewill. But than you say, perfect unity in all things is not to be expected here. So ye show yourselves conscious enough of your own divisions: and if you understand it in matters of faith, it is a blasphemy against God's word, which saith that there be but one GOD, one Faith, one Baptism. If one faith, than no division of faith, without which no unity can consist. So judge you if it be not only a solecism in reason as you speak; but also in belief to join with the Grecians in Confession of Faith, albeit they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost which ye believe, or with the Lutherians, who hold the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, which ye flatly deny.  
Duply, You grant that the Pope according to Hierom was first chosen, that the occasion Protestants Duply. of Schism might be taken away. Then it is clear that the Pope is not Dominicae dispositionis, and that Hierom nor the Fathers did ever dream of his Monarchical Empire, as Casaubon ad Barronii annal, proveth well Exercit. 15. A Prolocutor is the most they give to the Apostle Peter, they call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this will not make a Pope, so by adhering to Hierom, you destroy the Pope. And not only was he of this opinion, but your own Medina telleth us, de sacrorum hominum origini: that Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Sedulius, Primasius, mantained the same. And it is clear that Augustin in quaest. Veteris & Novi Testament, quaest. 101. homologa●●h all this. I'll help you further herein, to show that I am no adversary to truth. Gregory the Pope prophesied, that whoso counted himself universal Bishop was Antichrist. And writing to John Patriarch of Constantinople, epist. 38. lib. 4 who did usurp that tittle, he calleth him Rex superbiae. Which title Boniface did take on afterwards, by Phocas means who killed his Master Mauritius, and fulfilled the prophecy of Gregory. Neither John Patriarch of Constantinople, nor Boniface excluded other Bishops, as Esthius laboureth by this reply to make evasion. For both in the Eastern and Western Churches at that time there were Bishops whom they acknowledged such. But he is universal Bishop according to Gregory, who layeth claim to the universal supremacy and extolleth himself above all, as the Pope now doth in the Church at Rome. I shall shut up this answer, with that famous consideration of Bernard to Pope Eugenius the 4. which words Antonius de Dominis Arch Bishop of Spalleto, citteth for refutation of the Pope's supremacy, Politia Ecclesiast. lib. 5. cap. 2. the words are these, Hoc quod habuit Petrus hoc dedit, solicitudinem quippe super Ecclesias, Dominationem nunquam, audi ipsum, non Dominantes inquit in clerum, 1. Peter 5. 3. Et ne dictum sola humilitate, non ettam veritate videatur, vox Domini est in Evangelio. Reges Gentium Dominantur vos non lic. I ergo ●u inquit & aude tibi usurpare Apostolicus Dominatum aut Dominant Apostolatum, plane ab alterutro prohiberis. This was written in the 12. Centurie, and is a full testimony, proving that Bernard thought not Papal jurisdiction of divine appointment. Now sir, did you nor palpably contradict yourself here, when formerly you equalised your Pope to Prophets, Apostles, and made your universal High-Bishop jure Divino, by saying that the evil of Schism occasioned his election at first; if so, it is juris humani at best, and thus you agree with Hierom.  
Secondly, You would father a contradiction on me, because I regrate our rents, proceeding from the evil use of gospel-light, as if we held not one confession of faith. A child may conceive, that the abuse of Gospel-light, supposeth the light, but it is evil used practically, and this maketh our breaches in other things. It is beyond controversy, that the national strokes under which we groan▪ have chief proceeded from the evil use of the Gospel. Light hath come amongst us, but we have walked in darkness. Will it therefore follow that we are not one dogmatically in the orthodox confession of faith. Where is this consequence founded? Neither doth the Popedom cure rents, but rather make them. Experience proveth this cure to be the fomenter of the disease. For since his usurpation, more controversies have been started in the Christian Church then formerly were heard. And if this were the cure, it is admirable, that when the case was in Corinth there is no mention of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, You deny that it hath been the sentence, or deeree ecumenical that the Council was above the Pope. Was it not expressly defined by the Council of Basil, and doth not the 15 Act of the Council of Chalcedon say that the Roman Church hath no privilege above others from Christ. But the reason why at any time they had it, was because it was the seat of the Roman Empire, and that the Bishop of Constantinople hath equal privileges with the Pope. Do not all your Sorbonists prefer the council to the Pope? and all your Jesuits the Pope to the Council? Where is your Unity then? for as Bellarmin saith, In hoc consistit summa rei, viz. ●n the Pope's infallible universal supremacy, without which there is no salvation to be ●●ad. Also ye make it a fundamental article of your Creed, which is more than the opinion of private Doctors. And the very truth is, it is the foundtion and key-stone of Popery. Quo sublato omnia corruunt, as he saith there in his Preface to the Treatise, the sum Pontisice. De qua re agitur cum de primatu Pontisicis agitur? Breviter respondeo, de summa rei, id enim quaeritur, debe●tne Ecclesia duitius consistere, an vero dissolvi & concidere. Then ye betake yourself to this hold, that the Pope is above a Council not approved by himself, and the Council approveed by him above the Pope. But as I said before, this giveth no more to a Council then to a Session, for if the Pope approve that, it is above his own single approbation, in regard of the additament to it. The only question is when they differ, whose sentence is to be preferred? And about this ye differ much amongst yourselves, consequently in fundamentals, for this is caput rei.  
Fourthly, You quarrel with us for saying that perfect unity in all things is not to be expected here. And yet it is express Scripture, 1. Cor. 13. 9 Phil. 3. 15. founded upon experience. How then call you it blasphemy? Unitas in fundamentalibus, libertas in supra fundamentalibus & charitas in omnibus, is a saying much commended by many; and did we blaspheme by uttering this golden sentence? We are in charity with the Lutheran and Greek Church because they hold the same rule with us, viz, the Scripture. The Reformed Churches have a body of Confessions, in which they have Concord, and we in this Church have one Catechism, and one Confession of Faith, in which we all agree. But to think that because of some other differences, we are not for one GOD, one Faith, one Baptism, it is absurd to speak so.  
Question thirteenth, May there not as yet Papists qu. 13 be an accommodation and union betwixt you and us?  
Answer, Will ye be like the Church at Rome, to which the Apostle Paul did w●ite Protestants Ans. 1 his Epistle, we will presently accord with any prosessing that faith, and not destroying it, by contradicting consequences and practices. But ye are no more like that Church of Rome, except in name, than a strumpet is like to a Virgin. The Epistle to the Romans is now against the Romans, witness, the point of Justification, and subjection to the higher powers.  
Secondly, Will ye take the Scripture for the only rule of faith, worship and manners? We differ from none such. But ye regard not the Scripture so much as your own traditions. For ye fainzie that it is imperfect, obscure, & must have an authority from your word, otherwise that it is not to be believed.  
Thirdly, Those who have intended that work, have lost their labour and thanks at all hands; as Cassander, Antonius de Dominis, Barnesius, Forbesius. What agreement can the Temple of God have with Idols: 2. Cor. ●. 14.  
Reply, In your 13. Section, you answer to a Papists Reply. Question which no Catholic would have made, if ye understand by an accommodation betwixt you and us, such as are in Scottish Trysts. We granting something to you, and ye something to us. For as to gain the whole world, a man should not lose his own soul, so▪ neither can be quit one article of his faith, without which it is impossible to please God. But your way being better, ask only two conditions to make this so much desired agreement. The first is, if ye will be like that Church of Rome, to which the Apostle Paul did write his Epistle: And the second is, that we will take scripture for a rule. We most willingly grant you both, not taking scripture as every bungler who wresteth it, but according to the exposition of the Church and the unanimous consent of the fathers. Appoint the meeting where ye please on these terms. He challenge no more calumnies on this Question, seeing now we are in terms of agreement, having sufficiently confuted them before.  
Duply, You say no Catholic would have moved the question. Are ye n●● for unity in the Lord amongst all Christians: where is Protestants Duply. 1 your charity now: I remember you said once nothing here was mentioned by me, but what was mentioned by others, but now you grant this hath nor come to your ears formerly, this is strange. Have you not seen Grotius and de Sancta Clara? who move the same wheel. At first you seem to be against all accommodation, as much as against all reformation. You cannot quite on article, not unum jot a saith Bellarmin, otherwise your Church might be declared fallible: therefore such as hanker after reconciliation with you, unless they mind to come up your length, will prove fools in the end, and lose all their labour. Yet on a sudden you forget yourself, accepting of these terms offered, but in repetition you embezle them unfaithfully.  
For first, will ye be like that Church, to which the Apostle Paul did writ in point of justification by faith, and subjection to the Magistrate? These two you leave out, being conscious that ye are contrar to divine direction in both these. And how cometh it to pass, that when the Apostle chap. 16. saluteth so many Saints at Rome, he omitteth the Pope? If he was then head of the Church, and maketh no mention of his supremacy, nor of their subjection to him, which is summa rei, one of your fundamentals, seeing chap. 13. he ordained them for conscience sake to be subject to Nero. The world may see that the Apostle Paul hath been no Papist.  
Secondly, When you propound the second condition, it is propounded lame, barely, you say, that ye hold the Scripture for a rule● but I said for the only rule of faith, worship, and manners. Hold that, than ye renounce traditians in matters of faith, for the law of the Lord is perfect, Ps. 19 The Pope's infallibility, and universal supremacy; your latin worship, communion under one kind, prayers to Saints, and for the dead, Purgatory, all which are clearly confuted by Scripture. So if ye do not adhere to these conditions, the meeting will be to small purpose where ever it be appointed. Justin Martyr Expos. recta fidei, saith. Amongst the children of the Church, matters divine must not be ordered and directed according to men's reason and thoughts, but our speech and interpretation of them, should be sitted to the sense and will of the Spirit of GOD. Basil in Exercit. de Fide. It is a manifest defection from the faith, and a clear evidence of pride, either to reject any of these things which the Scripture contain, or to bring in (as a point of faith) any thing which is not written in the word; and he citeth that of our blessed Lord, john 10. 5. My sheep hear my voice, a stranger they will not hear but flee from him. Hilar. lib. 1. de Trinit. when we speak of divine matters let us give to GOD the knowledge of himself, and let us with all veneration follow his say, for he is a me●t witness to himself, who is not known but by himself,) Aug. lib. 6. Conf. cap. 5. (Thou hast persuaded me O GOD, that not these men who believe these books which thou in all Ages hast founded upon thy authority, are to be blamed, but such as believe them not, neither are they to be heard.) If any perchance should say to me, whence knowest thou these books, to have been ministered to mankind by the Spirit of the one and most true GOD, even that very same thing was mostly to be believed. Aug. lib. 2. de Baptismo. contra Donatist as, (Let us not bring false ballance● wherein we may weigh what we will, and as we will, according to our own arbitrament, saying, this is heavy, that is light, but let us bring the divine balance out of the holy Scriptures, as the Lords treasury, and let us weigh in it what is more heavy and weighty. Yea, let us not weigh only, but also acknowledge scriptuval truths to be weighed and determined already by the Lord. Si Scriptura habeat controversiam ex eadem Scriptura, adhibitis ejus testibus termin●tur. Aug. de doctr. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 28. Papists Quest. 14  
Question fourteenth, We are still gaining Proselyts from you, but few turn off from us, and become members of your Church?  
Answer, Your pelf and policy is greater Protestants Ans. 1 than ours, hereby simple souls are ensnared.  
Secondly, Ye give indulgencies for looseness, this catcheth profane ones who love to live at random, but without some such carnal design or prejudice, we hear not that any turn off from us.  
Thirdly, Have not sundry left Rome in the integrity of their heart, and closed with naked persecuted truth in our Church, as the Marquis of Galeacia. Mr. Smeton, etc. yea, sundry have gone to Rome & been converted, by taking a distaste at their worship and way.  
Fourthly, Our run aways, runagads, have to mourn before the Lord for their Apostasy, seeing they cannot deny, that the Ordinances in our Church have been by the Lord's blessing instrumental to beget children to God. This they must grant, unless they will say, that all the reformed Church is unconverted, which they have no confidence to aver. Now how gross is it to spit in the face of her who did bear and foster them, which I wish the Lord may lay to the consciences of such revolters. But not to insist further, I desire you in the fear of God to pause and consider well, whether you are going to heaven or hell? and by what rule you walk? If the will of man, or the revealed will of God, have the power of your consciences? or whether it be safer, to take the scriptures way, in which the Prophets and Apostles walked to heaven, or the way of your own traditions and vain inventions? He who walketh according to the scripture rule, peace and mercy shall be upon him, and upon the Israel of God.  
Reply, In your last answer you say, our Papists Reply. pelf and policy is greater than yours, both which I grant, but glories in neither. Yet if Ministers augmentations hold on, they will shortly equal our pelf, but not our Christian policit, in employing it so well; our glorious and goodly edifices of Churches, Hospitals, Monasteries, dispersing and distributing their rents to pious uses. But the thrusting down of Churches, Hospitals, Monasteries, dispersing and dissipating their rents, testify your want of policy, blind avarice & mad passion. Secondly, You say, we give indulgencies for looseness, as if in Catholic times, there had been greater looseness then since the Reformation. Whereas the keeping of Lent, and Fasting days were abolished, Penance and satisfaction for sin taken away, celibacy in Church men thought a crime, Laics allowed after divorcement to marry, all good works thought impossible, the Commandments thought impossible to be keeped, and that men sin of necessity in their best actions, which, as it excuseth all wickedness and sin; so it giveth way to all looseness and prophainness. Thirdly, You say, many quit Rome in the integrity of their heart, such as the Marquis of Galeacia, and closed on their peril with naked truth in your Church. To which I answer, that all Heretics and Schismatics have quit Rome not in the integrity of their heart, but in the blindness of their mind, and that with their own peril, eternal damnation, closing with a very naked faith and Religion, not well clothed with the least colour of truth, but not with naked faith or belief, which Catholics confidently and constantly assert, what ever you say to the contrar. And it is not where else to be found, for they know there is but one faith, and one GOD, and one true Church. Consequently united in the same faith, in all which points as she was established by Christ and his Apostles, hath continued since their time visible in her Pastors and People in all Ages, holy and incorrupted in her Doctrine, religious in her Sacraments and ceremonies, powerful and glorious in her wonders and miracles, conversion of Infidels, in the which the holy Fathers have lived, and all true Martyrs have died. Which only all new upstarts and Sects do persecute and oppose, as Protestants at this day, under the pretence of Reformation, and upon the same ground of wresting Scripture, against the common consent of the Church and Fathers with them. For as all divisions in Christianity have been from the Roman Catholic Church, so all have turned both their arms and pens chief against her, but in vain, she is builded on a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. And so, who return from you to her, are neither runaways nor runagads, as you call them, but like the forlorn child, or lost sheep returned. Whose example undoubtedly many more would follow, if they would consider, Faith without unity amongst Protestants, a Church without a Head, a Body without united Members, a Law without a Judge, a Temple without an Altar, Religion without Sacrifice, Divine service without Religious ceremonies, Sacraments which do not sanctify, Doctrine without infallibility, Belief without a ground, Preachers without a call, Commandments impossible to be keeped, Exhortation to what is not in our power, Reprobation without works, Reward without Merits, Sin punished where there is no , Scripture received or rejected upon the catalogue of the Jews, GOD'S word patched up by men, Reformation without authority, New-lights against old received ve●i●ins, the Privat-spirit against the whole Church, single men's opinions against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, in a word, wavering Pastors, unsettled Government, unstable Faith. In the postscript there be a parallel patched about our Reformations, which being composed of the gall of bitterness, without verity or reason, deserveth no answer, but that which Hezekiah commanded. Is. 36. 21.  
Duply, You grant that ye are rich and politic, this is true, there is much prophain Protestants Duply. 1 policy, where Jesuited equivocation is mantained. But tell me if this be like the Godly sincerity, and Gospel's simplicity, which was the old Apostolic way, and ground of their rejoicing. 2. Cor. 1. 12. If ye exceed us in sumptuous buildings (which politicly you mistake for the policy mentioned by me) though your pelf be greater than ours, we want not Hospitals, Bridges, Temples, according to our ability. But what is that to the doctrine which is according to Godliness? The Turks exceed you as fare that way as ye do us. And the Temple of Diana at Ephesus exceeded you and them also.  
Secondly, You deny that Popery fostereth profaneness, but it is too apparent, and 
Duply. 2.  how can it be otherwise? If indulgencies bought and sold like an horse in a market, tend not ex natura operis, in itself, to make men lose and profane, let any sober man judge. For thus may they reason, shall I quite my lusts for a little money, I know what will do the bussines, and put me in favour with God. Why should I pluck out my right eye and cut off my right hand, when a little time in purgatory will do the turn, and a soulemasse, which I can have for the Legacy of a sum of money will free me thence. But we with the scripture, forbidden men to deceive themselves, for they who do such things shall not it herit the kingdom of heaven. So with us, nothing less will satisfy then Gospel repentance, and the least ground of hope is not granted to those hereafter, who turn not away door from their iniquities. How can this be denied, seeing your latest Casuists, such as Escobar, Busenbaius and Diana the Sicilian, have purposely devised latitudes for rendering profane men secure about Duels, Sodomy, and other acts of uncleanness, which would make chaste ears to ●ingle. And that men who in heinously are not bound to repent immediately, as it is fully proved by Reverend & Learned Mr. MENZIES in his Papismus Lucifugus pag. 158. to 169. And when it is defended, that minus probabile, may be chosen although it have no ground in scripture, contrar to more probable grounds, and the stream of Doctors, doth not this open a door to make the may of Christianity broad? whereas the scripture calleth it straight and narrow. Thus ye gain proselytes. And it is observable that man● lose livers in the land, who are adversary's to the power and purity of Religion, & hate to be reform, do incline to Popery. And to me it is not minus probabile, that it is only upon this account. We are not against fasting, chastity, mortification. Nor do we say, that men sin not willingly, or that good works are impossible, yea we hold them  to salvation. Only we deny that fallen man can be justified by the works of the law, otherwise we needed not a Saviour not a Gospell-remedy. It is your ordinar way to mistate questions and then intent a skirmish which is easy work; this is a sinful and shallow evasion.  
Thirdly, You fall out with bawling expressions, which rational men cannot value much and scoff at these worthies, who did take their lives in their hands, and closed with persecuted truth, neither for gain nor for honour, but for conscience sake. Was not this a commendable duty? If self denial be not a chief ingredient in Christian performances I know not the Gospel. You assert that it was blindness not integrity. I averse, it was integrity and not blindness; Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? remember thou shalt be judged. You talk much concerning the authority and unity which is amongst you but some who were at Rome, and have come not long ago from you to us again, tell, what sort of integrity, purity and chastity is amongst you. So it is no wonder albeit many tongues and penn● be employed to pull down that whorish Babel, which ye call Zion.  
Fourthly, You imply that none can be saved but such as are subject to the Pope. Therefore our runaways must nor be apostats with you; for they are Prodigals returned, and lost sheep found. When I pray you went they from you to us? Were they not baptised in our Church, and partakers of all ordinances with us till of late? Then I pose you and them again, whither ye damn all who are not Popish, and judge them unconverted? If they be Heretics, in your sense this must follow. Yet you have nor the confidence to speak it directly. And sure I am, Scripture requireth not subjection to the Pope, as an article of the Creed. If without this ● man cannot be saved, albeit he believe, and live like the Gospel, the Apostle Paul was not chosen Vessel, which is contrar to Scripture; there was no Pope in his days, nor long after that. Your Church hath been visible by bell, book, and candle, fire, faggot, pomp, policy. Your Pastors are more for the fleece then the flock. Ye are superstitious by addition, substraction, multiplication, without any warrant. Your Ceremonies are partly Paganish, partly Jewish, and for the most Schismatic, so not religious nor venerable. Your miracles & wonders are such, that it is good for you to have them wrought in America, and told in Europe. Like are ye to him who cometh with lies and wonders, 2. Thess. 2. 9 Your conscience can witness what Leger-demain is in these. And it is our way to try miracles by the Scripture. I wish Infidels were converted to the Christian faith, and not to a faction. By the Scripture, no● by fopperies and military Compulsators. Stephen, the Apostles, and some primitive Fathers were Martyrs, but they died not in the Romish Faith as it is now mantained. And how can your Church be called Catholic, which is a particular one, wherein be many dissenters? It is not strange to us albeit ye indulge them who run away, and Apostatise from us, but it is strange why they have done so, and what hath sascinated them to burst all bonds and swallow on a sudden the whole bulk of Popery. It requireth an Ostrich stomach to digest such iron. Where in did Gospel-truths, Gospel-worship, or their mother and nurse weary them, testify against her if they can?  
Fifthly, You say, we have Faith without unity, than you grant us faith, and our unity in fundamentals is more than your own. A Church without a head. We acknowledge no Pope head of our Church, Christ is our head, and the visible Government of the Church is Aristocratical, not Monarchical, the mystical Members of his Body are united in him; so we are not a body without united members. Neither want we a Judge in controversal matters. It is known that many points of Christianity cannot be judged by r●en, because the Kingdom of Grace is within us, and consisteth not in meat or drink but righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. Who will say that the hidden man in the heart, can be cognosced by any external living judge on earth? The spiritual man ●udgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no man, 1. Cor. 2. 15. The written word is the rule of this and other such cases. For other matters we have Councils, and Church Ruler's appointed by the supreme Judge, who are bound to discern according to Scripture, and all are appointed to obey them in the Lord; so, we have not a Law without a Judge. The golden Altur is our Altar, we have sacrifices of Prayer and Praises, and one living sacrifice is better than many carcases, that is reasonable service, Rom. 12. 1. Then we have order and decency, and such positives as set forth the worship in a Gospel way, without pompous observation therefore we lack not an Altar, Sacrifices, and Ceremonies in such manner as Gospel-work under the New Testament requireth. Our Sacraments are instruments to seal and sanctify, our rule is infallible, for it is Scripture; the grounds of our faith are such as will not make us ashamed, for we have his revealed will and word for it. Therefore it is a calumny to say, we have Sacraments which do not sanctify, Doctrine without infallibility, and Belief without a ground. If our Preachers had run unsent, the Lord had not sealed their Ministry with such success, jer. 23. 32. It may be spoken without vanity, to the praise of freegrace, that there be many real, sincere, serious, solid Christians in BRITAIN. Blessed be the Lord, we go not without our Converts who can speak with any adversary in the gate. And they will and do bless our Ministry upon the brink of eternity, which hath been the power of GOD to their Salvation. So our Ministry is not without a call; we say not that any divine command is in itself impossible to be keeped, but that fallen man through his own fault is imperfect in obedience, and without Christ can do nothing. john 15, 5. If you say more speak it out, for it will be plain Pelagianism. Exhorrations and communications are means to make us willing and obedient. It is not in our power to think a good thought as of ourselves, dare you deny this? Why then fall you fond on us speaking with the Scripture? Luke 17. 10. By grace we are saved freely, through faith and eternal life is the gift of GOD, the reward is a free remuneration, and may be without our merits; we grant freewill in Augustins' sense, and Jansenius proveth that this is, true liberty, by arguments which were never yet answered. But we do disclaim Jesuitical indifferency, because it taketh away divire providence, the power of grace; and sets up anti-providences from the will of man. Because we sin willingly, who can deny that we are punished justly? Neither take we the Scripture Catalogue from the jews: but make use of reason, testimonies from old Writters, universal consent, to be a porch for entry to the knowledge of the numeric controversy, and how can you say so of our Catalogue, seeing we mantain no book to be Scripture, but such as ye allow. And are ye not helped by the Jews herein as well as we? Only we lay that the authority of the Scripture, dependeth not on humane testimony, as upon its principal foundation, nor yet upon unwritten tradition: because divine faith must be begotten by a divine testimony. And we believe the Scriptures authority and truth side l●●ina, because the Lord hath spoken it. In this true faith must be finally resolved, else it is not divine. It is a calumny to say, we patch the Word, seeing we make Scripture the only rule of our faith. There be none in the Christian Church, who add such patches to the word of GOD as ye. Our Reformation had authority both from Heaven and men on earth. The Laws of the Land can testify this, which are yet in vigour for it and against you. And there may be new light in time of darkness, which was formerly dimmed or put out, which light is the good old light, proceeding from the Father of lights. If ye condemned this, the world should have still continued Arrian, when it was overclouded with it: and all Reformation even the Scripture one is unlawful, see you not your absurdity here? Yea, it was prophesied, Dan. 12. 4. that in the latter times knowledge should increase, and light also be extended; but light without verity deserveth not the name. Private men have the liberty of discerning allowed to them, Acts 17. 11. 1. Io. 4. 1. Yea, such may have public spirits and be called to public employments. But what you mean by this I conceive not. For the Gospel worship which we mantain hath the consent of all the Scriptures, Churches, and primitive Fathers, as is formerly proved to the full: We wish the hearts of all our Pastors may be established by grace, that they may be subjected to him who hath the government on his shoulder, and by their faith working by love, glorify the chief Shepherd of the stock. We will not recriminat ralling for railing, but it were easy to show, Ye have a Church composed state-wayes, Your policy devoureth all p●●ty; Your superstitious vows against marra●ge all chastity; Your impeaching of the Scriptures, all divine verity; Your blind allegiance to the Pope, all loyalty; Your superstitious buskings, all purity; Your worship in an unknown tongue, all fervency; Your addition to the one Sacrament, and mutitation of the other, all sincerity; Your universal infallible supremacy, all primitive antiquity.  
It is not long since this Reply came to my hand, at the first view whereof, I intended to take in and discuss arguments proposed by Dr. Vane, in that Pamphlet entitled The lost sheep found. And these contained in another of the same kind, called Presbytries' trial. And to survey the other two entitled, The Touchstone, and F●at lux. But finding the substance of all these in this reflecter, and that he hath little of his own, but maketh malt for the most of their barley; by answering this, all the four are macerially answered, which a discerning Reader will find to be true. Now to close, I obtest all who read this Vindication of the reformed Religion, to consider the cause seriously without partiality, pride, passion, prejudice. Remember that, james 2. 1. Have not the faith of our Lord jesus with respect of persons, And the spirit of truth lead you into all truth: The spirit of error and lies be rebuked and resisted by the Lord: That a pure offering may be offered to Him, from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof.  
FINIS.   

A POSTSCRIPT, Containing an Advertisement and Advice to the Merchants of DUNDIE, who travel abroad: that they be not ensnared with the fopperies of Popery.  
AFter the writing of this VINDICATION, I judged it expedient, to give this word of Advertisement and Advice, to such as be called by their affairs, to negotiate in Countries where the Popish worship is only professed, and mantained. Because many travellers return home from these places, as that French fool came back from Rome, who passing through Ravenna, lest he should return empty to his friends, gathered in that Forest a multitude of bees, and flees, which being closed into a cloth bag, he poured forth amongst his relatives, to their prejudice and offence. And all they gained by his voyage was made up of stings and buzing. So when traveller's return from foreign Nations, either Neutral, Nullisidians, or leavened with Popish saperstition, what is their purchase? Nothing that can edify any. Will ever practical Atheism, Gallioe● temper, or tampering betwixt truth and error, advantage a man at the long run? Not at all. These will sting like a serpent, more than themselves, a wound and dishonour may they have by it, but nothing else.  
The hazard which some Traveller's ton cannot be unknown to you. For the man who in this City hath become Popish, and stingeth some, is thought by all that know him, to have received the first die thereof abroad, when he traveled thither. And although the flecks of that pestiferous malady, broke nor forth immediately after his return; till the Carduns Maledictus of prejudice against some fellow Citizens made them appear, yet there probably he was first infected. Now if he who was gifted above many Merchants, catched so sore a backward fall abroad, that he hath now turned his back on that Church, wherein he was born and iostered. Have ye not reason with full purpose of heart to cleave to the truth of GOD, which can only set you free. It is not for nought that our Saviour said to his Disciples, Luke 17. 32. Remember Lot's wife.  
It is certain that the Church of SCOTLAND is a great eyesore to Papists, and they craftily lay snare● to seduce her members at home and abroad. Their hooks are feathered with variety of colours, and the Convent at Rome, de Propagan: fide, furnisheth many Emissaries, who spare no pains to make Proselyts. If any PROTESTANT fall sick abroad where the inquisition is, than they threaten to deprive him of burial, and putting on the Boars skin, would Hector and cudgel him by menacing ways, from the pure reformed Religion. At home they are clothed in Sheep's clothing, and with fair words deceive the simple, or such who are willing to be deceived. Will it not then be expedient to take a long and weigh these six Counsels for your conduct, that ye make not Shipwrak of Faith and a good Conscience.  
Counsel first, Look on all places where ye cannot enjoy public ordinances safely, as cages full of snares. Therefore act fervent acts of faith on jesus Christ, for through-bearing; and pray in faith, that ye be not deserted nor lead into temptation. Faith is the victory whereby ye must overcome. 1. john 5. 4. By it ye may obtain the victory, and be more than conquerors. i e. Ye shall overcome before ye fight, whereas other Conquerors fight first, then overcome. It is told in the life of Augustin, that when he was musing how to resist some temptations, he heard a voice saying, In te stas & non stas, whereupon he conceived that this was the meaning of it, thou cannot escape by aught which thou canst do, but must stand it our by borrowed strength from jesus Christ. Nothing will satisfy faith, nor uphold a man under trials, but divine presence, when the Lord said to Israel, Ex. 33, that he would send an Angel to attend them amongst their adversaries, they mourned, verse 4. because he said that he would not go himself with them. Nothing ye resolve will preserve and keep your garments clean in this case, but the strengthening presence of jesus Christ, through which ye can do all things, Phil. 4. 13. and without which ye are able to do nothing. It concerneth you therefore under no less hazard than your standing or falling, not to grieve this holy Spirit, with spiritual or carnal wickedness, lest ye deprive yourself of his presence, and become naked to your shame, in a strange land before superstitious men. Walk circumspectly, and beware of spiritual pride, which is ordinarily punished, and sometimes cured by a spiritual fall. Fear is faith's watch, and albeit the wicked fear where no fear is, yet foresight of Soul danger joined with the fear of our own wickedness, is a part of that wisdom recommended, Matth. 10, 16. And blessed is he who feareth thus always, Pro. 28. 14. It is well observed by Augustin, that albeit the jews had many penal statutes, yet none for exile, the reason which he giveth, is, Ne exul hoc pacto Idololatriae per●cule exponeretur. For fear lest abroad they should be exposed to the hazard of Idolatry. Then when ye are absent from pure Ordinances, commercing with adversaries, in all that work, should ye not walk like men on ice, for fear of a fall? The worst is to be suspected in these places, Gen. 20. 11.  
Counsel second, Take heed to your Conversation during your abode in Mesech. A lose profane life staineth Profession, and will bring up an evil report on Religion, it strengtheneth adversaries and causeth them blaspheme that holy Name by which ye are called, Ezek. 36. 20. The people are sore challenged for this, that in a strange land they profaned the holy Name of the Lord, when they said to them, these are the people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of his land. But if ye be holy in all manner of conversation, and righteous in your deal, thereby the Reformed Religion is lustred, and adversaries if they be not converted, will be convinced, that an evil tree could not bring forth so good fruit: and whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 1. Pet. 3. 16. Yea, a close Christian carriage is in itself a guard against many errors of Popery, and will make adversaries the more loath to trouble you. So hath Providence ordered it, that the Image of GOD, which after GOD is created in righteousness and holiness, Eph. 4. 24. becometh awful to many men. And as the Lord maketh the beasts of the Earth to stand in awe of man, made according to his Image, so ●nregenerat men are affrighted to have to do with such, Herod feared john, Mark. 6. 20. knowing that he was a just man, and an holy. The Wife of Pilate sent him word, to have nothing to do with that just man, Matth. 27. 19 Reyner the Inquisitor giveth this testimony concerning the Valdenses, and Albigenses, who in substantials professed the same Religion with us; that it was said, they were of old standing, lived justly before men, and believed all things well, concerning GOD, therefore were the more to be feared. And Plinius the second, giving an account to Trajan, how holy and harmless the Christians were, was commanded not to follow after them any more. Therefore, as ye would not give advantage to adversaries against you, and your Profession, walk closely with GOD. And amongst strangers estrange him not from you. Qui sciens recte non facit, amittit scire quod rectum est, saith, August. de Nat. & Gratia. cap. 67.  
Counsel third, Eschew all occasions which are ●pt to lead you into temptation, and go not to these places or societies which may prove a snare to you. When Peter went to the High-priests hall, a small temptation, the accusation of a Damsel did overcome him. And Naaman, 2. King. 5. craveth pardon for going to the house of Rimmon, albeit he was then serving his Master. For the words may be taken of the time past, and so they are translated Psalm. 51. in the tittle, and Psalm 54. 1. Evah looked on the apple, and then did c●t. The Apostle jude giveth a sure rule for your direction in such cases; jude 23. Augustin in his Confessions, Confess. lib. 6. cap. 7. 8. & 9 telleth of his intimat friend, that he once intended to see the Gladiatores, and against his consent would go to the Theatre, & behold that mad murdering exercise, our promised to him, to guard against the temptations of the place, yet notwithstanding of this resolution he was catched into the snare, and returned with an evil conscience. When the Lord giveth ●orth his Command● negative, all appearances, occasions or preparatory dispositions to evil are forbidden. What ever learned men may look on at a distance, that they may the more easily refute that way of worship; yet every one is not fit to view the camp of an adversary. In Comiti●s Augustanis, anno 1530. history telleth us, that the Protestant Princes in Germany would not convoy Charles the 5. to the Mass, and processions, In festo Corporis Christ● because they perceived a designed snare in it, and an offence. A snare set in the sight of a bird will be avoided. Much more have ye reason to go by the ditch, whom the Lord hath made wiser than the ●easts of the Earth or birds of the Air; that whore fits on many waters, if ye stand on the brink and ●ook long to these, your head may take a round, and ye fall into the deep. Wherefore is it that there be such pompous schenick actings, charming, music, 〈◊〉 Casuists amongst Romanists, if not for entrapping those who go by. An old noble man in this land, who lived and died a good Protestant, told me that when he was young he traveled to Rome, and out of curiosity desired he might be admitted to see the Popish ceremonies, monuments and rites, which the Conclave at first refused, but the next day Bellarmin being present, who was absent in the former diet, it was granted by his mediation. He in this was more wirry than the rest, and did take the nearest way for ensnaring the Nobleman, albeit it pleased the Lord to preserve him. Abstain then from all appearance of evil, and knit not a snare to yourself with your own hands. The fume of that cup of fornication hath made some drunk, make as quick dispatch as ye may homeward, some temptations are best overcome by resisting, and standing it out, Eph. 6. 14. 1. Pet. 5. 9 others are foiled better by flying, nor meddling, as Idolatry, Adultery, Fornication, 1. Cor. 6. 18. 1. Cor. 10. 14. Flee fornication, flee from idolatry, saith the Apostle. Therefore, carry in this as men in infected places, come away quickly, long, cit●, tarde, and linge● nor there, lest ye be taken up in the snare.  
Counsel fourth, Be busy in secret when the occasion of public worship is denied to you. They who have nor the opportunity of a public market, saith one, should be the more diligent to have nurseries or store at home. In cases of this kind, closing of the door, and secret work is ; than ye are called to spend the Lordsday in spiritual meditation, prayer, praises. So was that divine man of GOD employed in the Isle Pathmos, and received rich allowance from on high, Rev. 1. 10. When David was driven from the Temple, he had Temple work alone, in the wilderness of Maon the Lord was no wilderness to him. When Jacob was retired, ●e wrestled and prevailed; he found the Lord at Bethel, and there he spoke with us. H●s. 12. 4. That is, the fruit of that work, and the exemplary carriage of this tender Believer belongeth to the whole Israel of GOD: much of the work of a Christian is transacted in secret, and we under the Gospel have this privilege, which was not under the Law, that the Christian sacrifice, reasonable service may be offered every where lo. 4. 23. 1. Tim. 2. 8. its men when a Christian hath fewest diversions, may enjoy much of GOD and himself, use greatest freedom, have most access, and word his particular cases best. One saith, that Jesus Christ is sweet company, but frequently sweetest to the sense alone. And what is more edifying for a particular Believer, amongst Augustine's works nor his Soliloquies? Therefore in this exigence, meditate much on the Lords Word, his Works, your own weakness, w●nts, receipts, experiments, the excellency of Jesus Christ, the bitterness of sin, of death, judgement, eternity: and how precious your souls are beyond the gold of Ophir. Consider seriously that no merchandise can avail you, if ye purchase not the pearl of price; who ●●oweth the worth of that jewel? None but he to whom the arm of the Lord is revealed. In your secret retirements the Lord may acquaint your hearts with himself, and give you songs in the night. Baldwin in his cases propoundeth some directions, page 206. how men shall be exercised when they are necessitated to desert the public worship. First, If the administration of the Word and Sacraments, be not embezeld nor corrupted contrar to the written word, than none conscionably betake themselves to private exercise, in the time of public worship, because it is contrar to that Heb. 10. 25. forsake not the assembling of yourselves as the manner of some is. The public hath more of the promise, Matth. 18. 20. This by the context must be understood of such public meetings as have power of binding and losing. Micah fell into a sin not only of Schism, but of Idolatry, when in that place where the Lord had called a Ministry, he without a call set up private worship in his house to the prejudice of the public, judg. 17. This is his first position which he layeth down as a foundation. Secondly, If the worship be corrupted as in Popery, than Christians should call an orthodox Minister, who is called of GOD to the work and hath the promise, Rom. 10. 14. and go about their worship at home, for this he citeth Luther, Tom. 6. fol. 275. Thirdly, If no Minister can be had in the place, where the Lord casteth the lot of a Christian for the time, than he should be diligent in reading and searching the Scriptures. If his ●ands become weak here, he should take help from conference, ei●h●r with the dead who yet speak by their books, or with the living. If he be a Master of a family, than he may pray, read the word of GOD which is an ordinance, Deut. 11. 19 and instruct his family, according to his ability. Now from these positions, this may be proportionably gathered that when Merchants travelling in Popish countries' stay there on the Sabbath, they should be well employed on that day, by doing the work of the Lord diligently with both their hands. This is the way to be free of the power of temptation throughout the week, & to make you prosper the better in your affairs. Our success in temporals hath ordinarily a connexion with our through bearing in spirituals, as appeareth from the case of Abraham's servant, Gen. 24. 14. 15.  
C●ursel●ifth, When ye are deprived thus of the public worship, regrate your misspent Sabbaths, mis-heard sermons, and that ye made so frequently that feast-day of the Lord a fastday, and starved yourself without necessity; it is the Winter-season, and a providenced retirement to you, which in denounced as a calamity, Matth. 24. 24. Beside the sins and snares of your calling which are not few, the evil use of ordinances at home, may bring to your mind this much; that it is just with the Lord morally to shut you up that ye cannot come forth. Many prophets, and righteous men desired to see the days of the Son of man, which ye did see and depretiated. As in temporals, fullness of bread procureth famine: so in spirituals, when men who have the occasion will not serve the Lord, Deut. 28. 47. Spiritual famine is threatened to such, Amos 8. Therefore song much for a communion in public Ordinances with your mother Church. And when ye remember her towers, bulwarks, and how a high throne in the Sanctuary is for the Lord there, then let your soul be poured forth in you, Psalm 42. 4, and with these who did hang up their harps, Psalms 137. by the rivers of Babylon, lay bonds on yourselves, neve● to forget your Jerusalem, the valley of vision, and if the Lord return you home in peace, spit not in her face, who is the joy of the whole earth, but glorify the Lord in the house of his glory upon his own day, according to the prophecy Isai. 60. 7. (which now to us is a precept) in the beauty of ordinances, as in former days, where the man amongst the myrtle trees, clothed with a garment down to the foot, girt about with a golden girdle, whose voice is as the sound of many waters, shallbe seen walking amongst the golden candle-sticks. That is festus dies Domini, saith, Ambrose lib. 2. the Ca●n & Abel, cap. 2. ubi perfecta virtutum gratia est, ubi victor animus liber est a seculo. Then ye dedicat a day to the Lord, when ye worship him in spirit and truth thus. Fill your heart in secret with fixed purposes to enter on this work at your home-coming, seeing ye may better know the worth of Ordinances by the want of them.  
Counsel sixth, Pray much in secret for a discovery to Papists of their sinful worship, the sight whereof is sufficient to confirm discerning men, in the truth professed by us. It is lamentable that so many knowing men, should upon a secular interest for upholding the pompous Papacy, detain the truth in unrighteousness. When Ezekiel chap. 8. did see the image of jealousy he mourned, and received with the rest of the mourners for the abomination of the place, a mark of preservation chap. 9 so should ye do for these abominations. Peccatum tuum est quod tibi non disp●●cet said Augustin. How shall your displacency, be better attested, unless ye were called to a public confession? Overcome their evil with good, and pray for them who are ready to persecute you, that the Lord would turn them from darkness to light, and the power of error to truth: As also, that he would enlarge the Gospel by the power of his own Arm; that yet Rivers may run in that Dese●t, and the Myrtle may grow where the Bramble is. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts can perform this. The times are like the latter days being so perilous, See Brightman in Apoc. Mr. Medes Synchronismus, and concerning the Apostasy of the latter time. Master Durrham on the Revelation, than it is that knowledge shall increase and Babylon fall, if many mistake not his mind who governeth all.  
Roma diu titubans, variis erroribus acta, Corruet, & mundi desinet esse caput.  
Rome tottering long, possessed with errors strong, Shall tumble down, and prime no ●ore ere long.  
FINIS.