CATHOLIC CHARITY: COMPLAINING, AND MAINTAINING, That Rome is uncharitable to sundry Eminent parts of the Catholic Church, and especially to Protestants, and is therefore Uncatholick: And so, A Romish Book, called CHARITY MISTAKEN, though undertaken by a Second, is itself a Mistaking.  
By F. ROUS.  OPTATUS Lib. 2. 
Quia noluerunt fratres agnoscere, nullam habuerunt charitatem.  
LONDON, Printed by R. Young, for john Bartlet, at the sign of the gilt Cup, near S. Augustine's gate. 1641.   

REcensui Librum hunc, cui Titulus CATHOLIC CHARITY, in quo nihil reperio fidei orthodoxae, aut bonis moribus contrarium, quo minus summâ cum utilitate Typis mandetur.  
JOH. HANSLEY, R. P. Episc. Lond. Capel. Domest. Decemb. 2. 1640.   

The Publisher to the READER.  
IT might well have been wished, that the growth of Romish errors and superstitions (the complaint of this time) had not made this Work too seasonable: True it is, though it do but now see the light, yet it came to the birth before any other Answer of Charity Mistaken was known to the Author; it came indeed to the birth, but there was no strength to deliver; the judgement of those times not giving way to any other besides those whose Answers have been already made public. But though they have run before like Cushi; 
2 Sam. 18.  this, like Ahimaaz, (yet perchance not altogether without tidings) may run after: and with Ahimaaz, it may make the better speed, because, with him, it goes the way of the Plain; it goes a plain way, speaking plainly the Protestant Shiboleth; and it useth plainness and evidence of speech, in which way it is likely to meet with most Readers. Neither doth it come altogether without tidings; for it brings with it the tidings of Truth and Love, and, by both, a remedy against error and uncharitableness. And, as it is a work of charity, so is it suitably fitted with charitable expressions; for it doth not take up those sharp arrows which in these Concertations too often are shot at men's persons, besides the Mark of the Matter. True it is, that where the Writer doth put his faults into the matter of his Book, and doth publish them of purpose to have them seen, and by the sight of them to make others faulty, there it will be a duty of obedience, as well as of necessary providence (for the Readers safety) to take notice of them. Controversies certainly look like breaches of love, and therefore the Author hath not been much in love with them: But if love will be lost, except it be kept by a Controversy, there the Controversy that keeps it, is a work of love: To strive against uncharitableness, that it may be removed, and charity put in the room of it, is an act of charity; and this charity is the business of this work.  
The Reader may also take notice, that divers passages not insisted on by the other, are here examined, because this work surveyeth the whole Book, which it answers more particularly than the other.  
There hath indeed come forth a Reply in defence of Charity Mistaken: But both the one and the other turn mainly on these two hinges; That there must be an entire unity of faith in all Truths revealed by God, and proposed by the Church: And, That if unity were to be held by the faith of Fundamentals, a perfect and uniform List should be given of those Fundamentals. Now these two hinges being taken off in this Book, I hope it may give a fall to the main matter of them both.  
And whereas the Replyer strives to divide our unity by this Engine, 
Page 81.  That some Protestants directly, wittingly, and willingly disbeleeve what others do believe to be testified by the Word of God; and herein is no difference between Fundamental and not Fundamental: It is rejoined for a defence against this Engine of division, That if herein be no difference between the one and the other in Fundamentals, there is no proof that they are not united members in the body of Christ: For, he that wittingly and willingly dis-beleeves that which the other believes to be testified by the Word of God, may know, (as the term wittingly seems to import) that the point disbeleeved is not testified by the Word of God; and so he may be safe, and is still one with Christ and his Members: Again, the other who believes it to be testified by the Word of God, may be deceived: yet the point not being fundamental, his error may not divide him from the other which is a member of Christ. Indeed, if a Protestant should know a point to be testified by the Word of God, and then disbeleeve it, that might prove him not to be in the Body of Christ; but first, This would bring him within the difference of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals, contrary to the Replyers Affirmation: for it is a main Fundamental to believe God; whom that man believes not, who wittingly and willingly denies the Word of God. And secondly, It is merely inconsistent and incompossible, That he who believes Fundamentals, should wittingly and willingly disbeleeve what he knows the God of Truth hath spoken. And, if out of weakness, error, and ignorance he doth not believe that God hath spoken it; this ignorance, if it be not in Fundamentals, doth not enforce a disunion from other Members of the Body of Christ. Thus the Replyers objected Not-beleeving, either falls under Fundamentals, and then his case is not rightly put; or else it falls not under Fundamentals, and then it doth not conclude a disunion between Protestants. This having received myself, I impart to the Reader, with a Prayer, that in reading this Work, he may be enlightened with that Spirit of Truth which alone can kindly discover both the Mystery of godliness, and the Mystery of iniquity; and that the same Spirit may hold him in the one, and keep him from the other.   

CATHOLIC CHARITY.  

CHAP. I.  
Of Christian Love and Peace.  

SECT. I.  
Concerning the Excellency, Necessity, and other motives of Christian Love; with an exhortation to the embracing of it.  
THE Spouse of Christ Jesus, when she shines in Love, she is amiable in Beauty, precious in the eye of her Husband, powerful with God her Father, prosperous in her own spiritual health and vigour, and prepared for her consummate marriage in celestial glory. Her husband is God, and God is love, and God cannot but love that love which is like himself. And that he may love his Spouse for her love, when she becomes one Spirit with him, by this unity of Spirit he gives her an uniformity of love; the ointment of Christ Jesus, the Head, floweth down into all his members, and breatheth love into them; and as far as his life goes, so far goeth his love: therefore no love, no life in Christ Jesus. Agreeably, the beloved Disciple, and an especial Teacher of love, having showed that the new-birth brings love with life, he fitly addeth, He that loveth not, 
● Joh. 3.14.  abideth in death. No wonder then, if the great Master and Lover of this Disciple, 
John 13.34.  make love the mark of his true Disciples, seeing those are only Christ's true Disciples, which so learn Christ, as they draw that spirit from him, which teacheth them love, and breatheth it into them.  
And surely if a son of God, by that spiritual eye which he receiveth from Christ Jesus with his Sonship, do clearly behold another son of the same father, how can he choose but love him as a brother? he cannot choose but love him for the unity that is between them; for they are one spirit, by being begotten of one Spirit in Christ Jesus: 
John 17.21. 1 Cor. 12.13. Eph. 5▪  and as none hateth his own flesh, but cherisheth and loveth it, so none should hate his own spirit, but cherish and love it. Secondly, he should love his brother for uniformity aswell as for unity▪ there is a spiritual likeness and conformity between spiritual brethren; and commonly likeness breedeth love: they are both created unto one image, and how can a son of God but love his own likeness which he seeth in his brother? As in a glass face answereth to face, so a Saints soul answereth to the soul of a Saint; and when one sees his own shape in the other, from this likeness and harmony, there must needs arise spiritual love and amity▪ Thirdly, if a Saint consider the excellency of a Saint, how can he choose but love him for his excellency? God is the chiefest and highest excellence, and he that most resembleth God, is therefore most excellent. Now among visible creatures, there is none that resembleth God more than a Saint; 
Col 3. 1●.  for he is a son of God, begotten to the true image of God his father; 
1 Joh. 5. ●●  therefore he that loves God that begat, loves also the Sons whom God hath begotten; and the man according to Gods own heart; 
Psal. 16.2, 3.  because his goodness (the fruits of love) extends not unto God, therefore he communicates it to the Saints and Sons of God that excel in virtue; as if that were the next degree to doing good unto God himself, to love, cherish, and do good to his sons and Saints: And indeed, what is a fitter object of love, next to the chief and sovereign Good, than a Saint, who by a derivative goodness most representeth him? God is light, 
Eph. 5.8.  and a Saint is light in the Lord; God is goodness and righteousness, and a Saint is created according to God in righteousness and true holiness. 
Eph. 4.24.  The heart of a Saint is according to God's heart; 
1 Sam. 13.14▪  yea, he is partaker of a divine nature and groweth in it from glory to glory▪ 
2 Pet. 1.4. 2 Cor. 3.18. Gal. 5.22. Eph. 5.9.  And as this divine nature is glorious and lovely, so are the fruits of it atractively amiable, Love, joy, peace, long suffering, goodness, faith, meekness temperance, yea, all goodness, righteousness, and truth.  
The beauty of the body is by no means comparable with the beauty of the soul; for the beauty of the soul is the Image of God: and the glory of this Image having in it divine light, virtue, and goodness, shines in the soul with a far higher excellence, than colour and complexion laid on the clay and earth of a fading and corruptible body: and according to this excellence the beauty of the soul is preserved to immortality, when the beauty of the body is suffered either to vanish before the body, or to lie with it in the dust, and there to die a kind of second death; neither shall it ever recover life again, but by a conjunction with the beauty of the soul: If corporal beauty have been joined with spiritual beauty, then shall it rise in a far more excellent beauty; but if it had not with it spiritual beauty (purity, and goodness, and fairness of soul) it shall not arise in glory and beauty, it shall not see the face of God, but it shall be sent away with ugly spirits, being itself transformed into the deformed character of a countenance weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.  
If then a Saint be so lovely, and the love of a Saint is so just and reasonable, and God doth love this Love, and doth give his Saints the Spirit of love of purpose to love one another, and so this love is the mark of a Saint, a Son, and a Christian; let every Saint make himself sure of this love, and not only of the show and word of it, but of the essence and life of it. Let him love a Saint whom God loves; and love him because God loves this love of a Saint: Let him love a Saint as he loves his own safety, which is annexed to the love of the Saints: Let him love a Saint, because a Saint loves God: Let him love a Saint, because he is like himself, and because the Saint loves him. Dilige Deum tuum, dilige in Deo tuo, 
Claud. Ma●. de statu animae. Lib. 1.  charum tuum, Imaginem Dei tui: Ille te perinde, diligendo Deum, in Deo diligat: Love thy God, and in God love thy brother the image of God; and let thy brother, in requital▪ by loving God, love thee also in God.   

SECT. II.  
Peace is declared to be the first fruits of love, and to make love fruitful in other graces, and is further commended▪ 1. By the beauty and usefulness of it. 2. By the mischiefs which proceed from dissension. 3. By the authority of Scriptures. 4. By the example of Christ.  
TRue Christian love will not be solitary, and fruitless; but it must bring forth peace, and be attended by it. Love is itself the fruit of the spirit, 
C●l. 3.14, 1●.  and peace is the fruit of this love; yea, love which delights to be fruitful, loves this peace, because by her she communicates her other fruitfulness. It is best sowing in a calm; 
James 3.18.  and, if we will believe Saint james, the fruit of righteousness is best sown in peace: So Peace (the eldest daughter of Love) is a midwife to her mother, and delivers her of the rest of her children; and without her help the mother doth nothing but make abortions. Therefore, as thou wouldst have thy love to be fruitful, and by her fruits profitable to the Saints; so be thou sure to have her attended by peace, that through peace with the Saints, thy love may profitably extend itself to the Saints. The unity of the spirit must be kept in the bond of peace: and indeed, with whom wilt thou keep peace, if thou wilt not keep it with those who are one spirit with thee? 
1 Cor. 12.12, 13.  By one spirit are we all baptised into one body, and we be members one of another by our unity in this one body. How comely, yea, how necessary is it to the preservation and prosperity of the body, that the members of one body be at peace and unity? and how monstrous and destructive is it, when one member fights with another? That fatal sentence cannot be avoided; 
Gal. 5.15.  If ye by't one another, ye shall be consumed one of another. But contrarily, the kingdom of God which is peace, flourisheth by the peace of the subjects of that kingdom: and therefore St. Paul having taught the former to the Romans, adjoineth the latter, 
Rom. 14.17, 18.  and that with a vehemency; for he enjoins them, not barely to follow, but as it were to persecute (even with a swift and eager prosecution to run after) the things of peace; yea, he adjures the Philippians by all consolation in Christ, 
Phil. 2.  and by the fellowship of the Spirit, and by the bowels of mercy, that they be of one accord. Finally, the Son of God, 
Heb. 7.2.  our Saviour (of whom Melchisedech was a type) is the King of peace, as well as the King of righteousness; and his subjects, who will partake of his righteousness, must also partake of his peace. Christ hath made peace between God and us, even peace between heaven and earth; not that men being at peace above with God, should have discord below among themselves; but the peace which is begun in heaven, must come down and dwell among his members on earth; we must be one as he and his Father are one: 
Joh. 17.21.  the peace which we receive from God by Christ, we must impart each to other; 
Colos. 3.15.  yea, it must rule in our hearts, being called to it in one body. Accordingly as we expect peace from God through Christ, so let us hear and obey Christ commanding peace amongst ourselves: 
Mar. 9.50.  Have peace one with another, and then let us not doubt, but if the Peace of God be among us, the God of peace is also with us. Deus semper in pace est; 
Chrysol. Ser. 54.  Where spiritual and true peace is, there ever God is.   

SECT. III.  
That this love and peace are catholic and universal, extended to all the members of Christ; and that our Church by professing this Catholic love, declares herself to be a truly Catholic Church.  
THe two excellent and powerful Graces, Love and Peace, may not be bounded by us, but by God himself, the Author and Commander of it; Him must we follow in the enlarging or straightening of it, and not go from his leading to the right hand, 
Act. 10.15.  or to the left: where God commands love and peace, we may not forbid them; neither whom God by sanctifying hath made fit for our peace, must we account common or unclean, and fit for separation. 
Colos. 1.4. Eph. 4.3.16.  Now the extent and bound which God appoints for our love and peace is no less than all the Saints, even the whole body of Christ; the bond of peace is not one jot shorter than the unity of the spirit. 
1 John 5.1. 2 Tim. 2.22.  If then God have not disdained to bestow on any man his sanctifying Spirit, let not man scorn on such a one to bestow his love and peace; for he that denyeth his love and peace to that man in whom is the Spirit, he denyeth his love and peace to the spirit which is in that man: Therefore if God have gone before with his saving grace and sanctifying spirit, let us not doubt to follow God with our love and peace. Now we know that God (according to his promise to Abraham) hath an holy seed out of all Nations, 
Docere voluit quod haec tria sibi invicem connexa sint, & coherent Deus, Christus, & Ecclesia, seu universitas credentium, adeo ut qui 〈◊〉 ex his vel diligat vel odiat, omnia diligat aut odiat. Ferus 1 joh. 5.  which is the catholic and universal Church: if then the Church be catholic and universal, let our love and peace be also catholic and universal. And to this end our affections must be enlarged and made capable of the whole world. For he that will love a catholic Church with a catholic love, must not have a narrow love contracted and confined to the measure of one City, Kingdom, or Nation; but extended and enlarged to the measure of all Cities, Kingdoms, and Nations, even of the whole world. If that which is to be loved, be universal, the affection which loveth must not be partial: For if the love be but to a part, when it should be to the whole, this is not that catholic love which belongs to the Catholic Church; and whatsoever title such men may take to themselves, they are not true, but counterfeit Catholics: for they have not that catholic spirit of love which is in the true catholic Church, and by which the catholic Church doth love itself with a catholic love. But such men by likelihood, have a private spirit, by which they love a private part and faction, and are short of that universal spirit which loveth the universal Church with an universal love: for there is a private spirit of love aswell as of faith; and it is that kind of spirit which Saint james mentioneth, 
James 4.5. and 3.14, 15.  a spirit that lusteth after envy, after sects and divisions. But let us never rest until we get that catholic spirit by which we may embrace the catholic Church with a catholic love; and then we may be assured we are not titular, but true and real Catholics. Hereby we know that we are of the truth (saith Saint john) and we shall assure our hearts before God: 
1 Joh. 3.19.  And, we know that we have passed from death to life, 
Ver. 14.  because we love the brethren; even the brethren without exception and reservation: and he that dwelleth in this general and unreserved love, 
1 John 4.12.  God, who is love, dwelleth in him and he in God; 
Ver. 13.  And we know that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us his spirit, even the spirit of this catholic and universal love. Let no man therefore say of another, He is of such a Nation with which my Nation is at enmity; or of such a Church which professeth some differences with the Church in which I live, and therefore I will by no means have love and peace with him; but remember, that in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of God: 
Act. 10.35.  and therefore do thou inquire, whether this spirit of fear and holiness be in him, which those that have are accepted of God: if he be accepted of God, take heed he be not rejected of thee: It were a madness in thee for God's sake to hate one whom God loves, and for Christ's sake to hate a member of Christ. Indeed, if he be of a Church infected with errors, thou must be wary of him, that he infect thee not with those errors; but be also wary of not hating the spirit of Christ in a member of Christ: It is an Apostolical, and so an undeniable Inference, 
Col. 3.10.  If ye have put on the Newman, in which is neither Greek nor Jew, Circumcision nor Uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all in all; Put on therefore (there is a binding force in this therefore) as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, etc. And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness; and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which ye are called in one body.  
Let us then have love and peace with a believing Muscovite, Grecian, AEthiopian, Indian, if he be of that one body wherein Christ is all in all, and by the unity whereof we are called to love and peace: yea, from this universal peace and love may not be excluded any remnant according to the election of grace, pertaining to the body of Christ, though sojourning in the tents and territories of Rome: we may not hate the seven thousand that do not bow their knees to Baal, though dispersed among seven millions of Idolaters: we may not hate Israel, though in bondage under Pharaoh. But to the true Israel, even to the pure in heart, and those who in Christ Jesus are new creatures, and walk according to this rule, 
Gal. 6.15, 16.  peace, & the prayers of peace, the true fruits of love do belong, the divine Apostle being herein our guide and example. 
Eph. 4.16. 1 Joh. 3.14. & 4.7.  And while thus we enjoy and embrace this universal love with the universal body of Christ, great is our safety; for hereby we know and may assure our hearts, that we belong to that universal body, which alone loveth itself with this universal love. That is the truly catholic Church, which is endued with this catholic love; that is a living Church, which is a loving Church: Our Church therefore embracing and exercising this catholic love, is a Church truly catholic; and our Church being a Church of love, is a Church of life.  

Cass●nd. de 〈…〉.  Let therefore Cassander, a Doctor of the Church of Rome, conclude for us, Qui rectâ sententiâ de Christo capiti injunguntur, etc. They that by a right belief concerning Christ, are joined to the head, and by the hand of love and peace are joined to the body of the Church (howsoever they may differ in some opinions and rites) are by no means to be accounted Schismatics, or separated from the Church, though they seem rejected and excommunicated by some other part of the Church, more mighty, and possessing the Government.    

CHAP. II.  
Wherein is declared, that Rome wants this catholic love; 1. By her separation from other Churches. 2. By her hatred to Protestants, manifested in the cruel persecutions and massacres practised against them in Popish countries, and by the rebellions, treasons, open hostility stirred up against this Kingdom. All which prove her to be uncharitable and uncatholick.  
IT hath been showed that love and peace must be catholic and universal, that so they may be capable of a catholic and universal Church: for as wide and as large as the Church is, so large must the love of the Church be; The body of Christ is the measure of this love, and this love must be no jot shorter than the body of Christ; the body of Christ then extending to all Nations, and so being a catholic body, must be followed through all Nations with no less than a catholic love: but love, as much as it is short of loving this catholic body of Christ, so much is it short of being a catholic love, and so much it is indeed uncatholick. Now, the Romish Church (which according to the Church 
a Homily of Whitsuntide.  of England, is to be understood of the Pope and his 
b The name Papists is from an whole state and order of chief Governors, to whom we are bound to cleave in Religion, and to obey in all things. So, to be a Papist, is to be a Christian man, a child of the Church, and subject to Christ's Vicar. Romish Test. on Act. 11. ver. 26. Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantum non Deum faciunt, ejusque authoritatem non modo supra totam Ecclesiam, sed supra ipsam Scripturam divinam efferunt, & sententiam ejus divinis oraculis parem, imò infallibilem ●idei regulam constituunt; hos non video quo minus Pseudocatholicos & Papistas appellare possis. Cassan. de Offic. pii viri.  adherents) doth not make this body of Christ the measure of her love, but the body of the Papacy; not Christ's Kingdom, but the Pope's Kingdom is the measure of Romish love. As much then as the Pope's Kingdom is short of the Kingdom of Christ, so much is Rome short of a catholic love, and so much is she uncatholick. Now, we know that the Kingdom of Christ spreads itself much farther than the Kingdom of the Pope; yea, Christ is known and believed where there is neither knowledge nor faith of the Pope. Accordingly, 
c Neque id tantum de Occiduis, sed etiam Orientalibus Ecclesiis, ut Graecorum, etc. Id. Ibid.  Cassander thinketh, not only the Western Churches of Protestants; but the Eastern and Southern also, and by name, the Russian, Syrian, AEthiopian, and Armenian, that believe the Apostles Creed, and do not by schism divide themselves from the communion of other Churches, to be members of the true and catholic Church of Christ. And these parts of the Church are so great and large, that a Countryman of ours in his diligent Inquiries, 
Brierwood his Inquiries of Tongues and Religions. cap. 18.  gives this judgement of the Greek Church alone; If we should collect and put together all the Christian Regions hitherto entreated of, which are all of the Greek Communion, and compare them with the parts professing the Roman religion, we should find the Greek far to exceed, if we except the Roman new and foreign purchases made in the West and East Indies: 
Id. cap. 21. & 24.  Now to these, if we shall add the Christians in Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Babylon and Palestine, which are by the least computation 50000. families, and by the greatest 60000. And if again we join with these the Armenians, who are under two Patriarches of their own, whom they term Catholics, and are esteemed to exercise jurisdictions over 70000. families: And if yet further we shall increase this number by those innumerable Christians of AEthiopia, that are spread far and wide in the vast Dominions of Prester john: And lastly, if to these we add the no little number of Protestant Christians in the West; we may see that the Kingdom of the Pope is far short of the Kingdom of Christ, and consequently that the love of Rome at least, so much is short of catholic love.  
But if we leave those other famous, and far dispersed parts of Christ's body, whom Rome leaves without true catholic love, and more particularly and punctually examine Rome's want of love to Protestants, whereof especially is our present inquiry; all the paper in the world were scarce sufficient to contain the words that might be written for the proof of it, with the blood of Protestants shed by the Romists. So that the ancient parable of jotham hath been fulfilled in our days; If indeed ye anoint me King over you, 
Judg. ●●.  then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the Cedars of Lebanon. The fire and lightning of the Pope's excommunications fly out against the deniers of his universal Kingdom and Supremacy; and that fire is too often seconded with material fire. For the maintenance of his pride Christians must be hated, spoilt, and butchered of Christians. There is a method of cruelty set forth against such who are Rome's Heretics, and the true Churches Christians. This we find thus summed up by Azorius the Jesuit; 
Azor. Instit. moral. lib. 8. cap. 10.11.12.  1. Excommunication. 2. Irregularity. 3. Confiscation of goods. 4. Dissolving of all bands, be they oaths, fealty, service, or any other covenant and promise. 5. Deprivation of all dignities and honours. 6. Loss of Ecclesiastical burial. 7. Infamy. 8. Uncapacitie of all dignities and offices Ecclesiastical to themselves, their favourers, receivers, and children, to the second generation by the father's side, yea, though the children were borne before the heresy. 9 Loss of life. And even Bellarmine himself, whom learning (which once had a name of emollit mores) and seeming devotion should have made somewhat milder, drinks deeply, if not pleasantly, in this cup of blood, and delivers it to his Disciples, that they may pledge him: Solum remedium est mittere illos maturè in locum suum: 
Bellarm. de 〈◊〉, cap. 21.  The only remedy is to send them betimes to their own place; which place, though indeed it be heaven, it seems yet the good Father's charitable meaning was, by a first death speedily to send Protestants to hell, the place of the second death. But no wonder is it if this Father drank to his children in this red cup of cruelty, when the Father of these Fathers, being now ready to go out of the world, drank to his fatherly Sons very stiffly in the same cup of the blood of the Saints: For the Pope, that he might show some contrariety to Christ, (for which some 
a Omnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum, & negat in carne venisse, de Deo non est, sed hic de Antichristo est, etc. Nunquid omnis qui non negat ●●sum in carne venisse, Spiritum Dei habet▪ Sed hanc negationem in opere, non in voce esse—. Si credat Christum inca●na●um, quiescat odi●e memb●a Christi. Si credit Verbum caro-●actum, quid persequitur in carne Verbum caro-factum?— Non op●●●tur mal●m in Christi carne, hoc est, in servis suis, quoniam Domin●● & Eccl●sia una caro est: In quà carne si credit esse hominem, cur non ●●●igit, aut q●od c●udeliùs est, cur odit? sicut scriptum est, Qui non 〈…〉 in morte: &, Qui fratrem suum odit homi●ida est. Aliud in 〈…〉 evidentius signum cognoscendi Antichristi non esse dixit, quam, Q●i negat 〈◊〉 carne, idem edit fratrem. Ticonius in his Rules, which Rules are commended by S. A●●ust. de Doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 30.  perchance may espy in him a likeness of Antichrist) when he was to leave the world, as Christ left peace, so the Pope leaves war to his Disciples; for at parting, above all, he bequeathes to his Cardinals a legacy of blood, commending to them chiefly the Inquisition, as a main Pillar of the Papacy. And if this be the chief Pillar of the Papacy, no doubt, as the Pope was before contrary to Christ, so is the Papacy or Pope's Kingdom contrary to Christ's Kingdom; for Christ's Kingdom did grow by the blood of his own subjects, 
Plures essicimur quoties metimur à vobis: Semen est sanguis Christianorum. T●rt. Apolog.  but the Pope's Kingdom must grow by the blood of them that will not be subject to him; yea, by shedding the blood of Christ's subjects. But yet we see him deceived; for the blood of the Martyrs even now (as in the Primitive times) hath increased the Church, and diminished the Papacy: Yet still they go on, the devil's malice herein overcoming his wit, as it did when he entered into judas to kill Christ, 
Heb. 2.14.  that Christ by his death might overcome him that had the power of death, even the devil.  
And according to this Satan's method of 
a Hist. Con. Tr●. l. 5. id 〈◊〉. 1558  cruelty, we read of 50000. in a few years hanged, beheaded, buried alive, and burned in the Low-Countries; and of 30000. slain and 
b The soldiers & common executioners refusing to kill the Protestants at Lions, the butchers were impl●y●d in it. Comment. ●f France.  butchered in a few weeks at and after the Massacre of Paris, 
c Ab origine Jesuitarum, ad annum 1580. hoc est, paulò pluribus quam 30. annis nongenta serè millia fuisse trucidata notat ●●lduinus de Antichrists, C●ment. Apoc.  and of nine hundred thousand slain since the original of the Jesuits, to the year 1580. which is little more than thirty years. Generally, Europe hath been flaming with fires, wherewith Romish charity hath turned Protestants into ashes; many of which were burning in this Land some years before Queen Elisabeth, whom God did send as a gracious rain to quench those fires, and to refresh his Inheritance. But when she assayed to quench the Pope's fires, the Pope sends out his fires to devour her; yea, many vipers came out of that fire, and would have stung her to death, but that the hand of God did so shake them off for her, & from her, that the fire which sent them forth became their destruction. Declaramus 
d See B. jewels answer to this Bull.  (saith the Pope) praedictam Elisab. eique adhaerentes in praedictis, etc. We declare that Elisabeth and her adherents, in the matters aforesaid, have run into the danger of our curse: We declare also that we have deprived her from that right which she pretended to have in the Kingdom aforesaid (of England,) and also from all and every her authority, dignity, and privilege: We cha●ge and forbid all and every the Nobles, subjects and people, and others aforesaid, that they dare not to obey her, or her will or commandments, upon pain of like curse upon them After the bellowing of which Bull, or blowing of which Trumpet by Sheba the son of Bichri, many inspired with the spirit of the Papacy, contrary to that spirit of Saint Peter, 
1 Pet. 2.17.  which said, Fear God, Honour the King, practised treason against Gods Anointed, and their Sovereign Queen. Yea, 
e See B. Carltons' Thankful Remembrance, and there the continual treasons and rebellions following the Pope's Bull & Curse, but followed with a curse.  open rebellions have been added by the Pope's incitations and encouragements (whereof that in the North is recorded to the Pope's honour by the Pope's own Historian; and others in Ireland we find in our Stories to have been animated by his own money, soldiers, and benediction.  
And here I cannot but with grief complain, that so learned a man as Doctor Sanders, the cunning builder of the Babylonian Monarchy, should be so bewitched with the cup of abomination, as to be the Pope's Ensign-bearer in an unnatural rebellion against his natural Sovereign. For with him came over a consecrated banner from his holiness, to a most unholy service: And yet notwithstanding the Pope's blessing, the curse of God haunted that design, and the learned man that had abused his wit and learning, lost the use of both; and so being distracted, and pitied, and wandering in the mountains, lamentably died. But the great Fleet of Eighty eight, that should have swallowed up both the Queen and her Kingdom, comes forth against both, having her sails filled with the wind of the Pope's Benedictions. For the Pope sets forth in print a Cruciate, as against Turks and Infidels, wherein he bestowed plenary Indulgences out of the Treasury of the Church, upon all that would join their help against England. And against the Queen he reneweth his former Bulls, he denounceth excommunication, he deposeth her, and absolveth her subjects from their allegiance. But God curseth where the Pope blesseth, and blesseth where he curseth; a most certain sign that the Pope is not of God's mind; yea, not so good a Prophet as Balaam; 
Num. 23.8.  Not so good, for Balaam said, How can I curse where God hath not cursed? and not so good a Prophet; for of Balaam it was acknowledged, He whom thou blessest is blessed, 
N●m. 22.6.  and he whom thou cursest is cursed.  
But as the Author to the Hebrews saith of the faithful, and the great virtues of faith; so may I say of the faithless, and miserable effects and issues of their faithlesness: What! What shall I more say? 
Heb. 11.32.  for the time would fail me to tell at large of 
f The first was made General, Baron, Viscount, Earl, & marquis by the Pope. The second set on work by hearing the Pope's Bull extolled. The third took his infection from the second, and Ballard a Priest. The fourth would not kill the Q●. except the Pope did approve it, & give him a plenary indulgence; which was assured to him by a Cardinal's letter, to be seen in Speeds Chronicle.  Stukely, Savage, Babington, Parry, and others, who by treasons, springing from the spirit of the Papacy, have assayed to overthrow Kingdoms, opened their mouths like Lions upon Gods anointed, have wrought unrighteousness, and endeavoured by the violence of fire to destroy both King, Peers, and choice of the people. For that masterpiece of Satan, & the very wit of hell may never be forgotten, both as a perpetual bond of thankfulness upon English Protestants, for a miraculous deliverance, and as an everlasting scandal and detestation of Popery; seeing hellish Atheism or Turkism hath scarce brought forth such a monster of treason, as the 
g K. james his Apology of the O●th. The only reason th●y gave for plo●●ing so heinous an attempt, was the ze●le they 〈…〉.  zeal of that which these Romists call by the name of Religion. And now, if we look steadfastly on the faces of these treasons, rebellions, invasions, murders and massacres, do they look like the fair children of charity, or like the horrid broods and bastards of uncharitableness? Charity herself is a chief fruit of heavenly wisdom, and the daughter is like the mother; therefore is charity first, pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy: Behold the amiable and beautiful face of charity. But on the contrary, see in these Romish actions foulness and impurity, wars and sedition, cruelty and inhumanity. A viperous generation that truly representeth and owneth uncharitableness for their mother; uncharitableness, a fury which ascendeth from below, even from that infernal wisdom which is sensual and devilish.  
And surely since the actions are so manifest, and so manifestly uncharitable, how can Rome, but by the forehead of an harlot, say that she loves us? doth she love us with treasons, murders, rebellions, fires upon earth, and fires under the earth? are these fruits of Romish love? O then what, and how cruel are the fruits of her hatred! If she love us thus to death, she cannot but hate us to hell.  
Wherefore, upon the whole matter, we may undoubtedly conclude, that Rome, as she wants catholic love and peace towards many famous parts of the catholic Church, and is therefore uncatholick; so she notably and especially practiseth her unpeaceableness and uncharitableness towards Protestants. And if we will have their uncharitableness and hatred expressed and confessed in their own words, Let us hear their Jesuit Maldonate, 
Maldonate in joh. 4.  on the Gospel of the beloved Disciple, and a great teacher of love, thus publishing their hatred to Protestants: Qui Catholici sunt, majore odio Calvinistas, caeterosquè omnes haereticos prosequuntur, quam Gentiles: The Romish Catholics hate Calvinists, and all other heretics, with a greater hatred than heathens.   

CHAP. III.  
Containing an answer to the first Chapter of Charity mistaken, wherein the Author of that Book assumes to himself the office of a Cavalier or Champion for Rome, labouring to prove that the Romists are improbably and untruly charged with want of charity; and is divided into four Sections.  

SECT. I.  
An Inducement to the rest, laying down Rome's false claim to charity, under the usurped name of the Church, and vai● boast of pretended good works.  
THough the hatred of Rome● Protestant's be thus plainly co●●fessed in her own deeds a● words; yet a Cavalier of Rom● advanceth himself to rescue this Lad● from the blot of her confessed uncharita●blenesse, and will needs prove that she wants not love, even when she hateth u● Thus he sets forth:  
If it be a part of honour and justice for ● Cavalier of this world to defend the righ● of the oppressed, and to contribute, if there b●●cause, with particular care, towards the pr●●tection and defence of some excellent, but af●flicted Lady, whose fame were blasted b● the ill tongues of men; How much more ju●● and honourable will it be for a Catholic (w●● in this time and place may well go for a Ca●valier of Christ) to defend the honour an● fame of his Lady & Mother, which is the hol● Catholic Church; she being so innocent, a● the immaculate Spouse of Christ our Lor● ought to be, and yet withal so much wronged, as to be 〈◊〉 for wanting the very wedding Ring▪ and the nuptial Robe itself of Charity?  
There is a Scarlet woman drunk with the blood of the Saints, 
Isa. 47.5. Rev. 17.6.  and her own mouth saith, I sit as a Lady, and shall see no sorrow. This Lady is also a mother, even the mother of abominations; and this is the Lady mother, which the Protestants charge with uncharitableness, for condemning them to hell. Now I would hope that no Cavalier should so misplace his valour, as to fight like a Knight for a bloody Lady, nor as a son for a mother of abominations; and yet if this Cavalier do not fight for this Lady in this Book, he fights not against us, nor for her whom we accuse; and so the Book is but a long mistaking.  
Yet, because this scarlet and bloody Lady doth cover herself with the title of the Church, and under that cover deceiveth many; and here we find that a defence of the Church is undertaken, as charged with uncharitableness, there appears some possibility that this Lady, who is indeed so charged, may be defended under the title of the Church, her son by that title being deceived into this defence: Wherefore it may be not altogether useless to make good this charge of uncharitableness on this Lady, though mistaken, and defended under the name of the Church, lest perchance some others also may be led away from their steadfastness by this Cavaliers error, and think it improbable and impossible, that she which is called the Church should be uncharitable; Whereas indeed it is neither probable nor possible that the scarlet Lady, drunken with the blood of the Saints, though wearing the title of the Church, should be to the same Protestants both charitable and cruel; yea indeed this Lady doth thus double her wrong: for it is one injury uncharitably to hate and prosecute the true catholic Church in her children; and a second to take her name from her, thereby to justify and bear out her own wrong and persecution with her own name.  
But yet here I must at first acknowledge that this Cavalier, fight for this Lady, is not far from agreeing with us that fight against her: for we find this position avowed by him, That if she proceed uncharitably against Protestants, she is a Harlot, and a Strumpet, not the Spouse of Christ; now hereunto we subjoin: But the Chapter foregoing plainly showeth that Rome hath proceeded uncharitably against Protestants; and now, how can we keep off this Cavalier from agreeing with us in one common conclusion; Therefore Rome is an Harlot, and not the Spouse of Christ: which if he affirm, I will not blame him, 
Rev. 17.  because Saint john saith the same, and it were a fault to find fault with him when he speaks Scripture. Yet he will needs strive to show, that what hath been proved is improbable, and that truth is untrue.  
And first he endeavours to prove it unprobable that this Lady, through want of charity, should pronounce a damning sentence against Protestants, but rather from some error in Judgement, indiscreet zeal, etc. because she hath abundance of charity; and this abundance of charity again he will prove by many particulars, which, it seems, appear to him in the shape of works of charity. And indeed, because the Romish Champions stand much upon their works, and cast the carcases of them in our way, so to hinder our prosecutions of the Romish Sheba, 
2 Sam. 20.12, 13.  the Author of uncharitable hatred and dissension in Israel, I shall desire leave of the Reader to bestow some time in removing them out of the way.   

SECT. II.  
Divers general considerations are propounded of Romish works, whereby some are proved to be corrupt in the Spring or Fountain, issuing from carnal wisdom, for the support of carnal greatness: Other in their kinds and nature, as Indulgences, jubiles, and the like: A third sort are corrupt in their aim and motives, being done for merit and satisfaction, and not for God's glory.  
TOward this removal, I answer, that there are many works that look like fruits of charity, but are not that which they seem: They may perchance have the same matter that works of charity have; but, not being quickened and enlived by charity, a fruit of the spirit, they are but dead carcases, and not the fruits of living charity.  
The Sacrifice of Cain was to the outward eye a fruit of love to God; but while he hated his brother whom he saw, he could not love God whom he saw not: and thus wanting charity, his Sacrifice could not be a fruit of that charity which he wanted. And indeed, there are many motives and causes besides charity that may bring forth to the eye such seeming good works. And we see such motives generally overspread upon the face of the Romish Monarchy: especially since we see in Romists, killing of brethren joined with these works; as in Cain, fratricide was joined with sacrifice, how can we take the works of such to be other than the sacrifices of Cain?  
And now to make it appear that there are such motives in the Papacy, I will present to your sight some of them. And the first shall be the glory, reputation, and support of the Papacy: and that the Reader may the more clearly discern this, I wish him to get a spiritual eye, therewith to behold her; for the man of sin is a mystery of iniquity, and mysteries are not well discerned by a carnal, but a spiritual eyesight. 
1 Joh. 2.20.  Accordingly, Saint john, when he speaks of Antichrists going out of the Church, he tells us of an unction that must teach us to know him: Now, if by this spiritual unction we behold the Papacy, we may see it to be a 
a Dominum Christum, Antich●ist●s, non voto, sed occasione praedicat. Aliò t●nde●s s●b Christi nom●n ingreditur. quo sibi 〈…〉, quo su● Christ● nomin● ventri pa●●a●. Ty●on. Reg.  mixed creature, and a twofold Beast, with the horns of a Lamb, and the mouth of a Dragon. He sits like God in God's Temple, but worketh by Satan; he exerciseth a professed holiness, but therewith practiseth a deceivable unrighteousness. There is a show of Christian Religion, yea, and divers realities of Christianity within the limits of the Pope's Tyranny; but his 
b Being raised by th●se steps unto earthly Power, they laid aside by little and little the care of souls, & of divine precepts, so that setting their affections wholly upon earthly greatness, & using their spiritual authority only as an instrument of their temporal, they seemed rather to be secular Princes, than Priests. Guicc●rdine, Lib. 4. S●e the additions to the later Edition of the History of T●ent.  own main purpose in and by them is an aspiring to temporal honour and eminency; yea, this is his very character, and by this you may know him: for this converting or making use of some realities of Christianity for the advancement of temporal Eminence and Supremacy, hath been a long time the business of the Papacy. Now a State supported by the show of Christian Religion, may very well give way to many works of Christian Religion which help to make this show; especially those, which besides the advancement of Rome, in advancing her horns of the Lamb, or show of Religion, do also immediately advance her wealth, strength and supremacy. And if we examine most of those works whereof this Author hath made a glittering Table, they are such as by some one of these ways do increase the glory of the Papacy. Now the Church of Rome being understood (as before according to the words of the Church of England) to be the Pope and his adherents, even the man of sin sitting as God, with the believers of his deity: These, I say, want charity to the Catholic Church, and particularly to the Protestants, notwithstanding any seeming works of that remnant done within the command and extent of this Antichristian Church; yea, the works of that remnant which truly belongs to the Church and Temple of God, do nothing prove the charity of the Antichristian Church, though they be tolerated by it while they serve to advance her glory and supremacy; for let those that work them but touch the in-errable supremacy & deity of the Papacy, the doers of these very works, by which the Author will prove the charity of the Church of Rome, shall feel and make up the proof of her uncharitableness. And indeed, this is the very quarrel for which they kill and damn us, because we complain of the Pope's errors, and will not say, that when the Pope erreth, he cannot err. Let us hear Cassander speaking to this purpose; 
c In iis qui Romanae Ecclesiae Gubernatores & propugnatores haberi volunt, illud improbandum existimo, quod morbum nullum agnoscunt, & (quod huic rei consequens est) remedia non admittunt; imò, de correctione admonentes & ad curationem exhortantes: operamque suam ad id efficiendum offerentes, non modo rejiciunt, & ab Ecclesiae societate depellunt, verum etiam multis in lo●is crud●liter interficiendos censuerunt: Quae res huic miserabili Schismatici occasione dedisse videtur. Cassa●. de of●ic. pii viri.  In those that will seem to be the Governors and Protectors of the Church of Rome, I condemn this, that they will acknowledge no disease, and (which naturally follows thereupon) they will admit no remedy; yea, those that speak to them of amendment, that exhort them to be healed, and that offer their help to effect it, they not only cast off a●d drive from the fellowship of the Church, but also in many places have judged them miserably to be slain. Which thing seems to have given the occasion of this wretched schism.  
Thus Rome may maintain the show of good works; yea, perchance some works truly good, for her own honour and glory, while they serve and advance these ends; and yet be cruel and uncharitable, not only against Protestants, but against those who do these good works within her own territories, when otherwise they cross those ends for which she did tolerate them. So the encouraging of such works in the Papacy may prove her ambitious, but leave her still uncharitable, cruel, and malicious; yea, these works joined with ambition and uncharitableness, and plea●ing for them by the shows of charity, give her the true shape of the second part of Antichrist, even of that beast, which with the show of the Lamb, killeth Saints like the Dragon. And herein lies the very cunning of Pope-craft, and the mystery of iniquity, by contraries to bring in and maintain contraries; by the show 
d Ministros subornat suos, velut ministros justitiae, asserentes noctem pro die, & perfidiam sub praetextu fidei, Antichristum sub vocabulo Christi; ut dum verisimilia mentiuntur, veritatem subtilitate frustrentur. Cyprian. de Unitate Ecclesiae.  of faith to persuade faithlesness, and by the show of charity to palliate uncharitableness and persecution: And indeed, I think the Serpent wonders at his own wit in the Papacy, and applauds it as the highest and most artificial counterfeit of a creation, because therein he hath wrought, and as it were created contraries out of contraries; Out of a doctrine of deepest humility, he hath raised the highest pride; and from a doctrine of contempt of the world, he hath raised a title to the whole world; from a doctrine of patience, long-suffering, and perfect charity, he hath raised a catholic persecution, tormenting the world with uncharitableness and cruelty. And so by this kind of infernal Alchemy (which he still continueth,) the seeming good works, yea, the true ones done by the remnant of Grace, are digested to nourish and defend the sins, and among them the uncharitableness of the man of Sinne. There is yet a second sort of works, which pass for works of charity, but are indeed works of error; for they issue from error, and therefore not from charity; these are feigned, empty and hollow inventions or imaginations given by Rome to her children, in stead of nourishing and solid gifts of true motherly piety; so indeed they are rather works of Poetry, then of Charity: such are the Pope's Jubiles and Indulgences, especially those which are annexed to a cruciate, like that sent into Ireland, which stirred up subjects to rebel against their Sovereign. But in our Authors own Catalogue of Rome's charitable works, I take notice of her giving things for Sacraments conferring grace, which are none; now when Rome giveth these to her children for Sacraments which are none, she giveth them not gifts of charity, but of vanity, yea, of cruelty; for a cruelty it is for a mother to feed her children with fictions in stead of Sacraments: as when a father to his hungry so●●e giveth a stone in stead of bread, it doth rather prove the father's hatred then his love.  
There is also a third kind of Romish works, which look like works of charity, but are not such indeed, because they come not from a right spring, nor aim at a right end; they come not from the love of God, nor aim to the glory of God; but come from error, pride, and self-love, and have selfe-ends: such are works done for merit, satisfaction, and supererogation: and indeed, these carnal ways of doing good works, are generally very successful; for all mankind is flesh of flesh; so that if you speak of a work of charity to be done a carnal way, and to carnal ends, you have all mankind already fitted to hear you: but if you speak of works of charity to be spiritually done, and for spiritual ends, there are far fewer that have a spiritual ear to hear what the Spirit saith: Yet upon the works carnally done, and for carnal ends, doth the Papacy exceedingly multiply the number of her works of charity, mentioned in the Catalogue; yet an army of these is but an army of dead men, even of dead works, which have not the spirit: And uncharitable is she who suffereth, yea, teacheth her children to bring forth dead works, when, by good instruction, they might have gotten life into them from the quickening Spirit.   

SECT. III.  
The Claim of Charity is confuted, which is drawn from the seven Romish Sacraments.  
ANd as thus generally, so now more particularly let us put the Cavaliers supposed works of charity to the touch, and try whether true charity may be proved by them to be in the Papacy.  
But before we come to his proofs, I cannot but take notice that his preparative is very pleasant; for therein he speaks of seeing the holy catholic Church dissolve, and as it were defeat herself of her very self, for the acquiring of all imaginable, both temporal and eternal blessings to mankind. Surely, it seemeth to me, he could hardly have chosen words more contrary to the actions of the Papacy: and this the former Chapter, and many Stories do overabundantly show; for we see plainly, that Rome is so far from defeating herself, for eternal blessings to mankind, that for the acquiring of temporal blessings to herself, she defeats Kings both of their kingdoms and lives. And whereas he saith, a man needs no more, but to have eyes in his head to see her charitableness; it seems much rather, that he who in numberless slaughters, and actions of blood, doth not see her uncharitableness, hath need of that strong delusion which causeth men not to believe truth though they see it with their eyes.  
But I come to the Authors own Inventory of Romish works of charity, and take notice of it as it begins with a man's beginning, and for profitable reasons doth not end at his ending: For, seven proofs of charity which he names, are seven Sacraments; of which, one begins at man's birth, and the last comes as near his end as it may; but when it can go no further, it is lengthened with prayer for the dead, which often brings good, or at least profit to the living (if they be paid for these prayers) and so perchance may be taken for good works.  
But whereas among these he speaks of giving Baptism and the Lords Supper, as fruits and proofs of Romish charity; I answer, that the Papacy must allow or suffer the giving of these, or else there cannot be under her Throne that show of a Church in which Antichrist must sit, that he may look like the beast which hath horns of a Lamb: Without these his mystery were near dissolved, and we should see the Dragon stark naked in him: therefore the Pope may keep these for love to himself, and not to his subjects.  
But, saith the Cavalier, his Church gives Baptism very early, as soon as the child is borne, and this haste is a sign and a fruit of charity. And why may it not be a sign and fruit of error in judgement rather than of charity? yea, why may it not proceed of an uncharitable error, seeing it often damneth children for want of that washing which they could not have in their mother's belly? for many thousands of infants must be damned by the same charitable opinion which makes this haste to baptise others. And although this opinion anciently might perchance be taken for an error in judgement; yet on the latter, to whom the point hath been more plainly cleared, it may much more probably lay a guilt of uncharitableness. Sure it is, that if want of charity be not the cause of it, yet want of charity doth accompany or follow it, as it doth the Popish belief of Protestants damnation: for to infants unbaptised, and Protestants, I think there is little charity afforded by Papists when they have once damned them.  
Let them also consider how this doth give a proof of their charity, when thereby they make the Gospel of grace more deadly than the kill Law: for the Law damned not infants for dying without circumcision seven days after the birth, in which time there was a possibility of circumcising them; but these men make the Gospel to damn children for dying unbaptised before they be borne, when it is not possible to baptise them.  
The Lord's Supper is put off for a while, and Confirmation is brought in next for a Sacrament, and this Sacrament for a confirmation of Romish charity: and indeed, so much as Confirmation is a Sacrament, so much let it be a confirmation of Romish charity. 
Suar. in 3. T. 3. Disp. 32. Sect. 2.  But Suarez the Jesuit confesseth, that great Romish Doctors (as Alensis and Bonaventure) have taught that Confirmation was not instituted as a Sacrament by Christ or his Apostles. And himself affirmeth, that the time when Christ did institute this Sacrament is not recorded by the sacred Historians; and withal, he acknowledgeth (according to Thomas) that to institute new Sacraments belongs to that excellency of power which is Christ's alone. So the sacramentality of Popish Confirmation seems to be a stone, and not bread, which being given to children by a mother, proves rather her hatred then charity. But indeed, if they would make this use of Confirmation, to see that children be brought, and made to understand the grounds of salvation, this were bread and not a stone, and so a fruit of charity, and not of hatred: but to give them an outward sign, that gives nothing from without by any Sacramental institution; and to give them no knowledge within, but a Creed or Lords Prayer in Latin, which they understand not, this is not a work of charity, but a deceiving, yea, a soul-killing cruelty and uncharitableness.  
The next seal of Romish charity, is the Sacrament of Confession and Penance; whereby, as our Author saith, when a man hath drunk of the poisoned cup of actual sin, Rome strives to make him cast it up again. Much might here be said to prove this auricular Confession to be no Sacrament, and so no charity in giving that for a Sacrament which is none. But of Romish uncharitableness in the use, or rather abuse of this which they call a Sacrament, there would scarce be time and place enough in the world to contain the proofs of it. We know what Markets are made of Indulgences, even absolution from Penance; which being set to sale, do plainly cross Christ's charitable doctrine, by making it easier for a rich man then a poor man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven. But indeed, it hath had this charitable consequence, that it hath caused many Nations to cast up, not single sins only, but the man of sin himself: But otherwise, whereas this Author speaks of this Sacrament to cast up sin, we must complain, that it hath been used as a means to cast up goodness, and to cast sin into a mould, even to nourish and strengthen it; for Garnet thought it a good covert and hiding place of treason, saying, that in Confession he first received the knowledge of the Powder-treason; and secondly, himself would not say that he did cause his Penitents to cast up this treason, but left it in their stomaches, wherein it lay with some of them until death, not acknowledged as a sin: Behold right Romish charity, plainly proved by the Sacrament of Confession; yea, this Sacrament hath been by them uncharitably used, as a means (not to cast up sin, but) to cast up righteousness; for some main acts and duties of righteousness have been put to Penance as great sins. Sir Thomas Overbury and myself met with an Irish Pilgrim in France, who taking us, as he said, for Catholics, (wherein he was not mistaken, if he had rightly understood the word) told us, that he was enjoined by way of penance to go on Pilgrimage to Rome and Compostella, for serving Queen Elizabeth in her wars against Tyrone. See here not a sin cast up, but an excellent duty of subjection and loyalty; and so the Romish Sacrament of Penance not a proof of charity, but of disloyal uncharitableness.  
He goes on, and says that Rome, to make her child grow and stand out, feeds him from time to time with the precious Body of our blessed Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar. But where is Romish charity in taking away the Blood of our blessed Lord in the same Sacrament? If it be charity to give bread to a child, is it not uncharitable to deny him drink? but the children of Rome are left to cry like Samson, though not heard as Samson, 
Judg. 15.18.  Thou hast given this great deliverance; and now shall I die for thirst? Christ hath given them a great deliverance, and now Rome would kill them with thirst: Yet the same Lord in his Passion gives both meat and drink to their souls; and therefore he not only saith, that his flesh is meat indeed, 
Joh. 6.55.  but that his blood is drink indeed; and so is he perfect nourishment, and a just refection, being both meat and drink. He gives no less to the true Israel then to the typical Israel (the type of the Church) in their Journey to Canaan; 
1 Cor. 10.3, 4.  it is said of them, they did eat— spiritual meat, and drank— spiritual drink, for they drank of the Rock, and that Rock was Christ. But Romish charity, or uncharitableness takes from the people that drink which Christ gave them, and as it were drives the true Israel from the waters that issue from this Rock, to refresh them in their walking through the wilderness to this heavenly Canaan. Neither doth it avail any thing to say, that there is blood in the body, for blood out of the body is given us in this Sacrament, to quench the otherwise unquenchable and ever-thirsty guilt of sin. Blood that was shed for us is given to us in this Sacrament, as the very words of our Saviour in the Institution of it do affirm; 
Mat. 26.28.  and if Christ say he gives us blood that is shed, either they must profanely deny the words which our Saviour spoke, or else they must be enforced to witness that they do uncharitably, and unchristianly deny to us, that which our Saviour gave us: and indeed, blood that is shed and so poured out of the body, is the proper Sacrifice for sin; for without the shedding of blood there is no remission: 
Heb. 9.22.  yea, our Saviour himself here saith of his blood given in the Sacrament, that it is shed for the remission of sins. What therefore Christ the fountain of charity hath shed for us out of his body, and so given us being shed for the remission of our sins, is it not extreme uncharitableness in Rome to take the same from us? for thereby she takes from us an excellent means of the remission of our sins, and so the remission which should come to us by this means.  
I could here multiply complaints of Romish uncharitableness in the manifold abuses of this Sacrament; and among them, of their Latin (that is, barbarous, as Saint Paul saith) and whispering Consecration. 
1 Cor. 14.11.  It is no Sacrament in the Romish belief, without the Priest's intention; and the words that should give some guess of his intention are not heard and understood: How short then are t●e poor people of knowing the Priest's intention, when they either hear not, or understand not the words which might give them at least some hope of his intention? But darkness fits best with a doctrine of darkness, and it is best nourished by that which begat it.  
But their doctrine of worshipping this Sacrament, yea, even when they know not whether it be a Sacrament, yea, carrying it about the streets in a solemn procession, on a set day, of purpose to be worshipped, is a most kill uncharitableness; if I may say of the Sacrament by their corruption, as Saint Paul of the Law by the corruption of nature, 
Rom. 7.10.  That which Christ ordained to life, is thus found to be unto death. The Lord of life appointed this Sacrament to communicate life by it; and Popish uncharitableness by it gives death to her children. But I say the less, because the truly reverend and learned Bishop of Durham hath so plainly revealed, and sound convinced the Idolatry of the Mass; that he who reads it, and after kills his soul by stumbling at this Idol, and falling down before it into hell, cannot lay all the fault on Rome, but must share uncharitableness with her, and have part of his own blood laid on his own head. It follows, If he will bestow himself upon the service of Almighty God, in a more particular manner, by taking Priesthood, she not only gives him holy Orders, but she doth it by a Sacrament conferring grace: I should here have expected that Romish charity should have expressed herself in giving Orders and Grace to one that before had the grace and gift of Teaching from on high, 
Eph. 4.8. 1 Kin. 12.32.  which that Lord that ascended on high gave unto Pastors for the building of his Church; but I hear nothing of this fruit of charity; but I hear of a Priesthood, which too often is a resemblance of the order of jeroboam, and that the Priesthood is a Sacrament divided into two Powers, 
a 
Utramque potestatem, nimirum, consecrandi, & absolvendi. Vasq. in 3. T. 3. Disp. 239. C. 1. & C. 3. Ex Medina.  
In duas has parts esse distributum.   one to sacrifice, and another to absolve; but I read not of a third power or commission of teaching to be given by this Sacrament: and so the Priests lips, that under the Law and the reign of the letter should preserve knowledge, now under the Gospel and Kingdom of light, notwithstanding any grace or power from this Sacrament, may leave the people in ignorance; and the old complaint under the old, may be 
b Cardinals & Bishops let not to make their servants, their Co●ks and Horse-keepers Priests, whereby Ecclesiastical persons are be●●me a jest and laughingstock to every man. Bish. of Valence in the 〈◊〉 of France, Part. 1. lib. 2. Host 4.6.  renewed in the new; My people perish for want of knowledge. And if thus they perish, it is very likely that, notwithstanding any grace of this Sacrament, it is not charity, but uncharitableness that kills them.  
He proceeds; If he have not spirit for so much as that, but resolves to walk on in the broad way of a married life, that state is honourable, though it be inferior to the former; and she joins him to a wife by a Sacrament also conferring grace.  
A strange opposition of things agreeing, and a setting at odds of things which God hath set at friendship. If he have not spirit for so much as that, saith our Author, but resolves to walk on in the broad way of a married life, etc. as if he that resolves to be married may not have so much spirit as that which is fit for the Priesthood. I cannot see in any place of Scripture but that the spirit of Priesthood may very well agree with marriage, if the spirit of error that forbids marriage, 
1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3  did not work in the Papacy to set them at discord: yea, our Author saith, Order gives grace, and Matrimony gives grace; and I wonder how one of these graces falls out with the other: I wonder also with what charity, or rather uncharitableness, Rome can deny Orders to a man that hath a gift of teaching, because he hath not the gift of continency; surely, she is either uncharitable to God's Church, in thus denying Orders where God hath given a gift that deserves them; or uncharitable to the Minister, in tying him to that continency whereof the gift is not given him. On the one side, if this man want Orders, a Congregation that wants him, may starve for lack of him; on the other side, if he want marriage, his soul is tied to the fire, and so is in danger to be consumed with the flames of it; and either way is Rome still uncharitable, even in these things by which our Author would prove her charity.  
As for the sacramentality of Marriage, and grace conferred by it, I must take them but for empty words, before I see Christ's Institution in the Scriptures to put substance into them. 
●●ssan Consult. Art. 13.  A Sacrament, as Cassander from Hugo well gathers, is a sign instituted by Christ, to signify and convey an inward grace, which by some likeness it representeth: Now Marriage indeed representeth the union between Christ and his Church; 
Eph. ●.  but it was not instituted by Christ, that this union should be given by it: and indeed, that such grace is represented and given by Marriage as by a Sacrament, we read not in the Scriptures; yea, their own Peter Lombard, 
Lombard. lib. 4. dist. 2. lit. A. Cass. quo supra.  Durand, and Cassander deny that marriage giveth grace: therefore it remains only as a Tridentine, and not a divine Sacrament of grace; and the gift of a supposititious Sacrament with feigned grace, is but a fruit of that carnal charity which giveth stones for bread.  
He goes on; If in his last sickness he be afflicted by those sharpest arrows of his invisible enemy, she anoints him towards the combat, and enables him by that extreme Unction, and by the benedictions and prayers which accompany it, to resist and conquer those adverse powers. Behold a Romish Unction, different from the ancient Unction, even by the confession of 
a Pamelius in his Notes upon Tertul. de praescrip. ad haeret. cap. 41. saith, We will prove extreme Unction to be a Sacrament of the Church, especially because it promiseth health, o● recovery. And Cassander, by the ancient prayer, benediction and hymns, ad corporal●● morbi le●ationem p●rtin●re, that it pertains to bodily recovery: Which is also the opinion of the Master of Sentences.  Romists themselves; for this Unction is given us, as our Author tells us, in his last sickness. But the ancient Unction was given of purpose that it might not be his last sickness; that was given to heal, this because he is condemned to death, and thought past healing. Saint 
b Mark 6.13.  Mark saith, that the twelve did anoint with oil many that were sick, and healed them; and S. 
c jam. 5.14, 15.  james, Let them pray over the sick, anointing him oil, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. So we see that healing or raising up is expected as a fruit of this ancient Anointing; but death is expected as a follower of Romish Anointing, 
Bellarm. de extreme. unct. cap. 5.  for even Bellarmine's proof of this Sacrament is drawn from the desperate and dying state of the sick; That since Sacraments were provided for our help in our ingress into the Church, and our progress in the Church, it is not to be believed that there should want one at our egress. See here, that the Unction which anciently was used for our regress, is now used by Romists for our egress; And therefore it is not the same Unction; yea, it is not the same, if we believe their Cardinal Cajetane, saying, that Saint James his Unction agreeing with the Apostles Unction, doth not agree with extreme Unction in word nor effect: and indeed, the effect of S. james his Unction was health; but the expected consequence of Romish Unction is death. Wherefore, let them join health to their Oil, which was anciently joined to it, and then we will think they give that Unction which was the ancient Unction, and a fruit of charity. But if they give Oil without health, the sign without the thing, what charity is there to give an empty sign in stead of a reality? Yea, how do they abuse that Oil, aswell as the Receivers, in misgiving it as a Sacrament of death, which in the true use of it was appointed for a means of life?   

SECT. IV.  
Monasteries, and other Romish works bearing a show of charity, are proved to be contrary to it.  
BUt Romish charity seems not to leave men when they be dead, but then follows them; even dead men with dead prayers, issuing from a blind, and therefore a dead charity. For is it not a dead charity that in her prayers for the dead is not animated by a true and lively faith? the want whereof turns all things (and therefore both the shows of charity and prayers) into sin. 
Rom. 14.23.  And can there be any faith without the Word of God? and doth the Word of God any where show Purgatory so evidently that faith may assuredly believe it, and thereupon offer up prayers for the deliverance of the dead from it? A Work ascribed to S. 
b Hypognost. lib. 5. where a third place being denied besides heaven and hell, Erasmus in the ●argent puts the word Pur●●●●rium: But the Spanish Purgatory hath pu●ged and taken away this Purgatory. Index Hisp.  Augustine plainly saith; The catholic faith by divine Authority believes a first place, The kingdom of Heaven; it also believes a second, which is Hell: a third we wholly know not; yea, we find that it is not in the holy Scriptures. Now, if it be not in the holy Scriptures, it is no matter of faith; and if Purgatory be not of faith, than the prayers for souls to be freed from that Purgatory whereof there is no faith, are prayers not of a true, that is, a believing and seeing charity, but rather of blind infidelity.  
As for this Authors praying for the dead to the world's end, I wonder why he should speak of it, when he should not be ignorant, that if the living friends of the dead be rich, there is a shorter way to free them out of Purgatory, then to pray to the world's end. Besides, the Treasure of the Church growing by the growth of Papal charity, which delivers souls out of Purgatory; it is a wonder how that Papal charity doth not enlarge itself and the Church's Treasure to the utmost, in a whole deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory, and so leave no work for the tedious charity of praying for them to the world's end. But it seems, that either there is a want of charity in the Pope, who may deliver souls and will not (especially seeing 
a Dogma de purgatorio igne exterminandum est ab Ecclesia, etc. The doctrine of Purgatory should be rooted out of the Church, because it makes men careless of purging themselves in this life, while they look for another purging hereafter: Graecus de purgatorio igne. To which add, that the purging fire hereafter may be taken away for money; and so they need not to be troubled with purging here or hereafter. To this end (Hist. Trid. lib. 1.) Leo the tenth sent an Indulgence & pardon for sins through all Christendom, granting it to whosoever would give money; and extending it to the dead, for whom, when the disbursement was made, his will was, that they should be freed from the pains of Purgatory.  for money they may be delivered): or if he do deliver them, it is rather vanity than charity that prayeth for souls to the world's end, which before the world's end are delivered.  
Our Author comes next to Monasteries and religious Houses, as proofs of Romish charity; where he tells us, That being consecrated by the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, their Church, with excessive charity, provides means for them, that they may be enabled to live, and wholly to attend that sacred function, for the assistance of mankind in the way of Spirit, without scattering and dispersing their thoughts and cares upon providing for the necessaries of this life.  
Surely, if the Author can prove it to be charity which hath made this provision, all the world without more proof may believe it to be excessive: For so excessive hath it been in provision, that it hath fret deeply into Church and Commonwealth, having eaten up a great part of the maintenance of the Clergy in Appropriations, and a great part of Lay possessions in Bequeathes and Donations: yea, this excessive charity hath provided such means for these thus consecrated by the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity, that the excessive provision hath exceedingly devoured the consecrating poverty, obedience, and chastity: for the spirit of error works in these members of the Papacy, as it doth in the Head, bringing contraries out of contraries; from the procession of poverty infinite riches; of chastity, most foul uncleanness; and of obedience, high disobedience to the Lord of the Universe: yea, rebellion against his Deputies and anointed Ones, the Kings of the earth.  
And whereas the Champion thinks that this provision of excess should look like the fruit of charity, because it enableth Monks to live without distraction; if he mean labour by distraction, let him know, that herein his wisdom differs much from the wisdom of the ancient Fathers. S. 
a Quia sunt 〈◊〉 qui 〈…〉, Psalmodiaeve, necessarios in exercendis artificiis; labores def●giunt, illud est intelligendum, certis quidem aliis quibusdam in rebus 〈◊〉 ●e●tam unicuique temporis tempestivitatem; ut est apud Ecclesia●●●●, qui omni negotio suum esse tempus dici●; orationi verò, & 〈…〉 sicut in aliis etiam plerisque, nullum non esse tempus 〈…〉 licet, ut vel in eo ipso dum manibus opus tractamus, & linguâ 〈…〉 (quandocunque id fieri potest, aut expedit potius, & ad fidei 〈…〉 conducit) munere hoc fungi possimus; sin id minus, cord 〈…〉 Psalmis, & hymnic, & canticis spiritualibus Deum colla●demus, 〈…〉 ita orationi satisfaciamus: interim dum laboramus 〈…〉.  Basil both urgeth the labour of Monks by the example of Christ and his Apostles; yea 
b 
Basil. Regul. susius disput. in cap. 37.  
In telis texendis, in consuendorum calceamentorum Artificio, & maximè agriculturâ. Ib. cap. 38.  , he particularly names the Trades and Professions which he would have them to use. And Saint 
c Hieron. ad Rusticum.  Hierome is very earnest in it, and saith, that the Egyptian Monasteries admit none without labour. St. Augustine, he hath a Work of the work of Monks, and tells the meaner sort of them, 
d 
Nullo modo enim decet, ut in ea vita ubi fiant Senatores laboriosi, ibi fiant opifices otiosi. August. de opere Monachorum, cap. 5.  
Mallem per singulos dies certis horis, quantum in benè moderatis Monasteriis constitutum est, aliquid manibus operari. Ib. cap. 29.   That by no means it is comely, that in that course of life wherein▪ Senators are laborious, labourers should be idle. And he confutes this idle conceit which then was on foot, That Monks must be idle, because they must live like the 
e Ut de opere Monachorum librum conscriberem, illa me necessitas compulit quòd cum apud Carthaginem Monasteria esse caepissent, alii se suis manibus transig●bant, obtemperantes Apostolo: Alii verò ex oblationibus Religiosorum vivere volebant, ut nihil operantes unde necessaria vel haberent, vel supplerent, se potius implere praeceptum Evangelicum existimarent, atque jactarent, ubi Dominus ait, Respicite Volatilia coel●, & Lilia agri? August. Retract. lib. 2. cap. 21.  Lilies, and neither work nor spin. And in poorer Houses, the works of the Monks was taught and required until late 
f Operari manibus, bonum est corpori, deseruit Spiritui, aedificatio est proximi, & reparatio est sensus nostri. Et si interdum pigri sumus, tamen perseverando vincimus. T. Campensis. De disciplina clausteralum. lib. 5. cap. 4. Florui● circa annum Salutis incarna●ae, M. CCCC.X  times, even so late as the Abbot Tritheimius, who lived about an hundred and fifty years past. This Abbot in an Homily of the handy-labour of Monks, presseth it earnestly, by the blessedness in the Psalm, pronounced on them that eat the labours of their hands; by the first penalty of labour laid on Adam; by Saint Paul's rule, That he who would not labour should not eat: yea, he citys their own 
g Pater noster Benedictus, otium detestans Monachorum, in Regula quam nobis tradidit, inquit, Otiositas inimica est animae, & ideò certis temporibus occupari debent Monachi in labour manuum, cerrisque item ho●is in lectione divina. Tunc ●nim verè sunt Monachi, si labore manuum svarum vivunt, sicut & patres nostri fecerunt, & Apostoli.— Item, Erat in primordio Monastici status ista consuetudo Monachorum, ut nullum sine labore admitterent ad sui consortium, etc. verùm posteaquam census Monachi habere caep●runt & redditus, p●istina mox simpli●itatis studia defecerant, crevitque paulatim cum divitiis rerum temporalium supe●bia, in tantum, ut labores manuum omnes cum tempore Monachi recu●●●ent.— Ne igitur panem vestrum manducetis otiosi, semper vos aliquo l●bo●e honesto & utili opo●t●bit esse mancipatos, quo & mens à taedio relev●●ur observantiae ●egularis, & inopia gravis vel in parvo saltem 〈◊〉: Messis ●empore ad ●●●num, & autumni diebu● ad vindemiam vos 〈◊〉 extra Monasterium con●uevimus occupare, etc. 〈…〉 ●●●acho●u● 〈…〉.  Father Benedict, who saith in his Rule, Idleness is an enemy to the soul, and therefore at certain times the Monks must be busied in the labours of their hands. He acknowledgeth honestly, that which was formerly spoken out of Saint Hierome, That in the first setting up of the Monastical estate▪ it was a custom not to admit any Monks into that fellowship without labour: And he confesseth as plainly, how idleness came in; After that the Monks began to have riches and rents, the ancient simplicity decayed, and pride grew so upon the growth of riches, that at last Monks generally refused to labour with their hands. Yet he ceaseth not to exhort his own Monks to that labour which was now grown so much out of use, and from which (as this Abbot tells us) excessive provision had distracted other Monks; though it be here by the Cavalier mistaken for a proof of charity.  
And whereas he calls it a sacred function; surely idleness is no function: yea, I doubt not but I might truly say, that it was never any function, even when it was at best. But men of divers functions met together to 
h 
Monachismus sinceritatem suam retinens, non aliud est quam sincerior Christianismus. Talem primam Christo credentium Ecclesiam fuisse, qualis nunc Monachi esse nituntur.  
Gabr. Puterbeus frater.   live (as they thought) so near as they might, according to the pattern of the primitive Christians. And as a Citizen that lives under the rules and government of a City, cannot call his citizen-ship a function, no more may the Monk call his Monkery a function for living under the rules of a 
i But Clemens of Alexandria thinks that a man more perfectly imitates the Apostles in a married then a Monastical life. Qui autem fuerit persectus, exempla habet Apostolos; & reverà vir probatur, non in eo quod vitam elegerit Monasticam: ve●ū ille viros vincit qui in matrimonio & libero●ū procreatione, & domus cura ac providentia citra voluptatem & dolorem se excercet & cum in Familiae versetur curatione, indivulsus tamen est à Dei charitate, in surgitque adversus omnem tentationem quae affertur, per filios, uxorem, & famulos, & possessiones. Clem. Alex. Stron. l. 7. And chrysostom differs not much from him: Ne Monachum quidem magnopere admiremur, quod is apud se vivens, neque commoveatur, neque in multa ac magna peccata prolabatur: Neque enim ei res illae adsunt, quibus ipse animo irritetur, aemuleturque: sin verò quis se turbis un versis tradiderit, animum ipsum vel tempestate actum tanquam in malacia & tranquillitate gubernans, hic dignus est quem omnes plause & admiratione prosequantur. Chrysost. de Sa●●rd. l. 5  Monastery.  
But as it stands at this day, we have too many proofs, that if it were a sacred function at the first, it is generally now neither function, nor sacred. 
k Ne quem offendat quod in hac Epistola, sicut nec in superioribus Divus Hieronymus nihil eorum praecipit, quae his temporibus à Monachis exiguntur. De tribus illis votis quae vocant Solennia, ne verbum quidem ullum. Sed meminisse debemus id quod palam liquet ex hujus scriptis, aetate Hieronymi nondum fuisse hoc Monachorum genus, cujusmodi nunc nostra tempestate videmus. Erasm. in Antidoto Epistolae Hieronymi ad Rusticum.  Erasmus, in his Antidote upon that Epistle of Hierome to Rusticus, formerly alleged, saith, Let it offend no man, that in this Epistle, nor in any of the former, Saint Hierome commandeth none of those things which in these days are required of Monks. Of those three vows which they call solemn, there is not one word. But we must remember that which is clearly manifest by this man's Writings, that in Hieromes time there was not that kind of Monks which we see in our age. And 
l Quam autem longè Monachatus ●odie, à prima sua origine degeneraverit, & quantis abusibus contaminatus & deformatus sit, satis per se est manifestum; nam paulatim religio vera & solida in superstitionem & inanem speciem ●eligionis conve●s● est; & accrescentibus opibus, decrevit pietas. Cassander Consult. Art. 25.  Cassander thus agreeth with him; It is manifest enough, how much Monkery is now degenerated from the first original, how defiled and deformed with abuses; true and solid religion being changed into an empty show of religion: and riches increasing piety hath decreased.  
Thus we see what is become of the sacred function, and what a work of charity it hath been to give those riches to it, which have been the means to diminish the piety of it. And indeed, such fearful abominations have been discovered in monasteries, since idleness met in them with excessive provision, that scarce any roaring 
m Nusquam ferè licentior & profanior vita, quam i● nonnullis Monasteriis. Cass. Ibid.  Society can match this sacred function. So far is it from assisting mankind in the way of Spirit, that it hath given to mankind most loathsome and scandalous examples in the way of the flesh: For how many Stories are stuffed with their adulteries, murders of children, unnatural pollutions? yea, 
Speeds later Edit.  in our own Chronicle, the eyes of the Reader are almost defiled with the names of Monks found guilty of that sin of fire and brimstone. And indeed, take a man with strength of body, and by the provision of excessive charity joined with idleness and fullness, you make him a right Citizen of Sodom.  
And now call him a Monk if you will, he shall be but a Monk of the Order of Sodom; his function far from sacred, far from the Spirit, but even a hellish trade of fleshly abominations: And so I think we have drawn up these conclusions, First, That it should not be true Christian charity which by excessiveness gives that provision which makes such a child of hell. Secondly, It may be no charity, because it may be an erroneous opinion of merit and satisfaction. And it is too well known, that the supposed expiation of crying sins hath laid the foundation of too many Monasteries. Thirdly, This Provision may be a fruit not of Romish Charity, but of Romish Policy: for Rome may cherish this provision, and enriching of Monasteries, that they may serve as so many Garrisons for Rome against Princes: for by them they may diminish Kingdoms; and as much as they take from these, so much they add to the Kingdom of Rome.  
The Champion passeth on, and having wrought a glittering curtain bespangled with the seeming good works of Visiting the condemned, Redeeming captives, Instructing the ignorant, he spreads this curtain before the eyes of his Readers, at once to dazzle them with this glorious show, and to cover from them the horrid spectacle of Rome's bloody uncharitableness. That there are no good works in the limits of Rome, I will no more say, than I will say there are no knees there ●hat do not bow to Baal. And these (as I said before) serve well the turn of the Beast, to make his horns show like those of the Lamb, as they do at this time serve our Author to make a show that Rome is charitable. But take out of his Inventory those works that are done for satisfaction, to pay God the debt of sins, and so to make them Saviour's; or, for merit and supererogation, to bring God in debt unto man, I doubt not the remaining works, like gideon's Army, will abate from thousands to hundreds. And indeed, the greater multitude there is of erroneous works; the more Arguments, not of Romish charity, but of Romish error and superstition.  
But when among these works of Romish charity I see the Instructing of the ignorant, I wonder at the Cavaliers blind partiality, that could not see this which he brings forth as a proof of Romish charity, to be an high proof and accusation of Romish uncharitableness: and this uncharitableness is the greater for his own reason, because souls are more precious than bodies. So that the 
n Ignorantia malum est & miseria, quam vera charitas expellere tenetu● Lorca 22. Disp. 41. n. 15. Quanquam omnes Christianit ●eantur dil●ction●m suam testa●i observatione mandatorum, juxta illud, Si d●ligiti●m●, mandata mea servate; à Petro tamen ejusque successoribus, aloud quiddam & majus exigitur, nempe ut pascant: vide au●em emphasim verborum; Non dicit, Occide, aut lanam & lac a●●ipe; sed Pas●e: Nec dicit, Potestatem in eos exerce tyrannicam; fed, 〈…〉.  great deluge of this transcendent uncharitableness to souls, seems to drown all the former works of charity to the body: And indeed, what instruction can a Latin Pater no●ter, a Latin Creed, a Latin Ave Maria, a Latin Mass give to an ignorant soul? It hath been to me a spectacle of compassion, when beyond the Seas, in some principal City, I have met with a poor Popish soul, that spoke some of these her devotions in that which was thought to be Latin, but could not be understood to be Latin by those who knew that language, much less by the party that knew it not: what instruction can these words give to the ignorant, which the ignorant know not? This is not to take away ignorance, but to add new ignorance to the old. And surely, they need not to send men to compass sea and land to convert Infidels abroad, until they have converted their ignorant unbelievers at home; for if they make no better Christians abroad then they leave thousands at home, it is but to pollute that glorious Name wherewith we are called, and to put the name of Christians on those that know not Christ.  
Now, that Rome is this cruel Stepmother, whose children thus lie swooning & dying in the streets for hunger, though our eyes have seen it, let Romish words speak it. Let us hear their great Jesuit Navarre setting forth the ignorance of the Romish Church as her shame, 
Peccat mortaliter qui judicio rationis utens, negligit s●ire explicitè & in particulari secundam personam Trinitatis, puta, Filium Dei Patris, propter nostram salutem factum esse hominem, natum, & mortuum, etc. Imò & qui ignorat alios Articulos praedicti Symboli, salten quos Ecclesia solemnizat, etc. Quocirca, omnes Parochos, Patrimos, Parented, & Confessores, (praesertim plebe●orum) ac Verbi divini Praecones obse●ramus, ut fidem istam Articulorum explicitam, & in particulari. caete●orumque qui in Symbolo Apostolorum quo sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur continentu●, saepissime commendare, & inculcare non desinent: Quand●quidem unive●s● C●risti Republicâ ●i●ca haec tanta sit se●o●dia, ut multos passim invenia●, nihil ●●gis in particulari & explicit de ●is●e crede●e, quam ethnicum Philos 〈◊〉 sola 〈◊〉 veri Dei n●tu●ali cognitione praeditum. Navar. 〈…〉. 11. 〈◊〉 22.  whereas the Cavalier sets forth the Instruction of the ignorant as her glory. He sins mortally, saith he, who being come to the judgement of reason, neglects explicitly and particularly to know the second Person of the Trinity, that is, That the Son of God the Father was made man, was born, and died, etc. And he that is ignorant of other Articles of the Creed, at least those which the Church doth solemnize (by Festival days) etc. Wherefore we desire all Curates, Godfathers, Parents, & Confessors, (especially of the common people) and all Preachers of God's Word, that they will not cease to inculcate this particular and explicit faith of these Articles, and of those other which are contained in the Apostles Creed, which the holy Church of Rome doth use: For in the whole Church of Christ there is so great negligence about these, that every where you shall find many that believe no more explicitly and in particular of these, than an heathen Philosopher, endued only with the natural knowledge of one true God.  
And now, if the Reader withdraw this painted and deceitful curtain that seems to represent a Heaven sprinkled with the Stars of seeming good works, and look into the Hell of Romish uncharitableness, whereof a small, but true model was represented in the former Chapter: Or, if he see it not there; he will look into the Inquisition House, and there behold it set forth to life, or rather to death, in several torments; I doubt not but this pleasant image will soon be frighted out of his Imagination, by the terrible shape of Rome appearing all bloody, and drunken with the blood of the saints. And so the improbability of Romish uncharitableness to Protestants will vanish away like a fantasy, and a Poetical fable. And indeed, if the Pharisee, notwithstanding his tyth-paying and fasting, went away condemned, because proudly and uncharitably he despised and damned the Publican, though he did neither imprison no● burn him; how shall Rome escape this condemnation, which both despiseth, and damneth, and imprisoneth, and tortureth, and burneth Protestants, whom she accounteth worse than Publicans and Heathens.  
And thus, though the Cavaliers words may be true, that At the first sight it is wholly improbable that Rome is uncharitable; yet at the second sight it is more than probale, because it is proved.  
This Chapter is almost ended; but before the end of it, the Champion shoots an arrow like a Parthian flying, even then to hurt us when he seems to look from hurting us. He would seem to spare Protestants in not recriminating; yet in naming this not recriminating he did not spare us; but indeed he did spare himself most, in not urging it more; for we have such proofs of Protestant charity as may shame his Recrimination: For they are ready to be brought forth against a Recriminator, and may bind his Recrimination as a crown to the head of the Protestants. And when a catalogue of them is brought forth, we may boldly say (and that not without Recrimination to Romists) that none of them are the bastard fruits of Romish and carnal errors of merit and satisfaction.  
But a pattern of these works of charity hath been already presented to the world; and yet not of all Protestants, but of this Kingdom, and yet not of the whole Realm, but of some part for the whole. And that I send not away the Reader altogether empty, I will take a part of that part; and this part, I doubt, is not to be matched by any proportionable part of the Romish Jurisdiction, in the same proportion of time. 
D. willet's Synopsis, large Edit. page 1220.  Thus he begins; Whereas the Professors of the Gospel are generally charged by the Romanists, as barren and fruitless of good works, I will, to stop their slanderous mouths, show by a particular induction, that more charitable works have been performed in the times of the Gospel, than they can show to have been in the like time of Popery, or in twice so much time now going immediately before. And because it would require an endless labour to make collection of all such works,— I will give instance only of three most famous places of this Land, which have most abounded in these fruits: namely, the City of London, and the two Universities. And then, having reckoned and summed up divers gifts, he thus concludes his total; They want not much of a Million. But if all other gifts which came not to my knowledge were added, the sum would far exceed a Million. In which sum I comprehend not the yearly collection of 30000. pounds through the Parishes of this Land.  
And I think the time since this computation hath yet been more fruitful; the sums being very great which have been given for the maintenance of foreign Preachers and exiles, repairing of Churches, redeeming of captives, enlarging and beautifying of Colleges, erecting or increasing Libraries; amongst which, that of Oxford grows to so large and glorious a lustre, that doubtless it dazzles the eyes of Popery to behold it.    

CHAP. IU.  
Opposed to the Cavaliers second Chapter, wherein he labours to excuse the uncharitable censure of Papists in damning Protestants.  

SECT. I.  
The Protestants Religion is declared to be a saving Religion, In respect 1. of the Object of faith. 2. Of the means of believing the Word and Sacraments. 3. Of the effects of faith, charity and repentance.  
We are told in this Chapter, that when Romists give the sentence of damnation against us, they do it not against us, but against our heresy; or, if you will, Protestancy. But I answer, If Protestancy do not damn us, than Papists do damn us: for as a guiltless person, whom his own crime doth not condemn, may be truly said to be slain and condemned by the witnesses which falsely accuse him; so Protestant's not being condemned by Protestancy, are damned by the false witnesses of Rome. And indeed, if they would suspend their uncharitable censures of damnation until they had manifestly proved the faith of Protestants to be damnable, the Cavalier on this quarrel might have had no need to put on his defensive Armour: yea, if he had but considered the whole verse, whereof he takes a part, therewith to conclude this Chapter, he needed not to have begun it: 
〈◊〉 ●6. 16.  his piece is this; He that believeth not shall be condemned: and that which he left out is this; He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: now hereunto I subjoin, But, Protestants do believe, and are baptised; and how can it choose but follow, Therefore Protestant's shall be saved? And that there may be no quarrel about saving faith, Let the Author and Finisher of our faith, the Judge of quick and dead, be Judge between us. Hear the Word of that Word which is God; 
Joh. 6.40.  This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day. And if this Word who is Truth had any need of witnesses, it were easy to produce them: 
John 1.12.15.16. Joh. 3.36. Act. 10.43. Rom. 9.33.  So that whatsoever distance between Christ and a soul this Author doth speak of, it is taken away by that justifying faith which uniteth us to Christ, and makes us one spirit with him: For by faith we being made his Spouse, flesh of his flesh, 
Rom. 8.32.  bone of his bone, and spirit of his spirit, Christ is ours, and we are Christ's; our debts are his, his merits are ours: for indeed, if Christ be ours, all things are ours; 
Rom. 8.1.  and among those all things are Christ's merits. And now being in Christ Jesus, let Rome, and the present Romists say what they will, Saint Paul to the pure and primitive Romans plainly said, There is to us no condemnation. None can separate whom God hath thus put together; no, 
Rom. 8.38, 39  not the gates of Hell, though set open in the Papacy, and sending forth Champions against us, can separate us from the love of God in Christ jesus.  
Again, for the means and furtherance of this uniting and saving faith, the advantage is incomparably on our side. The ordinary and main means of begetting and increasing this faith, is the preaching of the Gospel, 
Gal. ●. 2, 5. Rom. 10.14, 17 Joh. 1.12.13. Rom. 1.16. 1 Cor. 1.21. Eph. 1.13. Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.21. etc.  if we will believe the Spirit of God speaking in the Apostles. And let the Pope take a survey of his Dominions, and I think it will palpably appear, that he comes far short of matching this Nation with any proportionable part of his Kingdom, in the Gifts, Abilities, and Numbers of solid and profitable Preachers: These gifts then being given by Him that ascended on high, for the edifying and saving of his Body, we will make no doubt, but that the Harvest is great where the Labourers sent forth with these gifts, are so many: And withal, hereby we may learn, That to obtain th●se gifts from on high, by which souls may be saved, and to obtain salvation by the ministry of those gifts; there is no need of being subject to the Pope's Supremacy, seeing we have both very plentiful without it.  
But this Champion is still angry, because we have not great store of Sacraments; and yet he knoweth that his own Doctors do confess that a man may be saved, 
Those which flowed é later Christi.  if he have no more Sacraments than we do use and acknowledge. And indeed, if a man in Regeneration, whereof Baptism is a seal, do put off original sin with the guilt of it, and receive a new life of Grace, and by the use of the Lords Supper, put off the guilt of actual sin, and nourish and increase this new life, I doubt not but he may go safe and sound from strength to strength, until he see God in Zion.  
And therefore the French 
a Tria siquidem nobis sunt ad profectum christianae religionis proposita, sed ad consummatam justitiam perinde necessaria, ut in his tota humanae salutis summa consistat: horum primum est intelligere & firmiter tenere mysterium Trinitatis, & unius veritatem Deitatis. Secundum, salutaris Baptismi rationem nosce, vel causam. Tertium, in quo duo vitae Sacramenta, id est, Dominici corporis & sanguinis continentur. Fulbert. Carnot. Epist. 1.  Bishop Fulbertus, said, five hundred years past; that in three things; A right Faith in the Trinity, To know the reason of Baptism, And of the Lords Supper, the whole sum of Man's salvation did consist.  
As for charity and penance, which the Author would commend to us, we acknowledge that charity is the sap which issueth from the true vine Christ jesus, into those that are engrafted in him by faith. But we must be in the vine, before we can draw this sap from him: And if we be in him, than (as Saint Paul told us before,) we are, even at the same instant, those to whom there is no condemnation. And penitence (for I hope that is the best penance) also is the fruit of this union, and of the new life which we receive by it: For Regeneration makes a Well of water in the soul, which springeth up to eternal life. Now the nature of a Well, is, by an ever springing purity, to purge and cast out the filth that is cast into it: And thus doth the Well of Grace in our souls cast out the filth of actual sins by repentance. And, indeed, to both these doth our Church call us in our preparations to the Lords Supper: so that in regard of the care of our Church and her Remembrancers, we have no need of Popish admonitions, towards charity and repentance; and in regard of the Lords Supper, which is Christ's remembrance of these duties to us, we have no need of more Popish Sacraments.  
And now, if there were cause, I could say much more of the sufficiency of our faith: for we believe that which 
a Quae summa est fidei, seu omnium credendorum? Symbolum Apostolorum in duodecim distinctum Articulos. Canisii Catechismus.  Canisius the Jesuit saith, is the sum of things to be believed, the Creed of the Apostles. And if there were yet need of a larger faith, 
b King james his premonition to christian Kings.  Let us hear King James of ever glorious memory, what he saith of his Protestant faith: I am such a Catholic Christian as believeth the three Creeds, I reverence and admit the four first general Counsels as Catholic and Orthodox.  
Briefly, we have so full and saving a faith in Jesus Christ and his Gospel, 
2. Cor. 11.4.  that, except the Pope bring us another Jesus, and another Gospel, we need not to hear him; 
Gal. 1.8, 9  and if he bring another Jesus, and another Gospel, than he is accursed.   

SECT. II.  
The presumption of Papists in condemning this saving faith, & whereas the Cavalier denies, that they hold Protestants to be in the case of those who sin against the Holy Ghost, it is showed, by a fearful example, that denying the Doctrine of the Protestants hath been taken for the sin against the holy Ghost.  
ANd now being justified by God in Jesus Christ, through a saving faith, who shall condemn us? Certainly the faith which saveth us, will not condemn us: Therefore, if Romists condemn us when we have this saving faith, they are to be condemned for unjust condemning us. 
Mat. 7.1, 2.  They must have that judgement wherewith they have judged others; and so they have not so much condemned us as themselves. They draw the woe and curse upon themselves, 
Esay 5.20.  which is denounced against those that call good evil, and take the righteousness of the righteous from him. And thus doing, 
Pro. 17.15.  they are far from taking the place of Almighty God in judging his servants, which this man saith some of ours do lay against them as a charge: For indeed, to speak more rightly, they might say, that herein Romists take the place of the Accuser of the Brethren: 
Rev. 12. 1●.  They put themselves into the place of that Father of untruth and uncharitableness that falsely accused Job as an Hypocrite, 
Job 1.9, 10, 15 & 2.3, 4, 5.  and assayed to provoke God and Men against the Children of God.  
Yet doth not the Devil (nor his instruments) falsely accuse and terrify the faithful without an especial craft: For he is a cunning Fowler; and a Fowler, when he hath spread his net before some cleft of a Rock where birds rest in safety, he assays by noises, out-cries, and terrors to fright them out of their safety, that so they may come into his net: So the Devil, when he seeth souls safely resting by faith in the Rock Christ jesus, he assayeth to fright them out of their safety, by the out-cries and terrors of damnation. And the Romists join with them in these terrible noises, so to fright Protestants from their Rock of safety, into their net of errors, superstitions, idolatries, and especially that large Net of Idolatry, the Pope's Deity and Supremacy. But, as the only safety of the bird is not to fear these out-cries, neither by fear of a false danger to run into a true one; so it is the safety of Protestants not to fear these noises, nor for the fear of a false damnation, to run into a true one: Let them keep close to their Rock of safety, Christ jesus, and from this safety they may assuredly expect salvation. But contrarily, the false Accusers, and affrighters, and casters of damnation, shall be truly in danger of the same damnation which they have falsely laid on the heirs of salvation.  
This Author speaks yet further, of a charge laid by us on Romists, That they say, Protestancy is as the sin against the Holy Ghost. I think the meaning of this charge is only to this purpose; That Romists, in saying that unrepented protestancy doth damn men, do make it, in effect, as mortal as the impenitent sin against the Holy Ghost. But for every way of charging them for their uncharitable censure, I do not undertake; for it may suffice me any way to show that this censure is uncharitable. Yet seeing we are fallen into the mention of comparing Protestancy to the sin against the Holy Ghost, let us behold in a pattern how nearly falling from protestancy hath been taken for the sin against the Holy Ghost.  
F. Spira, a learned Lawyer, dwelling near Milan, 

Sl●ydan. Com. lib. 21.  
Gowlart. Admire. Hist. ex S●ringe●o, teste oculato.   having embraced the true Religion with great zeal, and making open profession of the same, was complained of to the Pope's Legate; which when he understood, and saw the danger, after he had long deliberated and consulted what was best to be done, he resolved at last to go to the Legate; accordingly he went to him to Venice, craved pardon, and promised future obedience: The Legate, for an example to others, commanded him after his return to make an open recantation; which accordingly he performed. But having done this against his conscience, to maintain himself and his charge, being returned to his house, he could not rest an hour, no, not a minute, nor feel any ease of his continual anguish. And even from that night he was so terrified, and had such horror of his actions, as he held himself for lost: For, as he himself did confess, he saw plainly before his eyes all the torments of hell, and the damned; and in his soul did hear the fearful sentence, being drawn before the Judgement seat of jesus Christ. He was carried to Milan, where famous and excellent Physicians did visit him, and gave him Physic with singular affection: but they soon found that he was little sick in body, but grievously in mind. Nothing came out of his mouth that was lightly or foolishly spoken, or that might discover any raving in him. They asked him if he thought his sin to be so foul, that it could not be pardoned through the bounty and infinite mercy of God. His answer was, That he had sinned against the Holy Ghost, which was so great a sin, as it is called a sin unto death; whereof this wretched man discoursed amply, learnedly, and too subtly against himself: He said, that he did acknowledge the severity of God's judgement, who had chosen him to make him a spectacle rather than any other, and to admonish all by one man's mouth, to abstain from all impiety, confessing that there was no reproach nor punishment which he had not deserved by reason of his foul offence.  
After he had discoursed gravely of the Divine Justice, he said, That they should not account strange this his speech, for that oftentimes God doth wrest out of the mouth of Reprobates most assured testimonies of his Majesty, his Justice, and his fearful Vengeance; as we see in judas, confessing his own sin, and justifying his Master.  
Many testimonies of Scripture being alleged to divert him from this fearful apprehension, and being exhorted to receive into his heart a hope and a trust of salvation by jesus Christ; he said, even in that whereby you do exhort me to gather some hope, I see all means of health and pardon taken from me. For, if the Testimonies of the holy Scripture have any authority (as they have) do you think that jesus Christ said in vain, that he which renounceth him before men, he will renounce him before his heavenly Father? Do you not see that this concerns me, and that it is as it were particularly verified in my person? What shall become of him whom the Son hath disavowed before his Father, when, as you say, we must hope for no salvation but in jesus Christ?  
It cannot be believed with what gravity and vehemency his words were delivered; neither was there ever man heard pleading better for himself, than Spira against himself: He said, That God did set the precious blood of jesus Christ, and the dignity of his obedience, as an high and strong Rampart, that sinners, repenting them, might not be drowned with the overflowing of their sins, and offences: As for himself, seeing he had renounced our Saviour jesus Christ, he had (as one should say) overthrown this strong Rampart with his own hands, so as the deluge of the waters of vengeance had covered and swallowed up his soul. One of his most familiars said unto him; that his great torment proceeded from abundance of Melancholy which troubled his brain. Spira remembering that he had many times refuted this opinion, said; You may think what you please, but God in truth hath troubled my spirit, seeing it is impossible for me to have any hope of salvation. Thus he continued, and withal, refused to eat any more meat, and so being carried from Milan to his own house, in this despair he died.    

CHAP. V.  
Against the Cavaliers third Chapter, First, it is proved, That although unity be necessary in the true Church, yet doth not this discharge the Papists from uncharitableness in damning Protestants.  

SECT. I.  
Wherein is declared; first, the weakness of his Grounds and Deductions. Secondly, what kind of unity is required in the Church.  
We are passed the Champions unproved, and indeed disproved improbability of this assertion; That Rome wants charity in casting damnation upon Protestants. Now we are come to his untruth: It is untrue, saith he, that Romists want charity, in thus damning Protestants. And by what reason doth he prove it to be untrue? Because there is but one Church: a strange kind of reasoning; that this should be an untruth, that Rome is uncharitable in damning Protestants because there is but one Church; when even hence appears the truth of her uncharitableness. For if there be but one Church, and Protestants be members of this one Church, how is it not most true that it is uncharitable to damn the true members of this one Church? Now that Protestants are members of this one Church is a truth already proved, which nothing that this Author saith in this book, or can say, will ever disprove; but much rather his grounds or rules, by which he would oppugn our truth, do prove it, and make against himself and his untruth.  
His grounds are these; There is but one Church, and one Religion, out of which there is no salvation. Secondly, the unity of the members of this Church is broken between Papists and Protestants. Thirdly, that both Papists and Protestants are not saveable in their several Religions. But what doth all this prove but that Protestants▪ first, may be members of the true Church; with whom, secondly, Papists do break unity; therefore, thirdly, Papists are not saveable? His own proofs make not against us, but make against him and his own fellows.  
But the inference sowed hereunto is most miserable, That no one is to be blamed, if, conceiving his own to be the only true Religion, he declares the dangerous estate wherein he takes any other man to be, who communicates and agrees not with him: but rather that he is obliged to let him know it. An inconsequent untruth, except consequent because deduced from untruths; and so it must either accuse the premises, or itself. Doth the Author himself believe what he saith? or can it come into his judgement, that if two hold two contrary opinions, whereof one is true, and the other false, that he which holds the false is not to be blamed, if he declare to the other that the truth is falsehood, and thereupon tell him that he is in danger to be damned by believing the truth, so to terrify him out of the truth into his own falsehood? If there be no fault in this, then how can any man blame a Turk for telling a Christian that he cannot well be saved, except he turn Turk? Surely whatsoever this Cavalier may think of this kind of doctrine, I believe that if the same were maintained in false titles to a Crown, the Law would call it treason: For if a Subject conceiving his false title to be good, should tell his Prince that he were an Usurper, were not such a Subject to be blamed? Surely, whatsoever a Romist may think of such a one, I doubt not but the Law would think him worthy of a capital Sentence. And it is likely the abbetters of him by such doctrines, would not be freed from blame and danger. But if this Champion had sought advice, his own Doctors could have holpen him out of his error: For they 
a Quaeritur an conscientia errans vim habeat sibi obl●gandi, hoc est, ut eam sequi, & juxta ipsius praescripta agere debeamus. Duae sunt opiniones: prima asseverat non habere vim obligandi, sed ligandi— Quando conscientia ligat, & non obligat, tunc si contra eam agatur, peccatum quidem admittitur, non tamen secundùm eam agere debemus, quoniam possumus hujusmodi conscientiam errantem deponere. Azor. Instit. moral. Lib. 2. ca 8. Aliquando proponitur à conscientia erronea ut fiat id quod malum est; ut si quis culpabiliter existimet necessarium esse mentiri utsuam vel alterius vitam conservet, in quo eventu non tenetur quis mentiri, quia mentiendo peccaret. Nullus autem tenetur ad id quod, si fecerit, peccatum committit.— Quod si urgeas, ergo homo iste erit perplexus in utramque partem, quia quicquid faciat peccatum non evadit. Respondetur culpa sua posse quem esse perplexum, quando se ignorat id quod scire potest & tenetur. Non est tamen simpliciter perplexus, quoniam potest & tenetur in hoc eventu conscientiam illam deponere, & scientiam contrariam habere, quo facto ab illa perplexitate liberatur. Sayer. Clau. Reg. Lib. 1. ca 4. Continge●e potest ut conscientia erronea ex ignorantia culpabili proponat tanquam necessarium, & in praecepto, facere aliquid quod revera aliàs malum est, ut mentiri ad tuendam vit●m— si ex tali conscientia mentiretur, sequendo positiuè judicium ejus, nihilominus peccaret, quia illa ignorantia non excusaret eum, nullus enim obligatur ad faciendum illud quod peccatum est— potest autem & debet evitari & omitti mendacium deponendo conscientiam illam e●roneam. Vasques in 1. 2●. Disp. 60. Num. 5.6.  can tell him that an erroneous conscience doth not bind to the doing of that which it erroneously thinks should be done; the proper Guide of our Actions should be Light and Knowledge, not darkness and error: Neither is the Will bound to obey other than the rectified Understanding. And therefore, if the conscience being deceived, do prescribe that to be done which is unlawful, the true and only remedy is to clear the conscience from the errors, & not to follow it in errors: For this were to double the fault which before was single; for the error in the conscience was one, and now the following of that error is another. And if the Cavalier know it not, there is also a Romish Doctor that can tell him a cause and root of this very error which damneth men that shall be saved. And indeed it is a vice not beseeming a Cavalier, which he calleth Pusillanimity. 
* 
Error conscientiae causatur ex cordis pusillanimitate, quâ quis timet non timenda secundùm rectum rationis judicium; et talis conscientia est nimis stricta, et ideo vi●anda, quia causat t●ia mala:  
Nam de bono facit malum, & de festuca trabem, id est, de levi peccato grave. Secundò generat desperationem. Tert●ò damnat salvandum. Pa●ant. in 2. Lict. 165.   An error of conscience is caused by pusillanimity of heart, whereby a man fears that which should not be feared according to the right judgement of reason; and such a conscience is too strict, and therefore to be avoided, because it causeth three evils, whereof the third is this, It damns him that should be saved.  
But thus this error of the Cavalier being taken from him, by which he thinks he may follow his erroneous conscience, in denouncing damnation to those that are saved, the very sinnew and bond of his discourse is cut asunder; and all his ensuing labour lost, by which he strives to prove that Protestants and Romists are divided, and cannot both be saved: For though they be thus divided, a Papist cannot charitably tell a saved Protestant that he is damned because he doth erroneously believe it.  
Yet will he needs go on to his proofs of unity, though altogether unprofitable, and unable to excuse Rome from the charge of being uncharitable to Protestants: yea, it rather aggravates his charge, and makes her more uncharitable, in not holding unity with so good Christians as Protestants. Yet he is resolved to go on, and to utter that which he gathered upon this head, or rather upon this word of Unity: for the places which he brings forth, it seems, please him well, if they do speak of the word Unity, or something near to the sound of it, though the meaning be nothing of that unity which it concerns him (even in this his walk of impertinency and wandering) to pursue and prove. For sometimes his Allegations seem to prove that there should be in the Church one Head, and sometimes one Heart and Affection, sometimes one Spirit. But if the Author would be pleased to remember his own business, he might consider that his work is to prove that there is in the Church such an entire unity in all points of Doctrine, that there can be no difference or dissent in any one point, though never so small, but that by this difference the unity of the Church and salvation is lost. For we deny not, but there must be one heart, and one affection, and one spirit in the Church, and all this in and under the unity of one Head, Christ jesus.  
Again, we acknowledge that God did found but one Church, and one Religion; and that without these two there is no salvation: But except the Author prove that the unity of this one Church, and of this one Religion consists in this, that the belief of all must be one and the same in all points, under pain of Damnation; the former words of unity are mere words, and not pertinent to this end, neither will they make up his task. For when he comes to his next point, that this unity is broken between Protestants and Romists, we will presently deny that we have any way broken that unity of faith, which holds us in unity with the Church; and consequently we are still in the state of salvation, and so all his errand is lost. Therefore the most places being impertinent, as proving that which we deny not, and indeed make nothing for him being granted, he hath two or three, which by screws are wrested toward this full unity in points of belief, though they reach not home to it. This perchance he aimed at in other places but they would not join with him.   

SECT. II.  
The argument drawn from the authority of the High Priest among the jews answered.  
A First of his unproving and impertinent places, is that of Deut. 17. where (as our Author saith) his whole people should be subject to the determination of the High Priest for the time being; and this upon no less than pain of death: In which sentence, there was to be no appeal. And a little after, The great authority and power, which was cast upon the individual Person of one judge.  
But first if we will read the words of God himself, we may see that He speaks of more than one individual Person: 
Ver 9 and Ver. 12.  For He speaks of the Levites, the Priests, and the Judge. And if a man will not hearken to the Priest, or to the Judge, that then he should die.  

Verse 11.  But secondly, it must be remembered, that that which the Priest or the Judge must pronounce, must be the sentence of the Law: For even the Prophet must die, which shall presume to speak a word which God hath not commanded. 
Deut. 18.20.   
Yet thirdly, we well know, That this speaking according to the Law, was often neglected by the Priests; and therefore they broke the Covenant of Levi, 
Mal. 2.8.  and led the people into errors, as hereafter more fully may be proved. And I hope this Champion will not say, that the people lost their salvation if they did not hold unity with the errors of the Priests.  
And whereas he addeth, That there could be no Religion or Church that did not agree with this; We take not this to be the present Question: but, Whether all believers, Proselytes or Jews, did in every point, by the Priest's decision, hold an unity of belief, and did in no point differ: Now this, I think, will never be both affirmed and proved. For not only humane Testimonies, but the Scriptures themselves do show us, 
Mat. 22. Act. 23.6, 8.  that there were divers sects and opinions among them, and yet they joined together in external unity, not dividing themselves into two Religions and Churches.  
But to put this Author out of trouble, in regard of his individual High Priest, the mention of whom seems to look asquint on the Pope, as his shadow; let him remember, That the High Priest was himself a shadow of Christ, 
Heb. 7.12. & 8.5.  and when Christ came, this shadow was abolished; and when this shadow died, it left not the Pope either heir or executor; and so he can be at best but the counterfeit of an abolished shadow.  
And thus all this Author's labours for the High Priest are left to the Pope. But see how yet it falls out more unhappily against him; for after he had made mention of the individual High Priest, his next proof ariseth from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, punished for Schism (and not for Heresy, and difference in Doctrine) against two individual persons, Moses and Aaron.   

SECT. III.  
It is declared, 1. That the unity of the Church may be preserved without an exact agreement in all points of doctrine. 2. That the Papists exalt the Pope above God, in that they hold all differences from the Pope's determination to be mortal, and yet some breaches of God's Law to be venial.  
ANother place of his, very impertinent to his purpose, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Unic● solitaru, Psal. 68.7. Pagnin. lex.  is taken or racked out of the Psalms; which, differently from the original and corrected Translations, he thus paraphraseth; He makes them to be all after one manner, and to be endued with the same affections and dictamen concerning God's service. But the word dictamen we leave to this Author, as being his own, and not the Texts; only we may upon request allow this place, and the next (of Christ's prayer for unity, john 17) to intend unity of affections; and yet he will be short of his unity in all points of Doctrine. And it is well known, that if this were meant, the present Romists themselves have not that unity, neither those who far excelled them, the ancient Martyrs and Fathers. And far more guilty are they against the prayer of Christ, in maintaining division 
a Schismatis tota radix & vera causa est, & jam diu fuit Romanus Ponti●ex.— Schismaticus enim est qui ab Ecclesia universali se separat; non qui Papam errantem nolit s●qui. Spalat Ostens'. error. Suarez. cap. 6.  of affections towards patriarchal Sees, and many eminent parts of the catholic Church: for the Pope is like Ishmael, his sword against every man that will not submit to his universal Supremacy.  
And according to this dividing Spirit of the Papacy, is it this Author's business in this work, to make a division in the Church (for false proving is making) even where there is an unity? for, is not this his employment in this Chapter, (and more hereafter in taking away the distinction of points fundamental) to set Christians by the ears, and one to damn another for differing in every little point of doctrine? For thus he saith, even soon after his former places of unity (and he would fain have Saint Matthew and Saint Mark to say so with him, 
Mat. 28.20. Mar. 16.16. ) Whosoever should fail of believing any one point of Christian doctrine, should be as sure of condemnation, as if he had believed but any one, or none. A Foundation laid of Babel itself, even of division and hatred in the Church of God; A Position to which I cannot be silent for Zions sake, nor for my brethren and companions sake, whom this Position hath often slain with death temporal, and adjudged to death eternal. For let it look as smooth as it will, do you break up the bowels of it, and you shall find it full of blood, division, and damnation. This, even this is it which hath wrought those fearful Massacres, Treasons, Excommunications, Fires, whereof many horrid spectacles in the second Chapter have been presented.  
And how should it be otherwise, but that it should produce such hellish effects, when it teacheth Christians, for every failing in the belief of any one point of Christian (that is in their language, Romish or Popish) doctrine, to account other Christians in the state of damnation, and to hate them more than heathens; So that if the Pope say, that the Worship of Images, Prayer in an unknown tongue without understanding, Rats eating the body of Christ, and such other errors, be points of Christian doctrine; the man that believes them not, though he believe in Christ, yea, all other points but one of these, hath forfeited his salvation, and is fallen into the odious state of a combustible heretic, and of a damnable person. But this Author might have been put in mind of more mercy by one of his allegations; for though Christ in the place of Matthew by him alleged, willeth that all Nations be taught to observe whatsoever he hath commanded; yet his own fellow Romists allow, that the breach of some of Christ's Commands are not damnable: I might allege a Command of Christ in the Lord's Supper, Drink ye all of this; which (as concerning the lay people) they have turned into Drink ye none of this: But I will pass to other Commands, such as those are which command the keeping of the moral Law, (Matth. 5.17.28.48.) and forbid every idle thought: but the breach of these 
a 
Q●i concupiscit inordinatè contra solam liberalitatem, vel pauxillum contra justitiam, solum venialiter peccat. Navarre. Man. cap. 20. N. 1.  
Negari non debet peccatum veniale es●e contra praeceptum aliquod. Vasq. in 1a. a. 2r. Disp. 144.9.   Commands by inordinate thoughts, or small deviations, the Romists can make not mortal and damnable, but venial. How comes it then that they will allow us no venial errors and failings in small points of doctrine, but any one point of Christian (that is, in his sense, Popish) doctrine not believed, is damnably mortal? Is there not in this a great piece of Popish leaven, even of the wicked mystery, that sins against Gods Commands of moral obedience may be venial; but against the Pope's Commands, in the least point of doctrine, are altogether mortal? And doth not the reason appear to be this, That in the breach of a moral Law (as that of coveting our neighbour's goods) God is offended, but the Pope is not hurt: but by not believing any one point which the Pope delivers for Christian doctrine, his Inerrability falls to the ground, and so his Supremacy? And it were better, according to the policy of this wicked Mystery, that all the world were burned or damned, or set at division, then that the Papacy should fall. But thus doth the Pope set himself above God, by valuing offences against himself of a more damnable nature than sins against God: But well it is withal, that they show hereby, that God is yet far more merciful than the Pope; for God, they say, makes little sins venial, whereas the Pope makes little errors against Popish doctrine deadly and damnable. But the truth is, to those that are in Christ Jesus, God doth make venial both errors in lesser points of faith, which grow by ignorance, blindness, or weakness of faith, aswell as lesser errors in life, by infirmity and weakness. Christ's blood is a propitiation for all our sins, aswell sins in the understanding, as in the will. And to those who attain to that measure of faith which knits them to Christ Jesus, Christ Jesus by his blood will make other ignorances' and unbeliefes in those points of doctrine, to which they cannot attain, venial and pardonable: and surely, our Author is hardly driven to get a show of proof from Scripture, of this doctrine of division and damnation: The place of Matthew could not serve; for there was only a command to the Apostles, to teach all Nations to observe all Christ's Commands. But we have seen above out of Romists, that the breach of some of Christ's Commands is not damnable, but venial; wherefore another place must be forced to confess it. Accordingly that of Saint Mark is set on the rack; but this place speaks not of not believing all and every point of doctrine delivered and decreed by the Pope and his adherents; but the main scope of the place is a casting of damnation upon men for the great point of not believing in Christ: for in the Gospel this is an usual sense of the word believing, especially when it stands upon life and death. And, it seems, this Author can bring no plain place of Scripture to prove, 
Joh. 3.36. & 6.29, 35, 40. Joh. 17.3. Act. 10.43. Rom. 3.25, 26. 1 Joh. 5.12.  that he who believes not every small point of doctrine decided by the Pope, shall be damned; for if he could, these places had not been so unmercifully racked toward it. But thus still behold a going on of the Mystery of iniquity. Unity unto salvation is urged, thereby to make division unto damnation; Words are taken from Christ the Head, therewith to tear his body into pieces: But hereof we may make this use, That when a Papist preacheth to Protestants of unity, then let them expect & beware of division.   

SECT. FOUR  
The place taken out of the 18. of Matth. is cleared, which the Cavalier had perverted to the maintenance of four Popish grounds: First, The perpetual visibility of the Church of Rome. Secondly, The absolute authority of this Church, in judging controversies. Thirdly, The Inerrability of this judgement. Fourthly, a Necessity of submission thereunto, whereby their imaginary unity is produced.  
I Might here be at rest for this Chapter, but that this Champion, besides two impertinent places (one of which speaks of unity of Affection, and a second of the unity of Spirit in the bond of Peace,) brings forth a third, even the often answered place of S. Matth. which he perverts to divers ill uses, 
Mat. 18.  whereof this imaginary Popish unity is one; For, he assays hereby to prove the Church to be the judge of controversies, to prove her visibility, to prove her inerrability and thereupon he thinks presently should follow an unity.  
First, to remove the stumbling block of visibility, for which the Author went out of his own way, that he might lay it in ours: I answer, That this Text may teach what is to be done where there is a Church, as commonly there is where there is a Brother and a Brother, but it doth not teach that there shall be a Church visible in all places, and at all times.  
But notwithstanding this text, a Church may be visible sometimes in one Nation, and sometimes in another, according to the fruitfulness of the people, and the just pleasure of God, who sometimes removeth the Gospel and the Candlestick from a Nation that bears no fruit, to another that shall bear it: And so we see that there are no Churches now to be seen where there have been famous Churches in times past. Accordingly the Church may be visible in Greece, in AEthiopia, in Armenia, yea in England, though it be not visible in Rome; and so the visibility thereof may be true, though there were no Rome, and no Pope. So that neither this, nor any other text, though they say the Church is visible, 
Potest in aliis Episcopis et quidem firmiter pietas religio ●isque inte gr●●as conserv●ri. Nilus de Prim. p●pae.  yet they do not say that Rome or the Pope shall still be the visible Church: but contrarily the Scripture giveth us good hope that Rome shall be invisible; yea, it gives us great proof that she is now the Scarlet Lady that persecutes the Church, and is now the Mother of abominations.  
Secondly, no Scripture doth say that in time of persecution or prevailing Heresy, the Church shall there be visible where this persecution drives it into corners, that it may escape the fury of it by a kind of invisibility: And when the Arian heresy had covered the face of the Earth, and the Roman Bishops or Pope had subscribed to it, this Scripture doth not say that then the Pope or his Adherents were the visible Church; nor that they shall be so when the Pope turns Antichrist.  
For the second point, that the Church is the judge of controversies, I could perchance say, that there appears very probable reasons why this text doth not speak of the Church's authority in judging of controversies of faith, but of her authority in admonishing her children; and requiring reconciliation & satisfaction from one brother to another, in evident wrongs, even faults without controversy: For the text saith, If thy Brother sin, or trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault; So that there is a sin and a fault without controversy, and such a fault, that the offended Brother himself may first judge and tell him of it that hath offended: And according to this beginning may be the proceeding, that is, that the two witnesses, and so the Church may be not to judge of the fault, whether it be a fault or no; but to witness and condemn the contumacy of the party in denying satisfaction, and reconciliation after an evident fault. And when the offending Brother will not hear the Church thus admonishing, persuading, and enjoining him satisfaction and reconciliation, than he is to be cast out of that Church, which he hath thus contumaciously disobeyed: Agreeable to that of S. Paul, If any man obey not our word, have no company with him. 
2. Thes. 3.14.   
But be it that the Church be the judge of controversies, this also may be true, in Russian, AEthiopian, and Protestant Churches; And so the Church may judge controversies though there were no Pope, and where the Pope hath no power: Besides, the Romists themselves differ concerning the meaning of the word Church: So that while we labour in this text to find a Judge of controversies for reconciling them; we are left unreconciled, by being at controversy about the Judge of controversies mentioned in this text: For, 
a Hieronymus & glossa nōine Ecclesiae multitudinem intelligunt. vid. Lorcam. in 22. Disp. 46. n. 22.  some say, the multitude is this Church; and they have for them the most usual acception of the word Church in that sense through the new Testament: And the current of the place, seems to him that way, according to proportion: For, first the offended Brother, alone was to admonish his Brother; and next with one or two witnesses; and lastly, he was to be admonished by the congregation: So it is a doctrine of degrees, from one to two, and from two, to many; And if it be thus, than the Pope's power of judging controversies hath no footing here. But thirdly, (and so withal to include and resolve the question of inerrability,) If the Prelates be meant by the Church, (which Lorca saith is the most usual opinion amongst Romists) yet doth not this place say, that Romish Prelates shall have still an unerring judgement in controversies; especially any single Prelate, as the Pope. Again, it can hardly be thought, that when a Brother hath offended a Brother, this text would have him presently to call a Council or Synod of Prelates, and so complain to many Prelates at once, and so to the Church. But if it be his own Prelate of whom he must ask, doth this place promise that no Prelate shall err in judging of controversies? it is well known that in the Jewish Church, (which was undeniably the true Church before Christ,) Priests did not judge controversies without error: Yea, God Himself complaineth of the contrary, 
Mal. 2.7, 8.  when he saith, The Priest's lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the Law out of his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts: But Ye are departed out of the way, Ye have caused many to stumble at the law; Ye have corrupted the Covenant of Levi.  
Accordingly we find in the Prophets a continual outcry upon the Priests for mis-leading the people; yea, the Priests are chief in false judgements, 
Jer. 26.8.  and injuries of the true Prophets. Accordingly, Pashar both prophesied lies, 
Jer. 20.1.2, 6.  and did cast jeremy into the stocks for prophesying truth: yea, 
Mat. 26.6, 5.  the High Priest himself falsely judgeth Christ to have spoken blasphemy; And S. Peter tells the High Priest and his associates, that they were the builders that despised the Corner stone, and crucified Christ. And thus we see it plain in the Scripture, that the Priests and Prelates did err, even when our Author ascribes that inerrability to them by which he would prove the inerrability of Rome; yea, we see farther that this same opinion of inerrability was the cause of their Error, as it is even now in the Romish Papacy. Their presumption of not erring, was so far from being an Argument of inerrability, that it made them to run into error, and to lead the people after them, (blind after blind) into the ditch of error. This we see in their own words; 
Jer. 8.18.  for thus they say, Come let us devise devices against jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the Priest; yea, this presumption of not erring was thought a very sure ground of erroneous judgement in this strange controversy, whether Christ be Christ: Do any of the Rulers, or of the pharisees believe on him? 
Joh. 18. ●8.  as if they should say, The Rulers, and the pharisees, the Priests and the Doctors cannot err; and they have judged this controversy, that Christ is not Christ: And therefore without controversy men ought not to believe in Christ.  
But is there then no use of judgement of the Church? yes surely very great; The Church, yea, the Priests or Ministers of the Church, according to the covenant of Levi, aught to speak the Law of God to the people, and judge controversies thereby. And then as the Thessalonians hearing Saint Paul, we must not think that we do so much hear their word, as the very word of God: And this word being followed, will make a true and inerrable judgement, and truth ever being one, it will ever cause unity.  
And so are we come to the fourth point, and indeed the point most proper to the present question, though the place be not proper to prove the Popish unity, which this Author would pick out of it.  
For whereas to raise this unity out of this text, he would thereby enforce an absolute yielding to the judgement of the Church, without appealing to Scripture, he must remember that in this judgement of the Church, the Scripture is employed and included: And the including of it is the only right means of causing true christian unity; For the case wherein a man, not hearing the Church, is to be accounted an Heathen, is sinning against a brother: Now sinning against a brother is plainly forbidden by Scripture, being contrary to that Royal law of love, which commands a man to love his Neighbour as himself: So that not to hear the Church in a case of sinning against a brother, is not to hear the Church advising or judging according to Scripture: And so upon the matter it is a not hearing of the Scripture speaking by the mouth of the Church; and then see how unhandsomely ariseth the Inference of this Author; That he that will not hear the Church judging according to Scripture, may not appeal to the Scripture, that is, he may not appeal from Scripture to Scripture.  
But much more right and reasonable is this consequence, 
Heb. 13.7. Obey your Rulers, etc. Take with you this Limitation; Which have spoken to you the Word of God; which S. Paul giveth even in the same Chapter. B. Bilson● difference, etc. part. 2.  That if a man shall wilfully not hearken to the Church in a case thus evidently judged by Scripture, let such an one be accounted as an heathen. And indeed, I can scarce think, that if this man who is questioned and accused by his brother were guiltless, and so by the Word of God should be acquitted, that this Author himself would have him taken for a heathen, being judged by the Church, against God's Law and Scripture, to be an offender. But in this case the 
a Hac caeci exclusione Pharisaei, sibi ipsis plus damni intulerunt quam caeco; per hoc enim seipsos separârunt & à Christo, & ab omnibus fidelibus, etc. Ferus in joh. 9  curse lights on the false Judges that call good evil, as it doth on those that falsely damn Protestants.  
And thus also the Cavaliers imaginary contrariety of two Churches judging one against another, is prevented and removed through this steadfast rule of unity: for two Churches judging one case, according to one right rule, (and such is the Scripture) cannot pronounce of one case more than one judgement. And so the man whom he would affright is put out of fear, for being tossed between two damnations by two contrary judgements; for there is but one right judgement according to the Scripture, and so but one damnation to be feared, which any man may avoid by hearing the Church judging uniformly according to the Scripture: for if the Church make a man a heathen against the Word of God, we have seen that 
b Ejectus quidem est à Templo, sed à Templi Domino inventus est. Ferus ibid.  Christ did not take such a one for an heathen; for Christ took the blind man into his company, whom the Jewish Prelates had unjustly excommunicated, and made like an heathen. And no wonder; for Nicodemus, Christ's Disciple, takes it for a confessed ground; neither is it denied by the Pharisees, That the Law is Judge, and from the Law all Judgement should proceed: 
Joh. 7.51.  Doth our Law (saith he) judge any man? Accordingly, S. Paul tells the High Priest, 
Act. 23.3.  That he sits to judge after the Law. Therefore when the Judgement is contrary to the Law, it hath in it a nullity: Now, in all Judgements according to the Law, as there is a power and efficacy, so there is an harmonious unity.  
But when there are two Popes, a Pope and an Antipope, or two successively, that Judge one against the other, how are the poor Popish souls that depend on a Pope's word as a divine Law tossed miserably between two damnations? But this while the children of the Church are safe from this distraction by the unity of that judgement which proceedeth from the constant unity of verity in the Scriptures.    

CHAP. VI  
The Testimonies of the Fathers, which the Cavalier in his fourth Chapter allegeth for the necessity of his conceited unity, are turned upon himself and the Papists.  
THis Champion of Rome goes from Scriptures, which indeed went from him, & runs after Fathers, which also run from him: And although he please himself much when he finds the word Unity, especially Books written for Unity; yet he must still be put in mind, that all mention of unity in the Fathers doth not prove this unity which he undertakes. They write of unity in love, and unity under lawful Pastors, that flocks be not divided by partial and schismatical setting up Pastors against Pastors in one and the same Flock. But our Author's business is, (as I said before, and himself now and then remembers) that there must be an universal unity in all points of doctrine decreed by the Pope, be they great or small; which he will never prove by any Fathers to be absolutely necessary to salvation, or to a real unity in the Church. Yet thus he strives to wrest out this unity.  
— Others have written and framed express Catalogues of all the heresies which had risen in the Church of Christ our Lord, from his ascension to heaven, till their own time; expressly showing hereby, that both the unity of the Church was directly broken by the obstinate belief of any one doctrine, which was held in disobedience to the same Church; and withal, that whosoever did so break it, must forfeit the salvation of his soul thereby: And this was done by Saint Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, by Phylastri●s B●shop of Brescia, who are both cited to this purpose by the incomparable Saint Augustine, in his Treatise de haeresibus ad quod vult Deum. Where himself also makes an exact Catalogue of all the heresies which had sprung until his time; and where, by the way, I must needs observe in a word, that he recounts divers heresies which are held by the Protestant Church at this day, and particularly that of denying prayers and sacrifices for the dead; and then he concludes in the end, that whosoever should hold any one of them, were no 
a S. Augustine 〈◊〉 not, He is no christian Catholic that should hold any one of them in weakness, s●●king the Truth; for he saith the contrary, Epist. 162. But his words are, Every christian Catholic should not believe these. And so we say, that no error should be believed: Omnis Christia●●● Catholicu● is●a non d●bet credere, sed non omnis qui ista no● c●edi●, consequenter debet s● C●●istianum Cath●li●●m 〈…〉 ad quod 〈…〉.  Christian Catholic.  
But here I must challenge this Champion, first, that he deals not fairly with us in putting in these words, In disobedience to the Church: For let the world know that this is not our holding; That a different opinion being held in a purposed disobedience to the Church is safe, or comp●tible with unity of charity: but that some different opinions in points of doctrine, by darkness of understanding or weakness of faith, not apprehended or bele●ved, yet not without a purposed disobedience to the Church, may be compatible with unity and salvation. Secondly, if it were true which he saith, that unity were broken by the obstinate belief of any one doctrine joined with disobedience to the Church, how doth not this make against Rome, which maintaineth her universal Supremacy, and other errors directly against the Canons of the Church? Thirdly, we deny Rome to be that Church which the Fathers speak of. Fourthly, this Author's allegations make directly against his own end, and overthrow the authority of Rome, which he goes about to establish: For, let him speak upon his conscience and reputation; Were all those heresies, mentioned by Epiphanius and Augustine, adjudged and condemned for heresies by the Church of Rome? If not, than it seems, there may be heretics without any judgement of the Church of Rome; and there may be heretics that hold some errors not adjudged heresies by the Church of Rome: But if so, than what is become of this Author's heresy described to be the obstinate belief of any one doctrine in disobedience to the Church, the Church, in the Author's sense, being no other than the Church of Rome?  
How was this Church disobeyed in those things which she had not decreed? and even his particulars of 
a 
Purgatory was not yet built by any Papal or Church Decree, nor Transubstantiation, much less Prayers and Masses for the delivery of souls from the Purgatory, which had no being: But the prayers which were for the dead, Dionysius (whom they call Areopagita) shows to have been requests for that which they know already to be granted: and so Testimonies of the happiness of them that had lived holily.  
Quocirca petit d●vinus Pont●f●x ea quae à ●●o promise s●nt, ei que grata sunt, & planè conc●denda: in quo & animi sui constitutionem, quae ●onitatis Divinae sp●ciem prae se serat, D●o, cui boni chari sunt, declarat; & ii● qui adsunt ut interpres, munera & bona quae sanct●s eventura sunt, exponit. D●on●s. Ar●op. de E●●l●s. Hier. cap. 7.   prayers and sacrifices for the dead? Had the Church of Rome adjudged these at this time to be points of faith? He cannot say it. How plain deceit than is this, to seem to prove these to be heresies, because held in a disobedience to the Church, when the Church in his Romish sense had not decreed the doctrines to be believed which are contrary to these supposed heresies? Let us now come to his particular citations, and see yet more particularly, how they make not against us, but mostly against himself: He begins with Saint Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 3. The Church having received this word preached, and this faith as was showed before, and having spread the same over the whole world, doth diligently preserve it, as inhabiting one house; and doth likewise believe those things which are taught thereby, as having one soul and one heart; and in the same conformity she preaches, and teaches, and delivers it, as possessing but one mo●th. For though there be in the world different expressions and tongues, yet the virtue and power of Tradition is but one and the same: And neither those Churches which are found in Germany, nor those others in Spain, nor those in France, nor they which are in the Eastern parts, nor they which are in Egypt, nor they which are in Lybia, nor they which are in the middle parts of the world, do believe or make tradition of doctrine any otherwise in one place than they do in another: but as that creature of God, the Sun, is one and the same in the whole world, so is the preaching if the Truth. And those Prelates of Churches who have most power and grace of speech, will deliver no other things but these; for no man is above his Master, neither will such an one as hath meaner Talents in speech make this doctrine and Tradition less; but (since Faith is but one and the same) neither doth he enlarge it, who is able to speak much of it; nor that other diminish it, who speaks less. I answer▪ that this place is produced improperly, in regard of the Point; deceitfully, in regard of the Reader: For Irenaeus, in the second Chapter next preceding, had set down a form of Faith, and a sum of chief Articles agreeable to our Creed. And then in the third, whence this allegation is taken, he saith, that the Church, having received this faith, doth uniformly preach it, and with one Mouth through all nations; neither doth the more learned increase it, nor the less learned diminish it: Now this being spoken of the principal points of faith, ●oth rather prove our unity in fundamentals, but not prove our Champions entire unity in inferior points; therefore it comes not home to the Author's mark, but indeed he goes about to deceive the Reader, when he brings it in as a proof of that which it proves not.  
Secondly, this place makes mightily against the Papacy, and that Confederacy; for in the faith which Irenaeus sets down in the foregoing chapter, there is not one Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy, nor worshipping Images, nor of praying in an unknown tongue, etc. These therefore being now decreed by the Pope, are inlargements of faith; wherefore the Popes that thus enlarge the faith, are by Irenaeus censured, not to be these Prelates of Churches, who have most power and grace of speech; yea, not so good as the others of less grace: but withal he censureth them, that they are above their master; and their master being Christ, it fits right with the saying of Paul; That he sits as God, and exalts himself above all that is called God.  

Tertul. de praes. adversus Hae●●t.  He comes next to Tertullian. Tertullian shows plainly, that whosoever denies any one doctrine of the Church, rejects all; for thus he saith upon occasion, Valentinus approveth some things of the Law and the Prophets, some things he disallows; that is, he disallows all whiles he approves some. The Author here also imposeth upon his Reader, if we may believe Tertullias (learned but Romish) Adnotator, Pamelius: For (not to insist on this that the words are Omnia improbat, dum quaedam reprobat, he disallows all, whiles he refuseth some,) from Pamelius we learn, that these words are not spoken of all points of faith proposed by the Church; much less if the Church be taken for the Papacy; but of the books of the Law and the Prophets, which Protestants do by no means reject. For this is Pamelius his sentence, immediately after these words: Quod usque ad●o verum agnoverunt alii scriptores, ut disertis verbis scribant, (& inter caeteros Damascenus) quod vetus Testamentum reprobaverit. This by other writers is said to be so true, that they expressly write, (and Damascen among others) that he refused the old Testament. And indeed he that did deny the old Testament, did deny more than one doctrine of the Church, (which is the Cavaliers point to be proved by this place,) for he denyeth many doctrines, and fundamental ones, of the Law and the Prophets, yea of God himself.  
The next place doth much accuse the Cavaliers need of Allegations, and yet withal excuseth him not from an endeavour to deceive his Reader: The place alleged by him is this: Quod apud multos etc. That which is found to be one amongst so many, is not to be thought to have crept in by error, but to have been commended by Tradition. The place cited is this, Quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum: That which is one among so many, is not an error, but a thing delivered.  
The question in hand was concerning the rule of Faith or the Creed; as the Reader may see by comparing the thirteenth chapter, where the Creed is rehearsed, and the end of the one and twentieth, where he saith, That it remained for him to show, whether the doctrine in the former rule came from the delivery (or, if you will, Tradition, so it be not a Tradition beyond that which is written, for there is no such in this rule of faith) of the Apostles: And having refuted these objections, That the Apostles delivered not all; and that they knew not all, he comes after to this objection, That the church's did not purely retain what the Apostles delivered, and thus he refells this objection.  
Age nunc, omnes erraverint, deceptus sit & Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo: Nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus, uti eam in veritatem deduceret; ad hoc missus à Christo, ad hoc postulatus de Patre, ut esset doctor veritatis: neglexerit officium Dei Villicus, Christi vicarius, sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere, aliter credere, quod ipse p●r Apostolos praedicabat. Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tan●a in unam Fidem erraverint? Nullus inter multos eventus, est u●us exitus: Var●asse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum, ●aeterùm quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum: Whereof the sum is this, that though the Holy Ghost the 
a The Pope was not yet Christ's Vicar, in the day's o● 〈◊〉.  Vicar of Christ, had not looked to his office of leading the Church into truth, yet there is no likelihood that so many Churches had erred into one Faith: But the Faith, wherein there is such unity among many, should not be an error, but a Truth delivered by the Apostles.  
Now, this place is so far from saying that all Churches agreed in sin, all points beyond and besides the Creed, that it speaks only of their agreement in the rules of Faith, and doctrine of the Creed: And he saith, that such an agreement comes not by error which commonly is divers; but by one uniform delivery and doctrine of the Apostles: So the Cavalier is still to seek for a necessary unity in every small doctrine, and in points without the Creed.  
Cyrill is mainly for the Protestants, 
Cyrill. Hier. Ca●.  even as himself allegeth him; For we agreeably affirm That to be the Catholic Church which teacheth, without defect, all things necessary to salvation; And, in the doctrine of faith, such things necessary to salvation, are points fundamental.  
Cyprian comes, 
Cyp. de Unit. Ec.  or is rather drawn in next, against his will and meaning; and thus the Author produceth him: The Church being stricken through by the light of our Lord, doth send her beams throughout the whole world; But yet that light which is cast so far abroad, is but one and the same: She spreads her branches over the whole earth, after a plentiful manner; She extends her flowing streams with great abundance, and to a great distance: But yet is She one Head, and one Root, and one Mother, who is fruitful by such store of issue. Now I think it were needless to help a Reader to take this place from the Author: For it is plain, to every eye, that this place speaks not of the unity of the Church in all points of doctrine; but of their unity in one Love, and one mystical Body: So that this place is not only unserviceable to the Author, but serves much against him, and his lady Mother who cuts off noble and excellent members of the Church from her; or rather her 
* Peccatum verò quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti● excidisti enim teipsum, noli te fallere: Siquidem ille est verè Schismaticus, qui se à communione Ecclesiasticae Unitatis apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes à te abstinere posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. Firm. in Epist. ad Cyp. sic Papam alloquitur.  self from the Church, if they do not submit to her universal Tyranny.  
Cyprian it seems hath not said enough, and therefore he must say more, but indeed less: Let us see how the Cavalier rather teacheth him, then suffereth him to speak: The same S. also, speaking of the sin of Core, Dathan, and Abiram, implies that the one Church must not only be entirely believed, but followed also in all her doctrines and directions: For he saith, that though Core, Dathan, and Abiram did believe and worship one God, and lived in the same Law and Religion with Moses and Aaron, yet because they divided themselves from the rest by Schism, resisting their Governors and Priests, they were swallowed up quick into Hell.  
Here, first, we may observe, how he tells his Reader what he would have Cyprian say; for he saith, not that Cyprian doth speak it plainly, but the S. implies: and what doth he imply? That the Church must not only be entirely believed, but followed also in all her doctrines and directions. But did Core, Dathan and Abiram differ from Moses and Aaron in doctrine? His own place denies it, which saith; They did believe and worship one God, and lived in Moses his Law and Religion with Moses and Aaron: And the place further assigns the true fault; Division by Schism: They denied the authority of those whom God had placed to be Governors over them.  
Just the same sin into which Pope Pius the fifth drew the English Papists by his Bull: so that this place makes exceedingly against Romish doctrine of rebellion against Princes; such as those of the North, and in Ireland. But let me give the Author one question at parting? Was Aaron to be followed in all his doctrines and directions? what doth the Author think of this doctrine concerning the Calf? 
Exod. 32.4.  These be thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt.  

S. Basil.  Saint Basill is next produced, thus speaking in Theod. They who are well instructed in holy writ, permit not one syllable of divine doctrine to be betrayed or yielded up; but are willing to embrace any kind of death for the defence thereof, if need require: Hereupon the Author thus commenteth, That man of God had been solicited by some to relent for a time, & to yield, though it were but to a little; he refused in such sort as you have seen, and he did it with much disdain to be attempted in that kind. Now let the Reader see here the fairness of our Author; He speaks of Basils not yielding to a little; and what was this little? Denying the son of God to be God of one substance with the Father: Is this a little? Surely he should be a great Heretic that should deny this little; So that this being not a little but a great point, S. Basill doth not speak against us but for us, who says, that in these great points there should be no difference: Now it might be called little by some, not for the little weight of the point, but for the little odds in the sound of the word; so that in the little difference of a syllable, the great point lay affirmed or denied. And indeed it were better that death were embraced, than any such point of divine doctrine should be betrayed. Besides, ●s there a desire on our side of betraying or delivering up any lesser points of divine doctrine; but rather a charitable hope that men may be saved, though differing in opinion concerning some lesser matters, by not knowing that they be divine doctrines, or not reaching to them by a weak and inferior degree of a faith? But who so will truly judge our main quarrel with Romists, he shall find it to be a defence of divine doctrine against humane fictions and traditions. And Romists most grossly offend against the words and example of S. Basil, who permit many syllables of the divine doctrine in the second Commandment, forbidding worship of images, to be left out of their Catechisms; and the divine doctrine of half a Sacrament to be denied and made void to the people; and the divine doctrine of praying in a known tongue in the Church to be actually betrayed.  
— Saint Gregory Nazianzen is next, who (as our Author saith) thus delivers himself; Nothing can be more dangerous than those heretics, who▪ when they run strait through all the rest, do yet with one word, as with some drop of poison, infect the true and sincere faith of our Lord.  
If this Champion had gotten this place by his own knowledge, he could not well but take notice, that the sincere faith whereof Gregory speaks, is the faith contained in the Nicene Creed, which Creed is set at the head of the Tractate: and accordingly, the one word of which he speaks, as being dangerous to the faith, is the word that giveth not to Christ one Substance with the Father. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  This word Nazianzen often names in this discourse; so that the Cavalier could not well oversee it if he had seen the place; yea, he saith plainly, 
* Haeresim Arianam subtili compendio brevi jam sublato hoc nomine intromissam. Greg. Naz. de fide Orat. 51.  that it lets in the Arian heresy. And if it be thus, this Champion is yet far from his Conclusion by this Antecedent, which must thus lead the way; It is most dangerous to differ in one word of the Creed which concerns a point fundamental, even the Deity of Christ; therefore it is most dangerous to differ in points out of the Creed, which are extra-fundamentall, and of the Pope's decreeing. But let Romists look whether this place do not fight against them, who thrusting the word Roman after, or into the word Catholic, have drawn the souls of too many to believe in the Pope (or Popish Church) in stead of God, and so have changed the very foundation of their faith.  
Saint Hierome must have the same answer; no man denying but that for some one word or two contrary to the faith or Creed in points fundamental, many heresies have been, and aught to be cast out of the Church. It follows, Saint Leo saith, That out of the Catholic Church, there is nothing pure, According to that of the Apostle, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But what doth this here, where the question is not, Whether they sin that be out of the catholic Church; but, Whether they be out of the catholic Church that differ in any small point of doctrine from some other members of the same Church? But because this place wants help, he adds a second; If it be not one, it is no faith at all. We acknowledge there is but one saving and fundamental Faith in Christ jesus, 
Eph. 4.5. Judas 3.  as but one Baptism; and this faith was once delivered to the Saints, and the Saints still do so uniformly receive it, as that they who have any other fundamental faith, have none at all. But if Romists will have faith to be one in all points, then by this Pope's doctrine they have no faith; for their faith is not one in all points with the one faith once delivered to the Saints, nor with the faith in the time of Leo; for in that one faith there was no worship of Images, no universal Monarchy of the Pope, no worship of Bread.  
The Cavaliers first place of Augustine I am loath to bring forth, to spare both the Cavalier and the Reader: It is somewhat long, but very short of the Cavaliers mark; it proves against the Donatists, That the Church in earth, and the Church in heaven are not two Churches, but one. But who denies this? yea, who denies the true Church on earth to be but one? and this is the Protestants main business to keep it one, though differing in some lesser points of doctrine: And it is our Author's business to break this unity, even by this place which he produceth under a show of proving unity: but not proving by it such an unity as by it he may make a division, he is fain to set a second Buttress to support his wall of separation: Thus he reareth it:  
To show moreover, by the judgement of Saint Augustine, that the Church in her doctrine was to be truly one he spoke thus of the Donatists, who called upon the same God, preached the same gospel, sung the same Psalms, 
In exp●●catione 〈◊〉. 54.  had the same Baptism, observed the same Easter, and the like; in those things they were with me, yet not wholly with me: in schism not with me, in heresy not with me, in a few not with me; but in regard they were not with me in a few, their being with me in many could not help them.  
If the Cavalier had gone on in his Allegation, the very next words would have given him an answer to the objection which he drew out of the former; for those words say, that the 
a Etenim fratres videte quam multa enarravit Apostolus; unum dixit, Si illud defuerit, frustra sunt alia; Si linguis hominum loquar & Angelorum, etc. Quam multa enumeravit? His omnibus multis desit una charitas; illa numero plura sunt, haec pondere major est: Ergò in omnibus Sacramentis mecum; in una charitate non mecum. Aug. in Psal. 54.  one thing wherein they were not one was Charity. And the want of this he proves out of Saint Paul (1 Cor. 13.) to make all the rest unprofitable. But our question is not of want of charity, but of differing in some small point of faith. True it is that this uncharitableness was backed with an error which he called an heresy; That the Catholic 
b Pertinaci dissentione formata in haeresim schisma verterunt, tanquam Ecclesia Christi, etc. de toto te● rarum orbe perierit, ubi futura ●omissa est, atque in Africa Donati parte remanserit▪ Au●u●t. ad quod vult 〈◊〉  Church was only in the part of Donatus; and so (as Saint Augustine infers) that the Church was not catholic: But let our Author remember, That this voucheth an Article of the Creed as denied by the Donatists; but with the denial of any such Article he cannot charge us.  
But yet, that their error did not kill nor cut them off 
c Sunt igitur sine dubio fratres. Opt. lib. 1. Non enim potestis non esse fratres, quos iisdem Sacramentorum visceribus una mater Ecclesia genuit; quos eodem modo adoptivos filios Deus Pater excepit. Id. l. 4. Sed qui sententiam suam quam vos falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci, animositate defendunt, praesertim quam non audacia suae p●aesumptionis pepererunt; sed à seductis, atque in error●m lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quae●unt autem cauta ●ollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenitur, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Tales ergo vos nisi esse crederem, nullas fortasse vobis literas mitterem. August. D●minis dil●ct●ssimis, & meritò praedicandi● fratribus, Glorio, Ele●sio, etc. sed Donaristis; & de quibus in hac Epistola: Nostrae communionis non estis. Epist. 62.  all from being truly of the Church, except the error were accompanied with the want of that one thing, which was true charity, we have great probabilities, if not proofs out of Optatus and Saint Augustine; the former of which commonly calls them brethren, and the later denies not but some of them might be saved. But how dangerous or deadly soever their faults were, they fall directly on the Popish faction, both in point of heresy & schism; for they hold the like heresy to the Donatists, That the Church is only in the Pope's party; and accordingly, by uncharitable schism they cut off all those from their communion, that are not of this party. And now he comes back again to Irenaeus, as if he had found some new matter in him; Nay, Irenaeus (whom I named before) implies, not only that it is necessary for a true Christian Catholic to differ in no one point of the doctrine or faith from other Christians; but he must withal not believe any thing after a different manner; that is to say, upon a different motive from that for which it is believed by other Christians.  
But what doth Irenaeus say, being thus called back again? He saith nothing: for our Author only saith, that he implies; just as St. Cyprian before was made to comply: But what doth he imply? That it is necessary for a true Christian Catholic to differ in no one point of the doctrine or faith from other Christians. But is there any such sentence or implying in this Chapter? Surely I doubt this Cavalier dealt too much upon trust, and he whom he trusted, too much upon deceit. I have read over the Chapter, and can find no such implying: But I find that which we often object against Romists Traditions, 
* Q●ale enim est Prophetarum & Domini & Apostolorum relinquentes nos voces attendere his nihil sani dicentibus? Ir. lib. 2. cap. 3.  Why should we leave the doctrine of the Prophets, the Lord and his Apostles, and hearken to those men when they tell us their errors.  
The other inference from Irenaeus, That a Christian must not believe by a different motive from that by which it is believed of other Christians, is a point that is mortal to Popery: For they, making the Pope's word or authority the motive of their faith, herein do differ from the motive of faith received by the Christians in Grecia, Armenia, and AEthiopia; and so transgress most dangerously, and, I doubt, fundamentally against this rule produced and approved by the Author, as from Irenaeus, though there I cannot find it. And now after a just examination of these Allegations, I cannot but infer, that, There appears a manifest loss of the cause, when the places produced for proof of it prove it not.  
So that the Author's conclusion being no way made good by his allegations, it is left still solitary, forsaken, and unproved: And whereas he saith, For the present it may suffice to have proved the necessity of perfect unity in the Church; we must needs reply, That he hath most imperfectly proved the necessity of so perfect an unity. And for the other piece of his conclusion; That indeed no reason can be given why, if there be allowed any more true Churches than one, there should not be admitted aswell two thousand as two: I acknowledge with him, that not only no reason can be given of this, but also of the Cavaliers speaking of no reason in this point: For it is not denied by us that there is but one true Church; and if you make two, you may make two thousand.  
But we deny that every little difference makes two Churches of one; and this neither the Author hath proved, neither do his citations suffice to prove; but let him here look to himself, and his fellow Romists, whether they be not in danger of making two thousand Churches, who have made a second Church, called the Church virtual, the Pope, yea a third Church, the Pope and his mystical body (for he is a mystery also, but of iniquity) which two Churches many eminent members of the Catholic Church deny to be that one true Church whereof they are members. In the mean time Romish uncharitableness in damning Protestants remains still as a proved truth, seeing this Author's proofs for an imaginary perfect unity, by which he undertook to prove it an untruth, do not prove this unity; and no such unity proved, no untruth proved: so they are still uncharitable, and Protestants do yet speak truth when they affirm their uncharitableness.   

CHAP. VII.  
A consideration of the Cavaliers fifth Chapter; wherein (to the great danger of the Papacy) that is proved by Scriptures and Fathers which we do not deny; That out of one true Church of Christ no salvation is to be found.  

SECT. I.  
This ground yielded, doth not produce any discharge, whereby the Romists may be freed from uncharitableness in damning Protestants.  
THe Cavalier fights on our side, and against his fellows; we are yet left in the Church notwithstanding any thing he hath said or alleged; and he hath yet left salvation to us, and uncharitableness to his own Papacy: And now we being left in the Church, he goes about to prove, that out of this Church there is no salvation; So, upon the matter, he proves that out of the Protestants Church there is no salvation. But than what will become of the Papacy, which will not be of one Church with saved Protestants? And indeed except it were to speak for us, and against the Papacy, what need is there of these proofs for a point not denied by us? For, we give him this at first only for the ask, That out of the only true Church (the body of Christ) there is no salvation.  
Yet will he needs go on to fight for a point which we confess; yea, withal to fight for us against himself: And indeed even where he would seem to fight against us, he doth it so loosely and far-off, that it is hard to discern how his blows do concern us.  
Let us see his first onset, Since the Church of Christ our Lord is so truly one, and but only one, it follows easily enough that no salvation can be had out of this Church, and that every Heresy or Schism is sufficient to deprive any soul thereof; but yet nevertheless to the end that men may be wholly left without excuse, or rather that they may be the better warned to take heed in time of those miseries, which otherwise they are to feel for all eternity: I will strengthen also this truth by the Authority of some few Scriptures and Fathers of the Primitive Church; for so by degrees it will easily and of itself appear, that we Catholics are not faulty in that wherewith we are so much charged. I confess it is hard to find out this Author's order and way; his end or drift we know, but the way by which he would come to it is hard to be seen: I am sure hitherto he hath not made good his first steps in it, and yet he would seem to proceed, as if he came nearer to his end by degrees, when yet he is still on his threshold: for first, though the Church of Christ be but one, and it do follow that no salvation can be had out of that one Church, this (as hath been noted) is no degree to the clearing of Papists uncharitableness in damning Protestants. Again, it doth not follow, that every Heresy in the Popish sense, is sufficient to deprive any soul thereof; and so Protestants may still suffer a false charge of Heresy to be laid on them by Romists, and yet be sure enough of salvation. And thus not any degree is yet made good toward the freeing of this charge of uncharitableness, justly laid on the Romists; So that the matter stands still, though the Author moving his pen thinks that the matter moves with it.  
And for the Allegations that follow, which seem to labour for these two points, That out of the Church is no salvation, And that Heresy and Schism do put men out of the Church; these being proved no way hurt us or help the Romists, but help us and hurt the Romists; among whom we have found most fearful and bloody Schism, and we may discover damnable Heresies: but they can never prove that Protestant doctrine maintains either Heresy or Schism; but by that which they call Heresy, as relying wholly on Christ's merits and not our own for redemption, and worshipping God in spirit and truth, and not worshipping Images, etc. we serve the God of our Fathers.   

SECT. II.  
The Allegations of Scriptures and Fathers, made by the Cavalier, are more forcible to exclude the Papists out of the Church than the Protestants against whom they are produced.  
THat being yielded which this Author endeavours to prove, I know not what to do with his Allegations, but only to turn them against Romists.  
Therefore we very well allow the place alleged out of Esay, 
Esay 60.12. Gens enim & Regnum, etc.  and say it makes against the Pope, who doth not submit himself to the Church in a general Council; and so doth the place of Matthew (formerly alleged and answered) upon the same Reason: And we very well allow those places of Paul to Titus and Timothy, 
Tit. 2.  as making much against the Pope and his adherents, and say that they give us just ground of avoiding him, being Heretical and Schismatical after many admonitions. But this Author did wisely in not naming Timothy in his margin but Titus, though he allege these words out of 1. Tim. 4.1, 2. That they attend to doctrines of Devils, and spirits of Error: That they are Liars and▪ Hypocrites, lest the Reader looking to the place might find this which followeth, Forbibbing to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats; which we know that protestancy doth not: but if Papistry do, then who are now his Heretics, Hypocrites and Liars, excluded from the Church, and so from salvation? He did also very discreetly in his nameless alleging some pieces out of 2. Tim. 3. where is mention of jamnes and jambres— and to make use of the verse foregoing, having the form of godliness, and the verses following, That they are ever learning, but without attaining to the knowledge of the truth; but left out the middle verse, which is this, Of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly Women laden with sins, and led with divers lusts: which words being notable marks of seducers, for what reason the Author left them out he best knows; but if we may believe their own 
* 
Women gospelers the trumpeters of their praises. watson's Quodl. preface. And Quodl. 2. in the margin.  
A reason why some Catholic Gentlemen that live about London were discontented, when wanting their wives three or four or more days, they must be forsooth. in the holy exercise, etc.   Priest, it doth rightly hit with some Romish proselite-makers; so that the simple Reader, if he had seen this place wholly alleged, might perchance have thought he had seen, in these, the very jamnes and jambres of these times.  
His last Scripture is out of S. Paul to the Galathians, where striving to prove that the word Sects in Latin, is Heresies in the Greek, he (somewhat Heretically I doubt even when he speaks against Heresy) leaves the decreed Latin to follow the Greek: But this being taken for a fault in the Latin, let the word be as it is in the Greek, and then to the shame of the Papacy we read indeed, that Heresies are works of the flesh, which certainly those are most likely to fall into that strive to set up a fleshly monarchy, and to abound in the glory 
b Vides omnem Ecclesiasticum zelum servere sola pro dignitate tuenda: honori totum datur, sanctitati nihil aut parum. Ber. de Confid. lib. 4. cap. 2.  and wealth of the world: For such men will sell heaven, and truth, and the Gospel for a mess of Pottage, even for base and transitory vanity; It is the sentence of God's spirit, that where is the love of the World, there is not the love of God; and where is not the love of God, there cannot be the love of the truth; 
1. joh. 2.15. joh. 8.42.47. 1. joh. 5.6. 1. Thes. 2.10.  and where is not the love of truth, there is a giving up to strong delusions to believe lies, that they all may be damned who believed not the truth. Now among innumerable examples of the Papacies love of the world, and preferring temporal greatness and wealth above the truth, let the lamentable conference between 
c The Cardinal of Volterra tells Pope Adrian, that no reformation could be made that would not notably diminish the rents of the Church: Pope Adrian said the condition of Popes was miserable, that they could not do good though they desired and endeavoured to do it. Hist. Con. Trid. lib. 1. Nec aliud quicquam etiam nunc obstar, quo minus Ecclesia in pristinum nitorem restituatur quam ambitio & avaritia. Ferus in jean. 11.  Adrian the sixth and the Cardinal be a lively proof and spectacle; where the poor Pope (and herein not a Pope, and therefore he did well soon to be gone) speaking of the necessity of reformation; There was no consideration of the truth of this necessity, but a plain confutation of whatsoever truth there was in it, by the Pope's Audit and Exchequer, even by worldly profit.  
But the Scriptures thus being lost, except only in making against their own Papacy, he comes to Fathers; not so much to hurt with them, as to be hurt by them.  
Tertullian (saith he) affirmeth, That Heretics cannot be accounted Christians: But of what heresies doth he speak there? Of any Protestant opinions? He doth not say that any Protestants are heretics: He repeats there a rule of 
a Pamelius calls it Regulam, aus Symbolum. And again, Nostrae Religionis Articuli vocantur hic Regula. De Prescript. cap. 14.  faith, as it were the body of a Creed, consisting of divers Articles; Do the Protestants deny any of these Articles? True it is, that of this rule of faith he saith, Nullus habet apud nos quaestiones, etc. There are no questions among us of this rule, but those which Heresies make, and do make Heretics. But we do not make question of this rule, and so are not made heretics by it: But they do rather question this rule, that bring in another faith; the Pope's Oracles, 
Those of Pius the fourth.  and new Articles. For, whereas Tertullian here saith, Fides in regula posita est: The faith is set down in that rule, which before he rehearsed; the Romists faith is not in that rule: For, there was not one word of the Pope, nor of Christ's being under the form of bread by Transubstantiation; but, In Coelos ereptum, sedere ad dextram Patris; misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agate: Being taken away into heaven, he doth sit at the right hand of his Father; and he hath sent his Vicar (not the Pope, but) the power of the Holy Ghost, which should lead those that believe.  
And in the 33. Chapter, making an Inventory of certain Heresies, amongst others, he names this, which, I doubt, is some kin to the Papacy; Timotheum instruens, Nuptiarum quoque interdictores suggillat: He saith, That S. Paul instructing Timothy, doth condemn the forbidders of marriage.  
Saint Cyprian is next brought in to say that thousand times produced sentence, that, Out of the Church there is no salvation: Hereunto is added, that There is no reward of any suffering whatsoever; neither is he a Christian that abides not in Christ's doctrine and faith. But in all this he doth not say that the Protestants are not in the Church, neither that they remain not in Christ's Doctrine and Faith; but it may rather concern the Papacy, which hath made a new Church against the Church of Christ; and a new Faith, by adding twelve Articles more to the former. It doth also plainly show them that they, suffering for Treasons of Powder, Rebellion, &c. cannot expect thereby a Crown of faith, but a punishment of perfidiousness.  
Saint Augustine is next alleged, and he useth the like or very same words, and so the like or the same answer might serve. But indeed Augustine so punctually speaketh against the Papacy, and pierceth it through, that no one place can well be lost, because every one is serviceable against the Papacy for which it is produced; These are the words first alleged out of Saint Augustine, Would you have men so blind and deaf as not to hear or read the Gospel, where they may know that faith our Lord left to his Apostles concerning his Church? Now, what the Papists will answer to this I know not, who make many men so blind, as not to read at all, and so deaf, as not to hear the Gospel but in Latin: And secondly, he says that Saint Augustine puts himself to show, That this is that Church of Christ which is spread over the whole world. Who can more plainly say, that the Roman Papacy is not this Church, whose universal power and extent is denied by other Patriarches, and is unbelieved, yea, and unknown in a great part of the Christian world?  
The last place out of Augustine, seconded with the consent of Cardinal Perron, he turns to this use, That Catholic is not only a name of belief and faith, but of charity and communion; which whosoever should want, should also want salvation. But withal I must say, that long before I knew this opinion of Perron, I believed this truth; and I also believed that it did make mightily for us, and mightily against the Papacy. That it makes mightily for us, I have showed in the first Chapter, who do embrace a catholic love with the whole body of Christ, which is his Church. That it makes mightily against the Papacy, I have showed in the second Chapter, because it excludes from love and communion many eminent parts of the Church; even so much of the Church and body of Christ as extends beyond subjection and obedience to the Papacy: And indeed, this Champions allegations do so fight for us against his own Papacy, that a suspicious Reader may doubt he hath been hired by us.  
But by the next allegation, perchance, he thinks his suspicion may be somewhat cleared, where thus he commenteth in the behalf of his mother:  
Saint Hierome writing to Pope Damasus, saith (not only of the catholic Church indefinitely, but denoting that to be the Roman) that that Church is the Ark, out of which whosoever liveth, shall be drowned in the deluge; and, that that Church is the House, out of which whosoever should eat the Lamb, were a profane person. But doth Hierome here denote the catholic Church both for breadth and length to be Roman; and no Church to be catholic which was not Roman, that is, under the Roman subjection? this was far from his meaning: He meant that at that time the Roman Church was, 
Ecclesia Occidentalis sive Romana, etc. Catholicae Ecclesiae non contemnendum membrum. Cass. de Off. pii viri.  by one faith, the same with the catholic Church, an● in union with it as a member of the body; and that out of this one Church, wherewith Rome was then one in faith, there was no salvation.  
Secondly, He did not say that that Church shall be the Ark out of which shall be no salvation: but that Church is the Ark●; showing what it then was, and not what it shall be.  
Indeed, the Papacy, (even the Man of sin, the Head and his members in the Mystery of iniquity) now call themselves the Church of Rome: But Rome at the best had never Religion and the Church faster tied to it, than Jerusalem; and therefore we may take leave to say of Rome as it was said of Jerusalem, 
Esay 1.21.  How is the faithful City become an Harlot? It hath been manifestly proved, that this Mystery of iniquity or Papacy is far different from the ancient Church of Rome; and Saint Hierome himself hath taught us, that Rome should be the seat of Antichrist: and he did not mean, that when Rome is the seat of Antichrist, she should be taken for the Ark out of which no man should be saved: Therefore this place that made for Rome then, while she was a pure part of the catholic Church, makes against her now, when she is the seat of the Man of sin, or Antichrist; and they that might be invited to come to her then, as an eminent part of the Ark and catholic Church, may now be driven out from her by a voice from heaven, 
Rev. 18.4.  Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.  
There follow two places out of Lactantius, whereof the first indeed saith for us, and against these Romists that are divided from us and our Church: That they that enter not into the Temple of God, or depart out of it, shall be deprived of the hope of salvation. But the second place, I know not how it may serve for the point in hand, but it otherwise is an wholesome exhortation for Romists; and I wish it may do good to the Author: No man must flatter himself with an obstinate kind of contention for the questions here, about salvation and life; which, if it be not watchfully and diligently provided for, it will be extinct and lost.  
The Cavalier ends in a tempest, which he pulls down on his own head; S. Fulgentius hath this dreadful saying, wherewith I will conclude this point, etc. where he brings in Fulgentius saying, That neither Baptism, nor Alms, nor Martyrdom can be of any benefit towards his salvation that holds not unity with the Church. A place indeed that aught to be dreadful to the Romists, for their Schism described in the second Chapter; but no way dreadful to us, for our catholic Charity expressed in the first.   

SECT. III.  
The Cavaliers endeavour to prove that the Protestants and Papists cannot be both members of this one Church, doth not absolve the Papists from uncharitableness.  
ANd having thus concluded the Allegations, he thus gives a reason of his conclusion; Nor will I so much distrust either the attention or the discretion of my Reader, as to think that I need press this point any further. A saying good at last, but much better at first; for if there had been at first no distrust of the Readers discretion, there had been no need of any one of those Allegations, which have been brought forth to prove a point not denied: There is but one Church, out of which there is no salvation. But let us see what immediately follows: So that now in the next place it will only remain to be considered and resolved, whether or no both the Catholics and the Protestants can be truly said to be parts and members of this one and self same Church. For if they cannot, the case in question is already judged, and there will be no colour of Reason, why either of us should hereafter be charged with want of charity, for affirming that the other is not saveable without repentance of his Religion. Behold a knot of strange things knit together by an invisible cohaerence, or a visible incohaerence. For first, whereas he saith, that in the next place It will only remain to be considered, whether the Protestants and Romists may be truly said to be parts and members of this one Church: For my part I am utterly of opinion that this doth neither in the next place, nor at all remain to be considered toward the Author's end, which is the saving of Rome from uncharitableness in damning Protestants.  
For Protestants may be members of the true Church wherein is salvation, and Romists may be out of it; and yet Romists may be uncharitable for damning Protestants, who are in the Church wherein is salvation. But since he is out of the way, I will thus show it to him: His way of clearing Rome from this charge of uncharitableness, hath been hitherto by proving it an untruth; and his way of proving it an untruth, by proving that Protestants are truly in the way of damnation: And to prove this again, he hath showed, that there is but one Church in which is salvation, and from which men are excluded by Heresy and Schism.  
Now as I think, in the next place, to go on in his way he should prove that Protestants are guilty of such Heresy and Schism as separate them from this one Church, and so from salvation: For than had he slain them outright with a true damnation, and had saved his mother Rome from S. john's truly mortal uncharitableness. But it seems we are clear in these points, and therefore the Author would not go against his conscience in a false accusation; wherefore let his silence be taken for a consent and confession: But than it seems the question is at an end, we are absolved, and Rome is condemned.  
And indeed so it should be; but he is resolved still to say on, though not to the purpose; For to what purpose is this, that the Protestants and Romists are not one Church, toward proving Protestants to be in the state of Damnation, whereby only Rome can save herself from uncharitableness in damning us? Surely, this is so far from proving Protestants to be in the state of damnation, that it is more likely to prove them to be in the state of salvation, and Romists in damnation. For Protestants being parts of the true Church, by true faith and love are sure to be saved; and Romists not being of this Church wherein Protestants are saved, are by his own Allegations in danger to be damned: So Romists are both brought into the danger of damnation, and the charge of uncharitableness laid on the Romists may still stand true, because they falsely damn Protestants for being in the state of salvation.  
A second strange position is this, That if the Protestants and Romists, be not of one Church, than there will be no colour of reason, why either party should be charged with want of charity for affirming that the other is not saveable without repentance of his Religion: For there is neither reason, verity, nor charity in affirming that Protestants who may be saved by their Religion, are not saveable without repentance of the same Religion. But this vanity if not impiety, hath been blown away in the answer to his third Chapter. But if this unreasonable position be taken out of the way, which is made the ground and reason of the future discourse (concerning Protestant's and Romists being of two Religions) than the discourse built on it falls to the ground▪ for indeed to what purpose is it to prove that Protestants and Romists are of two Religions, except the Author may hereby save Romists from uncharitableness, in falsely condemning the Protestants for being in a good religion, different from their own bad Popery? For that is his errand, and this errand hath he lost in losing this last monstrous position, which he made for a bridge to his errands end.  
So, for aught I see, this Cavalier is at the end of his journey in the midst of his way; and the rest of his walk is a wand'ring, and this voyage a sailing up and down from his harbour.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Wherein the sixth Chapter of the Cavaliers is brought to examination, which hath this title, that Protestants and Catholics (meaning Papists) cannot be of one Religion, Faith, and Church: in two Sections.  

SECT. I.  
First, divers untruths of the Cavaliers are discovered touching the difference of Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline, which are between Protestants and Papists. Secondly, an objection taken away, that Protestants have made a reformation without ordinary Mission and Miracles. Thirdly, the censures of Lutherans against other reformed Churches, not sufficient to prove either of them out of the Church.  
Room is left bleeding in her uncharitableness, the bridge being broken down by which the Author's suppy should have come to her rescue; so the business seems to be ended, and therefore as of the tumult at Ephesus, so of the throng of words that follow, it may be said, 
Acts 19.40.  There can be no cause given of this concourse: For though the Author have his purpose, and Protestants and Romists be not of one religion, yet Rome may be uncharitable for condemning Protestants who are of the true religion: Yea, Rome, by the Author being cast out from the Church, if Protestants be in it, may be in the state of damnation, for the Authors own title and ground, even because there is but one Church and salvation, whereof Protestants and Romists cannot be both partakers. And now what would this Cavalier have his Antagonist and Answerer to do? would he have him to prove for Romists, that they are in the Church, when himself proves that they are not? surely I confess, that though there be some untruths by which he would prove that Romists are not of the same saved Church which Protestants, yet there are some truths that I cannot answer, but must confess that they prevail against me in putting Romists out of this Church.  
I will first take notice of his untruths, To make a Religion so entire as may make men to be of one Church, saith the Cavalier they must believe the same doctrine, partake the same sacraments, and be obedient to the same discipline and Prelates. Here, first I deny that there must be an entireness in all points of doctrine; and if he will look back, he may see that he hath laboured to prove it, but hath lost his labour. Again he hath been told, that if all have not just seven sacraments, yet they may be saved. Thirdly, if they be not under the Pope, and in that regard not under the same prelate's, they may be of a very good religion, and of the one saved Church; For so are the Greek, Armenian, and Abissine Christians.  
A second untruth is his inference upon a catalogue of differences; For, saith he, we differ in prime points, etc. Hereupon his look tells us he would infer, that we are in some danger for differing in these points: But I refer him for the proof of our safety to 
a Examen pacifique de lafoy doctrine des Huguenotes: translated into English under the title of the Catholic Moderator.  one that showeth himself a far truer Roman Catholic then this Cavalier, whose business is clean contrary to this Cavaliers, even to prove that Protestants are not damnable, nor of a different Church, for their differences from Romish Catholics. And until the Cavalier have refuted his Arguments, I shall hold these his objections of differences to be but dead words, already vanquished and slain. And let him take this with him as a note, that the title 
* Que les Catholics & Huguenotes ●●accordent tellement en● qu●●ls doctrine sont d'une mesme Foy. & Religion.  of the first chapter of that Book is the plain affirmative whereof the title of this chapter is the● Negative. The truth is, the points which this Champion nameth are Popish errors, and bring the danger on their side; and we are the more safe for differing from them, and they the more unsafe for differing from us; and withal unsafe again for uncharitable censuring us. And indeed their danger is so great in the point of justification, (one of these prime points) and making their works their Saviour's, that they who hold this error, and thereby withdraw their trust from Christ jesus, if they be in that which is called the Church, they are but in it as chaff in the Barn mixed with the corn, but to be blown away with the fan into an unquencheable fire. And whereas he expresseth this difference thus; We differ about the justification of souls, and the value which the death and grace of Christ our Lord hath imparted to the works of the Children of God: He is here again chargeable, with an untrue and an unsound expression: For we differ from right Papists about the disvalue and unworthiness which our persons and our 
* Vide autem ne hic cristas ●rigas, ac opera tua plus aequo extollas, jamque merita tua enumerare incipias, quenadmodum hypocritae faciunt, ac si debitorem sibi Deum operibus suis constituant; cum certum sit, opera nostra desicere in numero, pondere, & mensura; quae, si appendant in statera Dei, inveniuntur minus habentia: unde David: Non intres in judicium, etc. Ferus in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 2. Been autem observa verbum gratis, quia nihil ope●●tes, neque vicem reddentes, justificamur, quādoquid●m antea peccatores & inimici eramus. Id. Ib.  corruptions impart to the works which have otherwise some goodness in them as they come from the grace of Christ: so that in regard of the imperfection which they have from our corruption, we dare not stand upon them before the Justice and Judgement of God for our justification: But we think it most safe to set between God's Justice and our souls a perfect Righteousness, even the Righteousness of Christ Jesus our Head: For Christ is the end of the Law (and a true commensurate Satisfier of the Divine Justice) for every one that believeth. And in regard of our own works, we may say with one that had more good works, and works more good than the best of the Romists: Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for no flesh is righteous in thy sight; this Saint was God's servant, yet he desired that God would not enter into judgement with him: These then that will have God to enter in judgement with them, it is very likely they are not the servants of God; but whatsoever they be, they may be sure by this Text, they shall not be justified in his sight.  
He comes to a third point; and therein he hath also many and manifest untruths: His point is this, That it is the Pride of the man in his disobedience to the Church, and not the importance or weight of the doctrine, that makes the Heresy. And this he would prove, because Saint Augustine accounts some things heresies which are points of small importance; and because the Donatists are accounted heretics for that which in S. Cyprian was not heresy; and again, because Saint Cyprian saith, (nothing to the Cavaliers purpose) that the doctrine of Novatianus was not worth the enquiring, because he was not of the Church. Here are divers untruths met together; a first is the Position itself▪ That it is Pride and Disobedience to the Church that makes the heresy: A second, that if it were disobedience to the Church, yet it is not disobedience to the Cavaliers Church, the Pope and his Adherents: Thirdly, It is not true, that those places and proofs produced by him do prove his point of Pride to be heresy. But before I come to a more exact consideration of these particulars, I cannot but deliver him back again his scornful objection which he threw at us in passing to this point, as nothing accusing us, but him that gave it without reason; That the Protestants have taken upon themselves to be the Reformers of the world, without ordinary Mission or Miracles. That our Ministers have not ordinary Mission, is an untruth so strongly refuted, that there needs a great deal of impudence or ignorance to affirm it, without new and more proof: And for Miracles to make good a Reformation, I never heard that the very Priests of Baal did require them of jehu, nor the idolatrous Jews of Hezekiah and josiah. And indeed, they might well think there should be no absolute need of new Miracles to them that brought in no new Law, but reform the Church according to the old, which at first was delivered as it were in a cloud of Miracles. Neither is it necessary that our Reformation not bringing in a new Gospel, but reforming according to the Gospel once delivered to the Saints, and at first confirmed by signs, should be now again confirmed by Miracles. But we leave Romish Miracles to be the 
a Remove antur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum, vel portenta fallacium Spirituum; aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si haereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt, magis cavere debemus, quod cum dixisser Dominus, quosdam futuros esse fallaces, qui nonnulla signa faciendo etiam Electos, si fieri posset, fallerent, adjecit, vehementer commendans, & ait, Ecce praedixi vobis. Aug. de unit. Eccles. cap. 16. Omnem potentiam Antichristi ostensura est in signis & prodigiis mendacibus. Agobard. Serm. de Trinit.  marks of the Man of sin, and his deformation of the Church, whose coming must be with signs and lying wonders; and accordingly we think when Lipsius wrote a Book of the wonders of Montague and Hall, he did by that Book prove, That the Pope is Antichrist.  
But now to come to his false Position, That it is pride and disobedience to the Church that makes the heresy; I must tell him, that he hath divers of his own Romish Doctors, and those not ignoble, that hold the contrary; and therefore he must not blame his Reader if he believe them before a Cavalier: for some hold, 
b Nonnulli Authores non ignobiles, aliquid diversum inter haereticum & haeresim commenti sunt: ●pinantur enim haeresim propriè appella●● posse quemcunque e●●orem fidei opp●situm secun●ū se, absque aliquo respectu & habitudine ad proferentem; & ideo conced●nt haeresim posse asseri ab eo qui haereticus non sit. In hac sententia sunt Turrecremata, Cas●ro. Simancas, Co●arruncas, Gabriel, Cordu●a. Albe●●●nus, Lo●ca 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 38.  That not the pride of the person makes the heresy, but that an heresy may properly be called any error contrary to faith considered in itself, without any respect to the deliverer of it. And for this opinion are brought forth these great ones, Turrecremata, Castro, Simancas, Covarruncas, Gabriel, Corduba.  
Secondly, a Proposition may be heretical, as some Romists say, though the contrary hath not been decided and decreed by the Church. Accordingly we read again, 
c Non tamen hae solùm assertiones haereticae sunt, quae definitae sunt à Conciliis, vel à Pontifice, sed plures aliae; quod patet, quia haec Prositio, Deus non est Trinus & Unus, etiam ante condemnationem Arrii haeretica fuit. Lorca Ib. Disp. 39 n. 6.  That those are not only heretical assertions which are defined by Counsels or the Pope, but many others; which is plain, because this Proposition, God is not Three and One, was heretical before the condemnation of Arrius. The like he affirms of the heresy of Nestorius: yet again, to make the matter more plain, he saith, 
d Quicquid in sacra Scriptura expressè continetur, ut nulla obscuritas sit in sensu verborum, assertionem contrariam haereticam efficit, etiam ante definitionem Ecclesiae. Id. Ib. n. 8.  Whatsoever is expressly contained in Scripture, so that no obscurity be in the sense of the words, doth cause the contrary assertion to be heretical. And accordingly, 
e Propositio verò Scripturae vel Ecclesiae definitioni contraria vocatur haeretica. Vasq. in 1. Disp. 6. n. 8.  Vasques saith not only such a Position is called heretical, which is contrary to the definition of the Church, but that which is contrary to Scripture. And that we may come to Saint Augustine, we shall find that this contrariety to Scripture was that which Saint Augustine accounted heresy, and not contrariety to the Pope and his Decrees. For thus he saith in the small matter produced by the Cavalier, called by him Putting off shoes in prayer: 
* Est alia haeresis nudis pedibus semper ambulantium, eo quod Dominus dixerit ad Moysen, vel ad joshua, Solve calciamentum de pedibus tuis: et quòd Propheta Esaias nudis pedibus jussus fuerit ambulare. Ind ergò haeresi● est, quia non propter corporis afflictionem sic ambulant; sed quia TESTIMONIA ●a●ter intelligunt: Aug●●t. ad quod vul● Deum. de Haeres.  There is an heresy of those that ever go bare foot, because God said to Moses, or Josua, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: and because the Prophet Esay was commanded to go bare foot. But this is an heresy, not because they go thus for the humbling of the body; but because they thus understand the Testimony of Scripture. So we see that the Author is plainly told by S. Augustine, that it was the falsifying of divine Testimonies, even the alleged places of Scripture, that gave their error the name of an heresy. And it were pity to put the Cavalier to prove that at this time the Pope had decreed and decided, That men should not put off their shoes in prayer. But the truth is, the Fathers take this word heresy 
f Quicquid con●ra veritatem sapitl a●esis est, etiam vetus consu●tudo. Tertul. de Virg. vel. cap. 1. Haereticus est qui alicujus temporalis commodi, & maximè gloriae principatusque sui gratià, ●alsas ac novas opiniones gignit, vel sequitur. August. de utilit. cred. ad Honorat. cap. 1. Haeresis Grae●è ab Electione vocatur; quòd scilicet unusquisque id sibi eligat, quò● melius sibi esse videtur, etc. Isidor. Etym. lib. 7. cap. 3.  sometimes in a large sense, accounting that an heresy which was an erring against any truth of Scripture: but heresy in the most proper, full, and kill sense, hath been taken to be an error 
g Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis, & irreformabilis ●●e●endi, s●ilicet in unum Deum, etc. hac lege fidei manente, caetera j●m disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctioni●. T●●t. ●e vel. Virg. cap. 1. Haeretici ve● itatis exules sani & verissimi Symb●l● desertores. Optat. lib. 1. Haec Reg●la à Christo, ut probabitur, instituta, nullas habet apud nos quaestiones, nisi quas haeretici inferant, & quae ha●●reticos faciant. Tertul de praescrip. c. 1● Al●xand●r ait eum qui ignorant●r credit aliquid contra ea quae sunt i● sacra Scriptura, non pertinens ●● A●ticulos fidei, non esse haereticum. Vasq. in 2. Disp. 120. cap. 2.  against the Rule of Faith, even such an error as puts men off from the foundation; for a soul being put off from the foundation, which is God in Christ jesus, cannot possibly be saved. Yet it cannot be denied, but that if lesser errors be so plainly discovered to be contrary to the Scriptures, that this contrariety is made manifest to him that erreth, this error being afterwards maintained may be a damnable heresy; and the reason only be this, Because such an heretic erreth in the foundation of Faith; for he doth not believe that God is true; and not believing God's Truth, he cannot believe the truth of his promises in Christ Jesus. And because such lesser errors were sometimes plainly (at least, as some holy men thought) convinced to be contrary to Scriptures, therefore these errors by them might perchance be called heresies. But yet it cannot be certainly affirmed by any man, that what himself seeth to be manifestly against Scriptures, and hath delivered this, which seems manifest unto himself, to another, that the other to whom he hath delivered it, doth see it also to be manifest; therefore no man, merely upon such a manifestation, can say directly and positively, That such an one doth wilfully not believe the Truth of God in the Scriptures. Wherefore these smaller errors, though they might be called heresies at large, in regard that they were errors showed to be contrary to the Scriptures, and so there was a possibility that they might be held wilfully against the known truth; yet because there is also a possibility that it might not 
h Qui ignorans e●●at, hae●eticus non est. Lorca in 22. Sect. 3. Disp. 47. n. 24. Magis communis & probabilior sententia in hac re in duobus posita est: Unum est, Nullum errorem contra fidem ex igno●antia etiam culpabili, modo non sit affecta, esse haeresim. Vasquez quo supra. Item cap. 3. Non satis est ad pertinaciam, si quis admoneatur à viris gravissimis— Zelosi sunt, qui non ex superbia & obstinatione, sed ex quadam ignorantia, falsò persuasi sunt suam sectam veritati ac Evangelio consentaneam esse— Hujusmodi zelosi, quia non peccant ex malitia, sed ignorantia, fae●e à Deo mis●ricordiam consequuntur. B●can. Manu. Praelud. 1. Constat multos viros ac foeminas esse in Germania, qui quidem habentur Lutherani; sed tamen quia pertinaces non sunt, non debent cense●i haeretici, sed errantes. Non enim advertunt doctrinam Lutheranam, cui ab infantia addicti sunt, contrariam esse Ecclesiae Catholicae, quae verè Catholica est. Id. lib. 5. cap. 13.  be known to those that erred, that their error was contrary to the Scriptures, the sentence of killing and damning on such cannot certainly be pronounced. For indeed, no Father nor Divine can affirm, That one erring not wilfully, but by weakness or ignorance, in such a point as praying bare foot, cannot believe in Christ Jesus, or, so believing, cannot be saved. But howsoever, in all this which he hath alleged, there is nothing that makes for the Cavalier, but rather all against him. For it is still an error contrary to the Scriptures that makes the Heresy; and not pride and disobedience against the Pope and his decisions. And indeed this truth was so strong, and so prevailed against the Cavalier, that it forced him to speak some part of it, even against his own proposition: For he saith thus; The Pride wherewith they presumed to abuse Scripture, and to impose such a fond law upon men's consciences, and a resolution not to leave it when they were commanded by the Church, was that which made it Heresy in them: Where the abusing of Scripture is indeed the chief if not only cause of giving it the likeness of Heresy. For imposing it as a law upon men's consciences, I hope this Author will not take for Heresy, but rather for a virtue, seeing he hath often told us, that those who suppose their religion to be true, are not to blame if that they tell others that they are in danger by holding the contrary. Howsoever I am sure this is not the life of Heresy, as the Cavalier presently tells us in the next page; But maintaining a doctrine & discipline contrary to the judgement & commandments of the Church. But how he could know by the art of divination that these his barefoot Heretics, had a resolution not to leave their errors when they were commanded by the Church, the Church being taken for the Pope and his adherents, I cannot divine; for it is very possible that they, seeing the Pope's glorious Pantofle adorned with the Cross, might perhaps think it more holy (by the example of him whom they call his Holiness) to wear shoes of that fashion.  
The Cavaliers mis●haps still increase, and the more comfortless, because they are drawn by himself upon himself: For this next proof is from the Quarto Decimani, the life of whose Heresy he would make to be, the holding of Easter at another time than was ordained by the Church. But if the Pope be (as he is said to be) the Church virtual, let the Cavalier remember that this Church virtual was chidden 
a Victor Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus pertinac usagens, p●ssim totius Asiae ac vicinarum provinciarum Ecclesias ● communionis societate abscindere nititur, tanquam in haeresin declinantes, & lite●es mittit, quibus omnes simulabsque discretione ab Ecclesiastico foedere segregaret. Sed hoc non omnibus placebat Episcopi— Nam & Irenaeus cum caete●is quibus praeerat Galliarum Episcopis, conformat quidem ut in ●●●inica die resurrectionis, Domini mysterium celeb●etur: Victorem ●●men ●●guit quod non rectè fecerit abscindere à corporis unitate tot & 〈◊〉 Ecclesias Dei quae mo●em sibi antiquitus traditum custodirent. E●seb. Ecclesiast. H●st. lib. 5. cap. 24.  by S. Irenaeus for excommunicating the Eastern Churches because they differed from him in observation of Easter; So at that time, neither the different observation of Easter, nor disobeying the Pope's command was accounted an Heresy.  
He is also alike unhappy in his Heresy of Rebaptisation; where he saith, In Saint Cyprian it was but error, because the Church of his time had not absolutely condemned it; but growing after to be condemned in the Donatists' time, it was Heresy in them not to forsake it; which drew Vincentius Lirinensis to make this exclamation, O admirable change of things! The Authors of an opinion are held Catholics, and the followers of the self same are judged Heretics: For the Cavaliers matter is hereby overthrown. For 
b Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 24. Firmiliani epistola inter epistolas Cyprian. Constat ex Eusebio Cornelium papam cum Nationali concilio omnium Episcoporum Italiae sta●uiss●, non deberi hae●eticos rebaptizari, & eandem sententiam postea approbasse etiam Step●anum p●pam, & jussisse ut● Haeretici non rebaptizarentur: Et simul constat Cyprianum contratium sens●se, & mordicus d●fer disse. Bel. de Con. lib. 2. cap. 5.  the Bishop of Rome and his council having condemned the error of rebaptisation, Cyprian must be an 
c Per peculi●rem assistentiam Spiritus sancti dirigentis mente●, & linguam pontificis, ut in publico fidei judicio infall bi●i e● veritatem fidei determinet, cum potestate c●e●cendi omn●s ad cred●ndam de Fide Catholica, veritatem Fid●i ab ipso determinata●. Gen. in. 1. Disp. 2. n. 32. Doctrina Ecclesiae continetur, etc. in decretis conciliorum & pontificum— Quae in conciliis vel à ponti●ic● definita sunt, hoc habent speciale, ut omnis propositio definita sit m●nifes●è fide, & contraria sit Haeresis. Lorca. 〈◊〉. 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 39 n. 7  Heretic who disobeyed the Bishop of Rome and his council thus having condemned it, yea having condemned the maintainers of it. But if S. Cyprian was hereby no Heretic, than the life of Heresy doth not consist in disobeying the Church speaking by the Pope.  
Again, if S. Cyprian escape at this door, I do not see but that, for aught the Cavalier saith, the same door stands open for the Donatists; For his reason by which he would keep in the Donatists, is, Because their error grew after to be condemned. But we see their error was condemned before, by Cornelius and Stephen Bishops of Rome, even in the time of S. Cyprian: And therefore if there be no other reason the Donatists may escape the note of Heresy with S. Cyprian.  
But indeed there were other reasons that might aggravate the error of the Donatists beyond S. Cyprian, and make it look more like Heresy; A first may be a maintaining of their error after much evidence and conviction by Scriptures: A second, because 
* Qui sunt Haeretici nisi qui relicta Dei Ecclesia, privatas eligerunt societ●te●. Isid. sen●. lib. 1. cap. 19 Nos quantum in nobi● est propter haereticos cum collegis &c episcopis nostris non contendimus, cum quibus divin● concordiam & domini●am pacem ●●●●mus. Cyprian. Stephano ●ra●i apost. 72.  they made this error a ground of an other error, That it was a just cause to divide from the Church, because the Church differed from them in their error: This Cyprian never did; for though Cyprian yielded not obedience to the Pope having decided the point, yet he held union with the Church, even with those who differed from him in this point of re baptization: which may be spoken to the shame both of the old Donatists and the new, even the Romists that tear the Church into pieces for every little difference. Thirdly, the Donatists were thought thereupon to raise another 
b In haeresim schisma verterunt, tanquam Ecclesia, etc. de toto terrarum orbe perierit. Aug. ad. quod vult D. Ep. ad Emeritum. 164.  error contrary to an Article of the Creed, That the Church was not Catholic: and this the Cavalier might have seen in this very Treatise of Saint Austin, ad quod vult Deum, from whence he fetched his former objections.  
Lastly, if any man will see the reason of Lirinensis whom this Author produceth, he may thus receive it, and add it for a Corollary:  
The 
c Absolvuntur Magistri, condemnantur Discipuli, etc. Quorum ego nequitiam duplici odio dignā judico, vel ●ò quod haerese 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? venenum propinare aliis non pertimescunt; vel eò etiam quod sancti cujusque viri memoriam tanquam sopitos jam cine●es▪ prophana manu ventilant, & quae silentio sepeliri oportebat redivivam opinionem diffamant; sequentes omninò vestigia authoris sui Cham, qui nuditatem venerandi No, non modo operire neglexit, verum quoque irridendam caeteris enuntiavit. ●●ncen●. ●i●in. adver. haer. cap 11.  Masters are absolved, the Disciples are condemned, etc. whose wickedness I judge to be worthy of double hatred; both because they fear not to deliver unto others the poison of Heresy, and because with profane hands they toss the memory of holy men, as ashes which were quenched; and spread abroad a revived opinion, which should have been buried in silence: following herein the steps of their Father Cham; who not only neglected to cover the nakedness of reverend No, but also showed it to others to be derided.  
As for the answer of Cyprian to him that made the question concerning the doctrine of Novitianus, it doth not show that they that obey not the Popish Church are Heretics, but that Heretics are cast out of the Church for their Heretical doctrines: And such doctrines, whose Authors and Abettors are for them worthily cast out of the Church, are not worth the enquiry.  
The Cavalier, having passed through many untruths, now comes to an impertinence fraught also with untruths; He would 
* His business is to prove us Heretics, for differing from the Pope's decrees in small matters, and he brings in, for proof, Protestants accusing one another for differing in great matters; but some of them are such as the Cavalier himself cannot well believe, much less an impartial Reader.  fain prove, that, because there are some quarrels between some Calvinists and some Lutherans, therefore Protestants are damnable Heretics for disobeying the Pope in small matters: But he knows not how to tie this together, scarcely with the Jesuitical cart-ropes of vanity and fraud, called Equivocation and mental Reservation: For neither of them do charge the other with Heresy for disobeying the Pope, yea not for disobeying the Church; but (as they would persuade others, in their disputing vehemence) for not rightly conceiving some passages of Scripture: and I dare so much trust the Cavaliers honesty, that he will not say, that himself believes some of those slanders which himself produceth from Lutherans against Calvinists; Such are corrupting the Scriptures concerning the glorious Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And he knows, or might know, if he have but begun with Bellarmine's controversies (whom he names) what Gre●zer speaks of Hunnius (one of the Cavaliers chief Authors that casts scandals upon Calvinists) in his Epistle prefixed to Bellarmine's controversies: For there he saith, 
† Genus scribendi ingressus fuerat Hunnius plané Lutheranum, hoc est Thrasonicum, jactabundum, furiosum, ferme dixeram cervisiarum— Lutherani praecones ita disputationes suas instituant ut super timetur & zythum, & quae ex utroque nascuntur convitia maledica, & vesaniam halare videantur. Gretzer. epist. Bellarmin. praevi.  That Hunnius began a kind of writing right Lutherane, that is, Thrasonical, vainglorious, & furious, I had almost said drunken: yea he goes from the man to the kind; and saith, The Lutheran Preachers do set forth their disputations as if it were upon Meade and Beer, and so that they may seem to smell of that which ariseth from both; railing-slanders, and madness. Now if this testimony of Gretzer be true (and whatsoever it be I think this Cavalier will not give this Father of his the lie) than I wonder he would produce testimonies of such, whose Disputations (as saith his Father Gretzer) smell of rayling-Slanders and madness. So that indeed this argument seems not to be so much a matter of earnest, as of mirth, even to make himself and his Romish Readers infernally merry with the bitterness and contentions of christians: yet it were not hard to show patterns of such vomits of Gall, brought up from Romish stomaches; and indeed here they lie in sight, but I had rather they should be covered with ashes, then be stirred to annoy my Reader and myself with the savour of them: Only I will give this Champion some animadversions; one is, that this is a stale objection, long since dissolved by that reverend and learned prelate, 
●. ●ewels Defence of the Apology. Pag. 318. & seq.  the ever honoured Bishop jewel. And this Bishop hath so torn this objection to rags, that I wonder this Cavalier would stoop so low as to take up such rags, which can never be well sowed together again, and clothe his book with them. A second, that it were far more like the spirit of Moses, to say, Why do ye strive seeing ye are brethren? then to gather this uncharitable and false Inference, Because ye strive, ye are not brethren.  
I am passing from this Champions Untruths to his Truth: 
See pag. 45, 48, 49.  but I cannot pass over an abominable, fearful and manifold Untruth, not so much bounded in one part of this Chapter, as arising from the whole: For his main drift and plot is, and his words do tell it us, That let a point of doctrine be never so fundamental and necessary to salvation, if his Popish Church do not decide, propound, and command it to be believed, it is not heresy not to believe it: But be the point never so small, if the Popish Church decide, and command it to be believed, then must it be believed upon pain of damnation. Now, what can be said more to put the Pope above God to make him Antichrist, and his followers Antichristians? That which God saith may be unbelieved without note of heresy, though it be this main point, 
Mat. 3.  This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased: But if the Pope decide and command to be believed, that 
a Concil. Trid. de reform. Matrim. Sess. 8.  Gossips are such kin, that they cannot marry without incest; not to believe this is certain 
b Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam non potuisse constituere impedimenta matrimonium dirimentia, vel in ●is constituendis e●rasse, Anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. eadem.  damnation: fearful blasphemies; and unhappy Christians whose God is less than their Pope, and whose Pope is above the highest God. But as this makes way for the Mystery of iniquity; so it leads fitly to the next point, which is this Champion's Truth, wherein this Mystery will be more fully revealed.   

SECT. II.  
The Idolatry of Papists, 1. In making the Pope the foundation of Faith. 2. In giving Divine worship to the Sacramental Elements, and to Images. 3. In attributing the merit of salvation to their own works, is such as may sink many of them into a damnable estate; though it may be charitably hoped of others, that they are saved who avoid the mortal infection of these points: and what caution must be used to preserve this Charity from crossing with Truth.  
HAving discovered many Untruths, in at least four main points of this Chapter, we are come to a fifth point, whose truth is so powerful, that it overcomes me, and makes me to acknowledge with the Author, That it divides Protestant's and right Romists so far as salvation and damnation.  
And I must clear either side from uncharitableness, in saying that these who fail in this point are in a state of damnation. And it is very true that he promiseth, That this Reason strikes at the root, which is taken from the nature and property of Faith: The point is this; That whosoever doth give his faith and assent to all the Articles of Christian doctrine, yet if he do it not upon the right and infallible motive, he hath no saving Faith. Now hereunto we subjoin, That true and right Papists or Romists do not believe upon the true and infallible motive; Therefore they can have no saving Faith. And indeed, though they have many and pernicious errors, yet this is the great and general error that makes up the Mystery of iniquity, which we call the Papacy, and the Papists call the Church. For the ordinary motive of faith in those who are the right and natural members of the Head of that Mystery, is to believe the Articles of Faith, because the Church, whose mouth, head, and spirit is the Pope, propounds and commands them to be believed. And this Author saith, that the only true and infallible ground is, The Revelation of Almighty God, and the proposition and direction of the Church. Wherein first he joineth the Church with God in this ground of Faith; and so gives as it were half of the ground of Faith to the Church from God, and makes it half unsafe and damnable: But even this half he seems elsewhere wholly to take away, and so to leave men wholly to be damned by a Faith wholly grounded on a 
* Objectum formale (fidei) est prima veritas Testificans; aut ergò Ecclesia est objectum ut diversum quid à Dei testimonio, aut ratione ipsius: Si diversum, erit testimonium hominum & alienum à fidei infallibilitate & certitudine; si ratione Dei, eo ipso non est objectum formale, quia formale objectum per se primò, & non per aliud est objectum. Lorca in 22. Sect. ● D●sp●. 1●9▪  motive which cannot raise a saving and supernatural Faith: for he saith, 
b Char. Mist. p. 45.  That if the Church hath not decided, propounded, and commanded a doctrine to be believed by her children, a man may think and do as he sees cause, without incurring the crime of heresy. Thus we see that the Revelation of God is not a motive of Faith of itself, but the Church is the motive of believing God's Revelation: so, first, we see the Church to put God aside, and to take place of him; and knowing who is the Head, Heart, if not the Whole of this Church, we find him just in his own place, and that is, lifting himself up above all that is called God: And secondly, we see the deadly motive and ground of Faith, proposed by Papists to Popish souls, even the word of a man, and a Man of sin; on whom whatsoever Faith is finally grounded, it can give nothing but damnation. Neither are we put by other Papists to lay pieces together to prove this their damning motive of Faith; for, besides the common voice of the people, that they believe as the Church believes, we have before 
* 〈…〉.  heard, that the Rhemists acknowledge the Popes to be an Order of Governors to whom we are bound to cleave in Religion, and to obey in all things: And thereupon they infer, that A Papist is a Christian man, a child of the Church, and subject to Christ's Vicar: So the Christianity of a Papist, and his being a child of the Church, depends on his cleaving to the Pope, and obeying him in all things. But yet again we may see it more acknowledged in their Writers. 
a Una est quam tuetur M●c●ael de M●dina l. 5. de rec●a in Deum F●de, c. 11. affi●mans Ecclesiae Testificationem esse partem objecti formalis: quo fidei, & adeo esse, ut ultima fidei resolutio in Ecclesiae authoritatem fiat.— Esse tamen Ecclesiam rationem credendi, in quam ultima resolutio fidei fiat proba●i videtur, quia in ea sistit solutio quaestionis, quare credimus: Interroganti enim quare credis Deum esse Trinum & Unum, si respondeatur, Quia Deus dicit; u● gear potest, Unde scis Deum dicere? non est alia responsio, quam quia Ecclesia dicit; quo pacto respondere docemur in ipsa Christiana Catechesi, & rudimentis doctrinae Christianae, sicque respondent docti & in●octi. Lorca in 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 3. n. 3. Fundamentum fidei vobis aliud est & ulterius, Pontificis nimirum Romani judicium: Iste verè petra vobis fidei; super illam petram fidem omnium dogmatum, obedientiam omnem, & in fide, & in moribus aedificatis.— Petrus, inquit Bellarminus, & quilibet ejus Successor est petra, & fundamentum Ecclesiae-Pontificia potestas, ait Skulkenius) est velut cardo, & fundamentum, & (ut uno verbo omnia complectar) summa fidei Christianae.— Per Ecclesiam, inquit Gretserus, intelligimus Pontifi●ē Romanū qui pro tempore Ecclesiae naviculam moderatur— Fundamentum fidei nostrae tam infallibile est quam ipse Deus. Tota enim Scriptura est divinitùs inspirata. Coelun transibit, & montes commovebuntur; verbum autem Domini manebit in aeternum. Fundamentum fidei vestrae tam fallibile est, tamque falsum, quam est bestia illa, seu Antichristus, cui datum est os loquens blasphema; & seducit incolas terrae.— Cum fundamentum hoc restrum haereticum sit & Antichristianum: venenum hoc suum transmittit in omnes omninò fidei vest●ae artus & arterias, parts, particulas, & Articulos, eos ad unum omnes ha●reticos vobis facit & Antichristianos'.— Trinitas, Christi Inca●natio, Passio, Resurrectio, & similia, verè creduntur; quando ideo creduntur, quia in sacris Scriptures, ut verò fidei fundamento traduntur. Si verò quis horum quodvis idci●●o credat, ut vel Deum esse, vel Christum esse Deum, quia homo, quia daemon, aut Antichristus illud credendum dicit, ab ●o qui ratione ista ad ●redendum inducitur, non verè & infallibiliter, non infusa aut divina fide creduntur, sed credi solum putantur: & quia talis hominis fides, testimonio hominis, daemonis, aut Antichristi, ut suo ●undamento innititur; ideo acquisita solum fides est, humana, daemoni●●●, 〈◊〉 Antichristiana. Materiale hic fidei sanum est; vitium omne ●st in formali, seu ratione credendi, quod est forma fidei; Forma autem dat Nomen & Esse. D. Cra●●nthor● Defence. Eccles. An●l. cap. 47.  Lorca brings forth Medina affirming, that The Testimony of the Church doth so far partake of being the formal object or motive of faith, that the utmost resolution of faith is into the authority of the Church, and the proofs produced for it are to be heard in the common language of Romists: If it be asked why thou believest the Trinity in Unity, and thou answer, Because God saith it; It will then be demanded of thee how thou knowest that God saith it; thou hast no other Answer left but this, Because the Church saith it; and so are they taught in the Catechism, and so answer both the learned and unlearned. Behold the common answer, and common faith of Romists. Now this object of faith being man, and not God, it cannot raise that supernatural and saving faith, whose object is the prime Verity, even God speaking to the souls of his servants. And seeing this humane faith hath so possessed Romists, that their Prophets do make the obeying and cleaving to the Pope in his doctrine the very Character of a Christian and child of the Church; this Church consisting of these children thus adhering to the Pope, is against such truly affirmed not to be the Church; and so may the Homily of our Church clearly be interpreted, which denyeth the Church of Rome, that is, the Pope and his Adherents, to be the true Church; for thus to adhere unto the Pope, and to lay belief on him is so far from making a true child and member of the Church, that it makes a member of the Papacy, and so of Antichrist; it makes a Synagogue for Satan and Hell, and not a Church for Christ and salvation.  
And whereas this Author both in this Chapter, and the beginning of the eighth, objects it to us that we condemn their doctrines, and account the Church of Rome to be the Seat of Antichrist, and the Synagogue of Satan; He hath here seen one reason of it; and it is a reason of his own and his fellows, even because the Romish Doctors and Champions tell us, that the Church of Rome is made of those children which believe in the Pope: And this faith being humane, cannot make a Church to Christ, but to the Pope; and thus the Pope stands in the place of Antichrist, for putting Christ out of his place, and stepping into it, whiles thus he makes his sheep to hear his voice, before Christ's; yea, both herein, and often▪ otherwise against 
a Non Deo, aut Scripturis propter Deum, sed Deo & Scriptures propter papam; Christo propter Antichristum creditur. Hinc sit, ut licet Deus disertè vitia omnia prohibeat, & virtutes ōnes sequi mandat, tamen ut Bellarminus te docet (lib. 4. de 'pon. cap. 5.) si papa praecipiat vitia, & virtutes prohibeat, tenetur Ecclesia vestra credere vitia esse bona, & virtu●esmalas, nisi velit contra conscientiam p●ccare. Idem. Ibid.  Christ.  
But a second Reason may be given of their calling the Church of Rome the Synagogue of Satan; the Church of Rome being taken in a larger sense, even for all those parts of mankind, that have reference to Rome: For they find this Church of Rome overspred, not only with this false and Antichristian faith, but with other mortal errors and abominations; such are gross and almost universal Idolatry in the worship of Images, and especially of the Sacrament, confidence in works for justification and merit; and a gross ignorance, even a not knowing of Christ, which before hath been touched. Now many seeing a field overcome with these deadly and kill weeds, and so overcome, that they seemed to cover the face of the field, they took it to be a field of Weeds and not of Corn: And because the usual manner of speaking is to say, that a horse is black and not white that hath but a few white hairs on him, they thought they might say, the Church of Rome was the Synagogue of Satan, and not a true Church, because there is such a multitude of Ignorants, Antichristians, and Idolaters, and so few true worshippers and believers.  
But, be it that the Church of Rome (being understood in this wide sense, wherein it comprehends all that any way look toward Rome) in regard that there was once sowed good corn in it, and some of it comes up in some corners of it, shallbe called a field of corn from that which is most excellent in it; surely it concerns Protestant's wisely to manage their unity with it, and the division from it. When we pursue the unity of charity, we must take heed that we lose not saving verity: and when we pursue saving verity, we must take heed that we offend not against charity: we must so converse with that Church as with a City overcome with the plague; we should be very wary of infection, in regard of the universal pestilence of it; and (if we may) choose some places and company that are healthy. But from those that live the life of Grace, though never so few, affection may not be withdrawn, but to them belongs both our pity and prayers: Yet, while we extend our charity to them, let us take heed that we lose not ourselves; and that our charity do not swallow up verity, and make great sins too small, nor allow too easy a communion between Christ and belial; nor make salvation larger than the Scripture doth make it: For first, the 
a Some errors in the Church of Rome, that are in themselves damnable to them that believe as they profess, according to that of the Apostle, 2. Thes. 2.11. They that beleeve●●ly may be damned.  Believers in the Papacy, which make the Papal Church, are by their humane faith infected to death, except there be a healing of their error by repentance: These are Idolaters for worshipping the Pope, and making him their God, and rock of their faith.  
Neither will it excuse them, that they believe what they profess; for, the more they believe by this carnal & kill faith, the more they are slain, and the deeper they are in damnation. Secondly, there are 
b In peccatis quae contra Deum committuntur, quae tamen sunt maxima, gravissimum esse videtur, quod aliquis divinum honorem creaturae impendat, cum hac ratione, quantum in se est, alium deum in mundo faciat, divinum principatum minuens, & primum quod in fide est, sc. credulitatem Dei omnipotentis, creatoris coeli & terrae, destruens, etc. Say. Cas. Con. l. 3. cap. 4. Worshipping of Christ's Image is Idolatry; and the worship of Images, detested in the Church of Christ, is heresy. B. Bilson. Christ. sub. p. 4.  worshippers of Images and consecrated bread, which are Idolaters in the common and known sense of Idolatry. And the 
c Manifestius est quam ut multis verbis explicari debeat, Imaginum & Simulachrorun cultum, nimium invaluisse, & affectioni seu potius superstitioni populi plus satis indultum esse, ita ut ad summam adorationem, quae vel à paganis suis Simulacris exhiberi consuevit, & ad extremam vanitatem, quam Ethnici in suis Simulacris effingendis & exornandis adm●serūt, nil à nostris reliqui factum esse videtur. Cas. Con. de Imag. & Simul.  common sort are exceedingly possessed with this Idolatry, and slain to death with it; and I doubt it will be a difficult matter to save many of the Doctors whom this plague hath infected: For though they believe this Idolatry, which they pofesse to be lawful, yet Idolatry hath been damnable to many, which both thus professed and believed it: Yea, they that believe and trust in Idols, are the more damnable for thus believing. 
There is nothing so wicked and absurd, but a Romist can defend it: neither is any thing so true, but he can outface it, witness, among other, the adoration of Images. The same is an impiety so apparently condemned in the Scriptures, that neither Blasphemy itself, witchcraft, adultery, or any sin is more plainly detested and prohibited. B. Whit. orthod. p. ●37. & seq.  Besides, many places of Scripture show, that saving grace and the true fear of God, doth not commonly dwell, especially with dwelling and reigning Idolatry. For Grace doth commonly turn out such gross sins when it enters into the soul; and accordingly Saint Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians, to be a turning from Idols to the living God, 1 Thes. 1.9. And so some of the Corinthians were Idolaters, but they were washed by regeneration (1. Cor. 6.) so that they are not now that which they were before. I would have charity to save as many as she might, but I know she cannot save them truly without verity; Now the verities of Scriptures seem to withstand the easy and ordinary salvation of Idolaters, and I am sure have made it damnable to many who believed it to be the worship of God, and therefore they should be cleared, before charity can know that she hath her desire in true saving of Idolaters: And this I propose not to increase damnation (which I abhor in my opposite, the Romish Champion) but to increase salvation; even to save some with compassion, by pulling them out of the 
* Rev. 21.8. Rev. 19.20. Spe vitae eternae solis puris Dei cultoribus promissae, novos istos Idololatras ex verbo Dei arcent: donec stipulationis in Baptismo memores, ad unius Dei cultum per unicum Mediatorem Jesum Christum, abjectis Satanae cultibas, redierint. Clau. Ap. Myst. duorum Testium. Exod. 32.4, 5.  fire prepared for Idolaters, and to save others from falling into it.  
To this end let us behold in the Scripture of truth, how Idolatry, though professed and believed, yea though mixed with some knowledge, yea seeming fear or service of God, hath drawn the wrath of God upon Idolators.  
Israel, to whom were anciently given the Promises, and newly the Law, while Moses was in the Mount, made a god of Gold, but, in that, worshipped the God that brought them out of Egypt, and proclaimed a feast to him; and we find that presently God's wrath was ready to wax hot against them to consume them; yea though Moses was the meekest man on Earth, yet his meekness was so incensed against this sin and these sinners, that he commands every man to slay his Brother, Companion, and Neighbour. And when he goes to God for a pardon, he doth it not with an extenuation, but an aggravation of this sin: For he saith, 
Verse 31.  Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of Gold: He doth not tell God, that it is a venial or not damnable sin, or that their breeding in Egypt might excuse them, the cause that made them believe that which they here act and profess; That an ox which eateth grass might represent the Deity, 
Psal. 106.20.  and be worshipped for it: But laying aside all excuses and extenuations, he calls it a great sin, and thinks that a blotting out of God's book belonged to this sin, and therefore he offers his own soul to this punishment for their ransom: But behold how fatal a sentence God pronounceth on the sinners of this sin, 
V●. 32, 33. &c  so showing it to be damnable, Him that sinneth will I blot out of my book: and it presently followeth, In the day wherein I visit, will I visit their sin upon them.  

Exod. 34.9, 10  Again, in a chapter nearly following, this Idolatry, wherein Moses is earnest with God for a pardon, and God seems to be so far entreated as to lead them by his Angel to Canaan, yet is he still so strange to them, that he calls them still not his own people, but the people of Moses; Thy people, and, the people amongst whom thou art▪ But withal he enjoins them to destroy the Altars of Idolaters, to break down their Images, and to worship no other God: and let the reason be observed, for it is highly observable, For the Lord whose name is jealous, is a jealous God. Surely this Jealousy of God is not sufficiently considered by those that are over easy & favourable to Idolatry: They consider not duly the Nature of Jealousy, nor the height & breadth of a Jealousy of an Almighty God, nor that it is so inward and essential in God, that it is as it were God himself; For his name (saith he) is jealous; Now jealousy is the rage of a Man; and, a man saith Solomon (thus enraged, 
Pro. 6.34. ) will not spare in the day of vengeance. What then is the jealousy of God but the wrath of God, and what is God when he is angry, 
Deut. 4.23, 24  but a consuming fire? And such he testifies himself to be, particularly against this sin. Jealousy in a man may pass by many faults in his wife, but it will not endure Adultery; for Adultery causeth a divorce, which many other crimes do not: accordingly God often calls Idolatry by the name of Adultery, 
Hosea 1.2, 6. and chap. 2.2.  and thereupon threatens a divorce to his people: And in that commandment alone which forbids this Spiritual Adultery, doth God only mention his Jealousy.  
Again, if a man be jealous, let a stranger be never so like him, his jealousy will not suffer his wife to love that stranger as himself; yea, he will not endure it though she say it is for his sake, and for likeness to to her Husband: How much more should the jealousy of God arise, when his worship is given to things infinitely inferior to himself, and so far below, that it is a kind of blasphemy to name them in a comparison? Accordingly God casts it off with a scornful indignation; 
Esay. 40.18.23. & 46.5.  To whom will ye liken God? If this jealousy of God could not endure that Dagon should stand in one place with the Ark, shall we think that the same jealousy will endure an Idol to dwell quietly with him in the soul of that man which is truly the Temple of God? 
1. Cor. 16.19. 2. Cor. 13.5. 2. Cor. 6.16.  What agreement (saith S. Paul) hath the Temple of God with Idols? For ye are the Temple of the living God: And if Saint Paul ask this question, as if it could not receive an answer, How dare men to answer this question, at least with such facility to dissolve it, how dare they say, Yes, S. Paul?  
It hath been seen very generally that the Temple of God, even ignorant Christians, have had agreement with Idols; for if Christians knew not but that the Idols ought to be worshipped with divine worship, they, believing this, might give divine worship to idols; and this Idolatry is not damnable. Surely, if such an answer may thus get safe passage through this Text by some narrow way, to make Idolatry to agree with God and salvation; doubtless, it seems by Saint Paul's question, the common and ordinary relation between them is disagreement, and there is some great difficulty, or some great rarity in this agreement: And this great danger and difficulty should be greatly pressed; at least, not less than the narrow way of escaping.  
And indeed, to express this danger and difficulty is my business at this time; and for a further expression of it, let the words of josua be considered; 
Josh. 24.19, 23  Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is an holy and a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions and sins, except ye put away the strange gods which are among you. 
2 King. 17.33, 34.  I might add from many places of Scriptures, That they who feared the Lord, and served their own gods, did not fear the Lord. And in the days of good josiah, 
Zeph 1.5.  God would Cut off those that worship, and swear by the Lord, and swear by Malcam; And that Idolatry is generally clothed in Scripture with the title of Abomination, 
Ezek. ch. 6. & ch. 8. & ch. 16. etc.  and it is not easy nor usual with God to dwell with Abomination. But, referring the Reader to his own reading, I conclude with that piercing and affrighting speech of Saint Paul; 
1 Cor. 8, 7.10.11.  There is a brother, and it is a weak brother, and this brother, out of his weakness, eats things sacrificed unto Idols, with conscience (of religious honour) of the Idols: the same weak brother, seeing a strong brother eating in the Temple of Idols, is strengthened in his making conscience, and giving honour and worship to the Idol: and yet of this weak brother Saint Paul saith, that He perisheth. No doubt this weak brother making conscience of the Idol, believed this honour which his conscience gave to the Idol was due and lawful; yea, he believed it the more, as Saint Paul saith, by seeing a strong brother in the Idols Temple, whom he thought to have made the same conscience of the Idol; yet this brother for whom Christ died, thus weak, thus believing, and upon such a tentation (if we believe Saint Paul) perisheth by this Idolatry.  
There is yet a third dangerous, yea, 
a Gratiae Dei detrahunt, & Christum abjiciunt: seipsos perdunt qui fiduciam in opera ponunt. Ferus in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 3. Cave, cave ne in tua opera fiduciam salutis ponas, alioqui Christum negasti. Id. Ibid.  deadly infection of Rome, in the Idolatry of Merits, of which souls should be wary: for 
b 
je m'asseures qu'entre dix mille Catholics il ne s'entrouvera pas un seul, qui entende que signifient les oewres teintes du sang de Christ Mais que simplement sans autre addition ils diront, quills esperent meriter le ciel pur leurs oewres.  
Exam. pacifique chap. 1.   generally, those merits are by by them made Saviour's, while they think that they are able to justify, or stand in judgement before God's Justice, and that they deserve life eternal; yet Christ Jesus, who is God blessed for ever, could only perform such merits for mankind. As for us, when we speak most of our good works, Let us say with that holy man, Remember me, O Lord, concerning this, and spare me according to the multitude of thy mercy: and then put this clause to it from our Saviour, When we have done all, we are unprofitable servants. Let not this Idolatry seem small to us, which the chief of them dare not maintain when they die, though the Papal profit makes it pleasant whilst they live: But let it be as one of the botches of Egypt, which kill the souls of thousands with death eternal.  
Thus have we seen errors deadly and damnable to many that professed them in the Church of Rome, and believed what they professed; wherefore the safest way by which charity joined to verity may more clearly save some in this Church, 
Neh. 13.22. Luk. 17.10.  is to find some that are clear from these errors. And these being produced, may serve for patterns to others to drive them from these errors. And accordingly it is possible to find some within the Romish territories that have been clear from these Idolatries; yea, some that have been Teachers and Writers, and no doubt they have begotten some Auditors and Readers like to themselves.  
And first for the kill error of making the Pope or his Church the god and utmost foundation of faith, there are not a few of the late Writers, as Lorca tells us, that 
* Altera sententia docet Ecclesiae authoritatem & testimonium nil referre ad assensum fidei, nec ut pars objecti, nec ut conditio sine qua non; sed concurrere ut omninò accidentarium, esseque unum ex credibilibus, sicut alia fidei documenta; quod non propter se, sed propter divinam Authoritatem creditur. Quam sententiam prosequitur Canus, & amplectuntur non pauci ex recentioribus; Quae suit sententia Calvini.— Respondent Canus & Cal●inus, mutuatis ferè verbis, Augustinum nihil aliud voluisse in hac sententia, quam Ecclesiam e●●e aptum principium, vel isagogem, qu● convenienter aliquis qui penitus ignarus fidei est, inducatur ad ipsam; non tamen ut aliquo modo sit ratio credendi. Lorca in 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 3.  wholly deny it, The authority and testimony of the Church doth nothing pertain to the assent of faith, neither as part of the object, nor as a condition without which faith cannot be; which opinion of Canus not a few of the later men do embrace: (to this he adds) which was the opinion of Calvin. And to make this yet more clear, that often objected place of S. Augustine, I would not believe the Gospel, except the authority of the Church did move me. Lorca saith, Canus & Calvin answer with the very same words; That Augustine meant nothing in this sentence, but that the Church is an apt beginning, and as it were an introduction, by which a man wholly ignorant of the faith is fitly led unto it; but not that the Church should be the reason of believing: for that is, Because God speaks in the Scripture, and it is an infallible instrument of the divine Testimony.  
And Lorca 
a Respondetu●, Q●estionē quare ●redis, ultimò & directè in Dei Testimonium resolvi; adaequata enim ratio respondendi est, quia Deus dicit. Id. Ibid.  afterwards affirms, That the resolution of this question, Why you believe, is lastly and directly resolved into the testimony of God; and this is the adequate reason of believing, Because God saith it. Thus are there some, and not a few of the Church of Rome, as Lorca tells us, that avoid the shipwreck of souls, which is visually suffered by faith in the Pope, or testimony of man, even the Man of sin.  
Secondly, for that Idolatry which giveth divine worship to Images, though it be an evil that hath too largely overspread 
b Dr. AEgidius a Preache● at Seville, censured for denying the worship of Images; and Bell●rmi●●● names many Doctors, which teach that they are to be worshipped with divine worship. Bellarm. de Ec●l●s. Trid. lib. 2. cap. 2● Azor. Mo●. I●st. li●. 9 c●p. 6.  the Romish dominions, and the denial of it in Spain hath been censured for heresy: Yet there are divers of the Romish communion that have not thus bowed to Baal, in so much, that Papyrius Massonus thus writes in his Preface before Agobardus; and of him, He 
c Gr●corum ●●rore● de imagin●●●● & picturis, manifestissimè detegens, negat eas adora●i debere; quam sententiam omnes Catholici probamus. Papyr. Masson. praes. in Agob●rd.  manifestly discovers the errors of the Greeks concerning Images and Pictures, and denyeth that they ought to be worshipped; which opinion all Catholics do approve. So it seems he thought it a Catholic opinion not to worship Images, and those not Catholics which do approve this worship. And 
d Si de usu imaginum proponatur quaestio, quomodo illae in Decalogo sunt prohit●●, nempe ne adorentur, his verbis explicat etc. 〈…〉 imagines, s●d non adorar●, quòd 〈…〉  Pamelius dares tell the Pope himself, That if the question be proposed concerning the use of Images, How they are forbidden in the Decalogue; which is, that they be not worshipped: Tertullian showeth it in his Book against Martion; and after in his Notes upon Tertullian's Apologetic: Tertullian saith not that Christians did hate Statues and Images, but that they did not worship them; which certainly (as the Fathers of the seventh Synod, Damascen and Ionas do often inculcate) none of us ever attempted: I mean not with the worship of latria, which is due to God alone. But though his speech be somewhat too large, when he excludeth all Romists from giving this worship; (as hereafter in another Chapter will more plainly appear●) yet it is possible that this all might 〈…〉 l●●arned ones wherewith he 〈…〉 for I doubt the common 〈…〉 understood the distinction between doulia and latria; yet thus it is likely we may find some (at least, of the Learned) that are clear also of this pestilence.  
In this rank also of Idolatry may be mentioned the worship and adoration of the Sacrament, which is likely to be the more universal, because it seems backed with a Council which some think universal: But indeed all do not take it to be universal, 
Exam. pacifiq. cap. 5.  as the Author of the Examen Pacifique doth plainly show. And of this Idolatry we may well believe, that there are some free in the Romish Territories: For 
e Urget dubium quomodo potest quaecumque Eucharistia adora●i absolutè & sine conditione, ●ū non sit omnino ce●tum consecrationem ri●è pe●a●●am ●●se. Quidam hoc tempore docu●●●he names in the 〈…〉. & l. 3. de Adora.) Sacramentis, Imag●nibu● & aliis rebus sacris nullam d●beri ado●ation●m aut venera●●● 〈…〉 tendat in ipsa●, & verè, & ex a●imo eas 〈…〉 g●lequuntur) ut Qu●d▪ said 〈◊〉 ea●um adorationem transi●e ad exempl●●, & ad eum 〈…〉 sunt. Ex qua doctrina putat facilè po●se ●●dd● rationem 〈…〉 nis quam Eucharistiae ubicunque e● hibemu●, quia ●um 〈…〉 in Sacramentum ipsum, sed tran●e●t ad Christum, nullum est 〈◊〉 adorationem exhibendi cu● non debetur. 〈…〉 22. Sect. 1 〈◊〉 10. Adoratores h●j●s Sa●ramenti Spi●itu suo, solum 〈…〉 Christum ipsum. 〈…〉 3. Tom. 3. Disp. 179. ●. 28.  we find that, because without the Priest's Intention Romists do acknowledge that the Bread is still but Bread, and withal, that the worship of bread is abominable Idolatry; It h●th been thought safest by some, to direct all the Sacramental worship to Christ Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, where he is sure to be found. This is the doctrine of Vasques; and I could name a Lady in England, who professed so to worship Christ in the Sacrament, and I hope she is not without followers.  
Another Romish Idolatry is turning merits into Saviour's: This we have seen is too common among the vulgar; yet by some they are removed from this office, and especially at the time of death; for even persecuting Gardener thought it good doctrine for them that were dying to put their whole trust in the merits of Christ. And Cardinal Bellarmine in his last will, desires to be crowned by God, not as a Regarder of merits, but as a Giver of mercy. And Bernard, Thomas de Kempis, Cassander, and Ferus (who have many Readers, and I hope herein some believers) appear sound in their Writings, both from this and other Idolatries. Briefly, the catholic Apology brings forth divers Authors of theirs, that have taught their Readers Doctrine contrary to the mortal and damnable errors which we complain of, for massacring souls in the Kingdom of the Pope. So that though a pestilence hath generally overrun his Territories, yet there are some healthy and living souls therein: though there may be millions that bow unto their many Baal's, yet there may be thousands that bow not unto them: And though we be not of one Religion with the Idolaters, yet with those that serve God in spirit and truth, and keep themselves from Idols, we have one Religion in Essentials and Fundamentals; and so both may be saved. Let us conclude in the words of one of them upon the conclusion of S. john's Epistle, and in him see what saving Religion is taught, and, I hope, learned by some of them; 
a Filloli, custodite vo● à Simulachris: Hanc appendicem non incōgruè nec sine causa annexuit Epistolae suae; quia enim do●uerat unum & solum verum Deum esse, qui & scipsum in E●lio suo manif●stavit, & pe● eum nos d●●uit, quod veru● D●i cultus in fide, spe, & charitate, itemque puritate & sanctitate vitae consistat, necessariò nunc monet, ut in ea fide & veri Dei cultu 〈…〉 & abonni Idololatria caveamus. Sic igitur in tota hac Epistola Joanne● 〈◊〉 haec docere voluit, quod videlicet unus tantum est verus Deus, & una tantum vera Religio. Jesu● Christus cum Patre & Spiritu sancto unus & verus est Deus, Christiana autem Religio verus & unicus est cultus Dei; ea enim Religio & Deo omnem glo●iam per Christum ascribit, & nobis per eundem Christum vitam & salutem adsert. Ferus in 1. joan. 5.  Babes, keep yourselves from Idols: This Corollary S. John not unfitly nor without cause annexed to this Epistle; For, seeing he had taught that there is one only God, who hath manisted himself in his Son, and hath taught us by him, that the true worship of God consisteth in faith, hope and love, and in purity and sanctity of life; he doth now necessarily admonish us, that we remain in that faith and true worship of God, and beware of all Idolatry. So John in this whole Epistle would teach us two things, That there is but one true God, And one true Religion▪ jesus Christ with the Father and the Holy Ghost is that and one true God; and Christian Religion is the only true worship of God: For this Religion gives all glory to God by Christ, and by the same Christ bringeth to us life and salvation: Behold that one Religion which we all so profess.  
Yet▪ for a caution to be annexed to the conclusion, I think that true zeal and charity, though they take such for living souls which are safe in fundamentals, yet they pity other gross errors which make the soul sick though they kill not; and a true lover of souls resembles the head both of souls and of love, and desires to present unto God souls without spot and blemish: And because they love them, as on the one side they acknowledge the life that is in them, so they desire to add growth to this life, and to bring it onward toward perfection. They do not tell them that they are well enough, because they live; for that is rather to build their contentment on their own safety, then on the full pleasing and serving of their Saviour. Therefore they call on them for the washing away of other errors, which are blemishes in the eye of the Heavenly Bridegroom; that thus the Bride, being all glorious within, may be ready and prepared for the day of her gladness, even her marriage in eternal and consummate felicity.    

CHAP. IX.  
Wherein divers objections are reinforced against the Romists, concerning those divisions amongst them, which the Cavalier in vain seeks to reconcile in his seventh Chapter.  

SECT. I.  
Wherein is showed, First, that Protestants in submitting to the holy word and spirit of God, have therein a true ground of unity, actually in those things wherein they agree; intentionally in other things wherein they differ. Secondly, that their Romish submission to the Pope, though it produce a seeming unity in many points, yet it leaves divers irreconcilable differences amongst them.  
THe Cavalier in his last chapter hath rid on, much out of his way: and in this he rides apace, and the faster the more out of the way. He was out of his way when he traveled to free Romists from want of charity, by proving Protestants and Romists not to have one saving faith, seeing Protestants having that saving faith, the Romists show want of charity in damning those who are saved: He was again out of the way in bringing his own Romists into schism and damnation, by dividing them from Protestants which have that one saving faith: And now he goes further out of the way, in removing the reasons that may make for unity, though by unity with Protestants Romists may avoid uncharitableness, schism, and damnation: so, it seems, he is so earnest for division and dis-union, that to attain it he will hazard both charity and salvation to his own fellow Romists as a high price, and far above the value of that which he would purchase, though it were the richest jewel in the world.  
Yet on he goes upon this adventure; And whereas differences amongst Romists are brought forth to make Romists more equal to differences among Protestants, or to some differences between Protestants and Romists; and likewise to make Romists think there may be a spiritual unity notwithstanding some differences, because, notwithstanding their own differences, they affirm there is an unity among themselves, this the Author thinks too peaceable, and therefore strives to take it out of the way.  
Toward this, he is willing to deny that there are such differences amongst Romists, and he strives to show that they agree even in those things wherein they differ; But differ they do, and strong evidences we have for it, which may hereafter be produced: Neither indeed their Poetical Head of unity, the Pope, nor any one man on earth, can make the whole Church to be inwardly of one mind and soul, but only that Lord and maker of Spirits by his own Spirit, his true and only Vicar.  
For that one Spirit, enlightening and guiding the spirits of men, with one faith of one word, delivered by the ministry, directed and enabled by the same one spirit, can only make a true, real, internal and spiritual unity: And accordingly S. Paul leading us to the unity of faith, thus rightly ordereth his words toward unity; One Spirit, 
Ephes. ●.  one Lord, one Faith: And thus he goes on, and showeth how this one spirit of one Lord which inwardly works this unity of faith in the Lord's body, outwardly also concurres to the working of it by the gifts given to the ministry; For this working without in the ministry, and enabling them to teach one and the same doctrine of saving faith; and inwardly working in the hearts and souls of Christ's members, these members are brought into the unity of faith and so into one body of Christ: and, as in this body of Christ there are different members of different measures and capacities, by the different gifts of the spirit; so these different capacities do not reach or contain one measure of divine truth: Christ the Foundation and Head is made known to all his members, for by this knowledge they become his members, and so have they all unity in so much divine truth as knits them to Christ: But by reason of their different measures, some attaining such holy truths of which others are short, there must needs be a difference in the apprehension of those truths to which some attain, and others do not come; yet in all is a settled desire and purpose to believe the whole truth revealed by God, if it be also revealed to them that it is the truth of God: And so whatsoever force was in the Champion's speech, That true spiritual faith believeth the whole Body of divine doctrine, makes not against us but for us, and much more for us then for them. For we upon the right motive, which is God speaking in his word, do believe plainly whatsoever we conceive, and what we do not conceive we believe in purpose and intention; And thus have we perfect unity, while in the fundamentals we have an actual unity of faith, and in the lesser points an unity of purpose and will: But in this true and kindly unity, one Spirit, not one Pope doth cause inwardly one faith. And again, that one spirit giving gifts to men, not to one man, outwardly bringeth to the inward unity of faith. And indeed that none but the spirit, the true vicar of Christ, can make this solid, spiritual, and internal unity, it appears by the confession of the very Romish craft, which hath coined the Pope to be the head of unity. For, that they might make and prove him to be such, they have put him into the place of the holy Ghost, and made him the Vicar of Christ: accordingly they say that the holy Ghost speaks by him, and so the speech of the holy Ghost, being infallible verity, is a right ground of unity: A foul error and without ground of Scripture, which never, since the departure of Christ from earth, tied the holy Ghost to one man, so that from him the whole Church should fetch Oracles and resolutions.  
But indeed it is a high and blasphemous imposture, which puts the Pope in place of the holy Ghost: And when this man speaks, it pronounceth of him as the people of Herod; The voice of God, and not of Man. And how little this differs from Montanisme, I wish Romists would consider, who reduced the promise of sending the Comforter (Christ's Vicar as 
a Assistentia Spiritus sancti promissa est specialiter Romano Pontifici (Joan 14.) Spiritus sanctus docebit vos omn● ve●i●atē 〈◊〉 1. Disp. ●. n. 34.  Tertullian calls him) to be performed in Montanus.  
And the very same place do the Romists apply to the Pope which was applied to Montanus; but yet thus it appears, That even they that err in the application, yet hold truth in the position; That the holy Ghost is the true root of union, though erroneously and blasphemously they put the Pope into his room, and make the voice of the Pope to be the voice of the holy Ghost.  
And surely the Pope himself plainly shows, that he doubts his own spiritual power of making unity, and therefore he flies to the gross and material instruments of unity, the Sword and Faggot. And so calling down fire on those that obey him not, if he have any spirit, it seems it is not that spirit which Christ said was the Evangelicall spirit of the Apostles, but rather of him which is called the Destroyer.  
And indeed, this device of man to make unity of faith by one man, called the Pope, being thus thrust into the place of the Spirit of God, as it proceeded from the spirit of error, so hath it made unity in error (as the last, best of Popes, Gregory the Great did in a manner prophecy) but it never will make unity in solid and universal Faith and Truth: for the believers in this counterfeit head of unity have both gotten from him an unity in many errors, and have been left in many great and weighty differences, whereof there is little hope of resolving them into union: the sight whereof turns our eyes from this humane and fictitious Head of unity, to the true root and means of unity, set forth by the Apostle.  
And, because this Author strives to put away from men's eyes the differences which arise under this false Head of union, let us show him a more full spectacle of them, which may serve to prove that disunion which he goes about to confute, and to confute that union which he goes about to prove.   

SECT. II.  
Wherein several heads and springs of division amongst the Papists are opened: 1. The controverted Supremacy of the Pope, or Counsels. 2. Their affected ambiguity in deciding controversies. 3. The great number of Questions purposely left undecided. 4. The opposition betwixt the Preachers and public Professors of that Church.  
IN the view of this division, we may first take notice, That there is an opposition and division even between this supposititious Head of unity and his members; and even in this radical and head-point, Whether he be the Head of unity or not: for the Head is divided from much of the Body; and the Body within itself, even about the Head. The Pope he will be above the Council, and the Council is thought by many to be above the Pope: And this hath been decided by Counsels, and by them the Council was set above the Pope; which indeed agrees much better with the Council in the Acts, and with Saint Paul to the Ephesians lately alleged; yea, it was made heretical to deny this Supremacy of the Council above the Pope: And if that the Head of unity be divided into two, how can two Heads bring men oneness? yea, how can two Heads but divide the Church into two Bodies? It is an undeniable truth, That two Masters, opposing each other, can never cause unity in their servants; he that is at unity with some fellow-servants by cleaving to the one Master, is at division with others that cleave to the other: And they that ma●e the Council the Head and root of unity, as the Council of 
* Synodus in Spiritu sancto congregata legitimè Generale Concilium faciens, Ecclesiam catholicam militantem representans, potestatem à Christo immediatè habet; cui quilibet cujuscunqu● statu vel dignitatis, etsi Papalis existit, obedire tenetur in his quae 〈…〉. Constant. S●ss. 4. & 5.  Constance, and Basil, and many that followed them (especially in France) how must they not needs differ from those that make the Pope to be Head and Lord of unity, by a controlling power over the Council? And accordingly in those points which the Council decreeth as by a supreme power, and the Pope again dissolves as by a supreme power, how can Romists be at unity that are divided in the different beliefs of these two Supremacies? Even in that point resolved in Basil, 
* 
Primò, quod veritas de potestate Concilii generalis supra Papam, est veritas Fidei catholicae. Secundò, veritas haec, etc. Tertiò, quòd veritatibus praedictis pertinaciter r●pugnans, est c●nsendus haereticus.  
Concil. Basil. Sess. 33.   That it is heretical to believe the Pope not to be subject to the Council, how is it possible that Romists should be at unity, of whom a part believes, and a part believes it not; yea, each seem Heretics thereby unto the other? And thus, if in the root of unity there be division, how great is this division? and who can show how ever this division can be reconciled by Romists? For, if there be a free Council, no doubt such a Council will decree the Pope to be subject to it; as they have good reason from Scripture and Antiquity. But if the Pope be free, and may command the Council, who can expect but that the Pope shall judge for himself, and subject Counsels to his headship and infallibility? Behold the great City divided into great parts; and division growing even from their root of unity. Again, many members of this Head of unity are at division about the Pope's earthly Supremacy; some hold that he may only excommunicate Kings, and then can do no more, his power being merely spiritual: others hold, that after excommunication he can depose Kings; yea, cause their subjects to kill them: a weighty controversy, and hardly to be decided amongst Papists, but only by the unity of Kings agreeing together to depose Popes. Again, in some things he takes power to dispense; and in the same things his Doctors say he hath not power to dispense: A pattern of which opposition we may plainly and actually see in the Pope's Bull of Dispensation to Henry the eighth, for marrying his Brother's wife, and the Testimonies under University Seales of the Doctors denying him the power of this Dispensation. These and the like questions concerning the power of this Head of unity, make division between the Head and members, and make division between the members themselves.  
Secondly, we see divisions do again arise from this Head of unity, because this Head leaves many things of controversy so doubtfully decided in Counsels, that their very decisions breed controversies: And what unity is to be expected from such a Head, who by decisions gives occasion of dissensions, and leaves division when he sits of purpose in his Chair under pretence of making unity? So we know 
a These two opinions (of Ve●a and Soto in their Commentaries on some Articles on the Council of 〈◊〉) do not only differ in all the Articles; but, in many of them, are expressly contrary.— I could never find whether that Assembly did agree in one sense; or whether there was unity of words only. H●st. Trent. lib. 2. In this contrariety of opinions both (Catharinus and Soto) writing affirmatively to the Council, either of them did not only say t●at hi● opinion was the opinion of the Synod; but afterwards wrote also▪ and printed Apologies and Antipologies, etc. It doth raise a difficulty, what that Synod was that determined the Article, unto which Soto and 〈◊〉. did write and appeal to, each thinking it was on his side: so that it was necessary that e●ther one of them or both should be deceived.— Perhaps he should hit on the truth, that should say, that debating the contrary opinions in f●aming the Decree, every part did refute words contrary to hi● opinion; and all rested in those which h●e thought might be fi●ted t● hi● own meaning: so that the expression o● the ma●ter become capable of divers interpretations. But this would 〈◊〉 se●ve to resolve the doubt, what the Council was: because it is 〈◊〉 give it unity of word●, and contrariety of meanings. Id. Ib.  Vega and Catharinus (against Soto, and upon the Pope's Decree in the Council of Trent) entered into mighty Controversies: and no wonder; for it was a special craft in that Council to use such general words as might be large enough to hold two differing opinions in them, and so leave the controversies not reconciled, but still at liberty and distance. And now again, where is that vain shift, or rather blasphemous abuse of Scripture, in saying that Papists, by submission to the Pope's Church, do captivate themselves to the obedience of Faith, and so keep unity, when the Pope having judged, and they submitting to his judgement, are yet in division? What is this, but, by submitting to their means of unity, to be still at division? If the Head of unity by deciding make division, how endless and incurable is that division?  
Thirdly, This Head of unity leaves divers controversies wholly undecided; so that, as it hath not been untold by some of his own, he doth as it were leave strife and division to them.  
In their School▪ writers be far more differences than disputations; because divers in one disputation, and perchance in one near a thousand disputations; yea, in some points four of five several opinions, each confuting one another; and these not of light matters only, but of many, if not of all the Cavaliers prime points, The catholic Church, Justification of souls, Communion of Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences; Yea, Doctor john White in his way to the true Church, Digr. 24. undertaketh to demonstrate, that there is no one point denied or affirmed against us, wherein Papists do not vary amongst themselves; and of these differences he gives there divers patterns: And many more are to be seen in Bishop Mortons' catholic Apology. And this division hath been so deadly, that we read that the Dominicans have charged the Franciscans with heresy: and the Franciscans at length had the burning of four Dominicans. Let us hear a strong Dominican, and a cathedral Professor describing the differences of these Romists, 
Frequenter contingit unum Theologum constantissimè asserere se habere Theologicam demonstrationem de aliquo dogmate, & illud deducere per evidentem consequentiam ex sacris literis & traditionibus patrum: Alium verò per oppositum certissimè affirma●e se habere demonstrationem Theologicam, quòd illud sit hae●●esi●, aut erro● in fide, & oppositum ●jus deduci ex sacri● literis per evidentem consequentiam. U●de ipse dicit de illo, quòd er●at in fide, & al●as idem retorquet in istum; imò non 〈◊〉 hoc conting●t inter duos singulares Theologos, sed inter u●am Scholam cum altera. Gonzales in 1. Disp. 2. n. 34.  even to the charging one another with heresy: It often falls out, that one Divine doth most constantly affirm, that he hath a Theological demonstration for some point of doctrine, and that he deduceth it by evident consequence from the sacred Scriptures, and the traditions of the Fathers: But then another on the contrary doth most certainly affirm, that he hath a Theological demonstration that this is heresy, and an error in faith; and that the contrary is deduced from scriptures by evident consequence. Hence he saith of the other, that he erreth in the faith; and the other retorts the same against him: yea this happeneth not only between two particular Divines, but between one School and another.  
And indeed these dissensions, even to the imputation of heresy, do shame the Pope, this infallible judge of controversies, for not resolving them; and do almost plainly confess that he mistrusts his own infallibility, and that he doubts it is scarce trusted by others; for it is likely the fears either that he shall not rightly resolve, or that both sides will not quietly submit, but that some of those who have that burning zeal which consumed the Dominican, will be inflamed against him for his resolutions.  
Fourthly, even against decision there is opposition, and so are they at division, and particularly in that great and weighty point of Idolatry: For that which the Romists call the second Council of Nice, and acknowledge to be a lawful Council, saith plainly of Images thus, 
a 
Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem eodem honore & cultu honorari, & coli, quo colitur id cujus est Imago. Azor. Tom. 1. lib. 9 cap. 6.  
Our faith gives them not Latria (or divine worship) which only belongs to the divine nature. Pseud. Nic. 2. Act. 7.   Illis salutationes & honorariam adorationem tribuant, non tamen secundum fidem nostram veram Latriam, quae solum divinae naturae competit. So that 
b The strength of all these testimonies consists in this, that some reverence is expressly granted to Images, but Latria is expressly denied.  Lorca, after the producing of divers testimonies of this Council, thus inferreth, Vis autem omnium testimoniorum consistit in hoc quod Imaginibus expressè conceditur adoratio, & express etiam eis negatur Latria: And soon after, 
c The Council doth not o●ely exclude Latria, but expresseth the kind of adoration▪ fo● it saith that th●y should be adored 〈…〉 3. Disp. 94. n. 30.33.  Concilium non solum excludit Latriam, sed explicat speciem adorationis; dicit enim adorandas esse honoraria adoratione, & sicut Liber Evangeliorum. And hereunto agreeth Pamelius speaking of this Council, as hath before been alleged. Yet Latria, or divine worship being thus plainly, and, as Lorca 〈◊〉, expressly denied to Images by the C●un●●ll, great and learned Romists plainly say that Latria, or divine worship is to be given to Images, even the same worship which is due to the pattern. So saith ●●zorius; and 
e D● Eccl. Tir. lib. 2. cap. 20.  Bellarmine acknowledgeth that this was the doctrine of Alexander, Aquinas, Caj●t●ne, Bonaventure, Marsil●us, Almain, Carthusian, Capreolus, and others: And accordingly we read 
f Dr. ●gidia● in the discovery o● the Spanish inquisition, & Suar. in 3 Disp. 54. Sect. 4 Stephanus sextu● magno od●o persecutus est, Forn●osi nomen, cujus & ordinationes omnes 〈◊〉 & damnavit● Jam enim tunc caeperat pontificam & virtus & integritas deficere, Romanus 1. unive●sa Acta Stephani improbat & abrog●●●●annis 18. vivēt● Gregorio, Silvester 3. vivente Benedicto, Gregorius ●e●tus vivente Benedicto pontificatum adepti, etc. Ca●. And if we may believe an anciem Pope, to the Popes of these days belongs the main● guilt of this Idolatry; which is now maintained contrary to the Council o● Nicaea For they peenge to teach error (said anciently 〈…〉) who hold their peace when they should reprove it. 〈…〉 qui 〈…〉 ●llis taliter●l qui; In talibus 〈…〉 tacitu●●●as, quia occu●●eret veritas si falsific displicere● 〈…〉 ●●lentio faveai●●us 〈…〉.  of a Doctor of Seville questioned of Heresy for agreeing with the council in denying Latria, contrary to these Doctors.  
Upon that which hath been said, I infer, that our objection of Romish disunions yet stands firm, because there are main disunions objected by us against Rome which this Author hath not touched, and so stand still strong against him: among which is eminent that incurable difference of headship itself, between the Pope and the Council; to which some add the fearful division of the Popedom, when in a schism the Papacy is two or three headed, two or three sitting at once as heads of the Church; and others add the division of successive heads, the one denying and annulling the acts of the other.   

SECT. III.  
The weakness of the Cavaliers answers are manifested: First, for Romish differences are not only of such points as are left at liberty by this Church. Secondly, their pretended religious orders are so many different Sects and Fashions in the Church. Thirdly, the distinction of explicit and implicit faith doth fortify the Protestants objections and no way salve them.  
WHereas to our first objection of difference, concerning variety of opinions in some points found in their Books, he gives this first answer; That wheresoever they find our Doctors to be of a contrary opinion, they shall also find those points in question not to have been defined by the Church, but left at liberty to be debated and disputed as men see cause: This is plainly overthrown by that which hath been produced in our fourth observation of Romish differences: For there we see a point oppugned and denied by Romish Doctors which hath been defined; yea, the power of the Council above the Pope hath been defined by Counsels, and is denied by Romists: To which I may add, that the Pope's 
a Constantinopol. & Chalcedon. expressly set down in the sixth Council thus: Renovantes quae sanctis patribus 150. qui in hac Regia urbe convenerunt & à ●30. qui Chalcedone convenerunt constituta sunt, decernimus; ut thronus Constantinopolitanus aequalia privilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obtineat, & in Ecclesiasticis negotiis ut illa emineat. Secundus, post illam existe●●● post quem Alexandrinorun metropolis numeretur thronus. Deinde Antiochiae, & post eum Hierosolimitanae civitatis. Concil. Constant. cap. 36. Patriarcha graeca lingua summus pater interpretatur, quia primum, i. Apostolorum, retinet locum, & ideo quia summo honore fungitur tali nomine censetur, sicut Romanus, Antiochenus, & Alexandrinus. Isid. origin. lib. 7. cap. 12. And accordingly Gregory the Great saith to the Patriarch●, Scio quis sum, qui estis; Loco enim mihi fratres estis, moribus patres. Greg. mag. Eulogio Ep. Alex. lib. 7. Ep. 30.  power hath been bounded within the limits of a Patriarchate by divers Counsels, which yet Romish Doctors do not only dispute against, but utterly deny. Besides, when they object one to another de Fide, The meaning of it in plain English is this; They tell their fellows that they hold a point contrary to the definition or doctrine of the Church: And whereas he speaks of unity by referring themselves to the future definition of the Church, this is no answer for the differences of those who do dispute and deny those points which by the Church are already defined; for it were absurd to say, that they who do now not submit to the definition of the Church, are ready to submit to it hereafter.  
Again, for those points which have not been defined, certain it is that for the present they are at very hot contention and difference: and their resolving to obey the future definition of the Church, doth no whit prove their present unity, who are presently at division while the Church doth not by defining make unity between them: Two that have a question, and a quarrel upon the question, and upon this quarrel kill one another, may as well be said to agree, because they both would refer themselves to the next man that comes; Which man not yet coming, nor reconciling the difference, they in the mean time, notwithstanding this supposed future agreement, do presently fight, and truly kill one another: Except by this Popish sleight we may truly say that these men being at full agreement and unity were divided, and upon this division, which was indeed an agreement, did fight and kill one another: True it is that it is the more shame for the Pope who hath known these controversies of the Dominicans and others of a long time; And, for a while 
* Cum post quad●iēnale silentium sine suggillatione & censura alterius opin●onis, disputandi & scribendi nobis per summum Pontificem potestas jam facta sit. Vas. Epist. dedic. primo Tomo praefixa.  (as Vasques saith) did forbid them, but most wisely, (though not like an infallible Head of unity) defers to resolve them, and so to set them at unity, but gives them leave still to dispute and differ; being afraid perchance on one side to run against the chief Disciples of Evangelicall Thomas, and on the other side to lose the profit that comes by the many precious consequences of freewill.  
Besides, when they be not agreed which is the Church that hath supreme power to decide controversies, whether the Pope be above the Council or the Council above the Pope; and if the Pope be of one opinion and the Council of another, how doth he that submits himself to the Church, by this submission put himself into a way of unity, or not rather of division? And if such a submission make an unity, the Protestants are at unity much better than Romists; for they submit themselves to the one and undivided word of God truly opened by Apostles and Pastors, endued with gifts from on high by the same spirit which indicted it, and was given of purpose to cause unity of faith. And whereas he gives a second plaster to that first objection of differences of points not defined, that they do not break unity of peace, nor erect Altar against Altar; I say this plaster is much shorter than the sore; for first there hath been showed a sore called difference in points defined, and points de fide: And, by the Author's rule, they that hold any one point of faith contrary to Romish definition, are not of Romish faith nor Church; therefore if they be of a divers faith or Church, their Altar is against the Romish Altar. Secondly, for their peace, notwithstanding these differences, I desire to know whether that should be called peace, when a Dominican is burned by Franciscans; and a Canon in Sevill is condemned as an Heretic for a point either not defined, or defined for him, by the second Council of Nice? And again, 
b The fourth Article, Whether any of them have published in printed books, or openly and in private conference taught any thing contrary to the belief of the Catholic Roman Church? Answer they have, and that every way; in printed books, in written copies or manuscripts, and (but most of all) in private conference. Priest Watson Quodl. 2. It followeth that they must either renounce the Catholic Churches authority in crediting these falsehearted seditions, and erroneous Jesuits, or else renounce the said Jesuitical doctrine. Ib. Art 7. Item, the seculars will be when not one Jesuit shall be left alive in the world (unless they amend their lives and reform their order) but all damned for Heretics, or thrust out of God's Church, as Apostates and Atheists. Ibid.  what peace is that between the Priests and Jesuits, when the Priests call them Heretics, Traitors, etc. Surely hereby it seems the peace that is among such, is but a war under the name of peace, and this name or title is forced by fear of the forged, but fiery and burning head of unity; for even the infernal kingdom itself hath some bond of unity, though not of verity and charity. And accordingly the Papacy agreeth under a head called Abaddon, and Apollyon: And indeed this Author himself hath showed us that where there is a difference in any point of faith, upon such a difference one should be to another as 
a Pa▪ 110.  Cerinthus to Saint john: So that if they hold communion still, it seems by his rule, it is not a spiritual but a carnal communion: 
b And lest it should be thought that saints fall not foul but only upon such Heretics as deny the very prime Articles, etc. Charity mist P. 110.  not a communion of Saints, but a communion that is faulty; and whose fault is this, that it is a communion?  
But I say again to this Author, that his own Answer will be turned against him as an unanswerable objection: For if Romists, being at such differences in opinions, can yet hold communion one with another; why do they not hold the like communion with other Christians that maintain the like differences? But herein lies a mystery, and it is the mystery of iniquity. And if the Reader know it not, I will bring him one that shall teach him; 
c Quemcunque articulum neget, non censetur haereticus, donec Ecclesiae doctrinae rebellis & contumax sit. Lorca in 22. Disp. 3. n. 13.  Lorca plainly tells him, that he is no heretic that believes contrary to any Article of faith, so he do not rebel against the Church: So the Pope (the Church virtual) is the whole matter of Popish religion, and Popish unity; Believe the Pope, and obey him in what he saith upon his word, and though you believe not Christ's word in any Article of faith, you have both faith and unity; Disobey Christ's command of believing the very Article of Christ's Incarnation, if you believe the Pope, and be the Pope's good subject, you shall not be an heretic. Accordingly it is said of the Divines of 
d Consentiunt autem Canonici Colonientes, alias p●i & Catholici (& in margin) Colonienses Canonici, aliqua ex parte consentiunt haereticis. Vasques in 12. Disp. 20●. n. 3.  Coleine; they held an heretical opinion (in that point which the Cavalier magnifies by calling it the Justification of souls) yet they were not heretics, but godly Catholics. And of 
e Est ins●gnis definitio Concilii Tridentini, ubi non solum damnatur error Lutheri, sed etiam statuitur doctrina de certitudine justificationis nost●ae; quae opinio quoque Catharino mi●i●i●è resellitur. Yet a little after he saith thus of Catharinus: Quamvis viro catholico, docto, & pio, etc. Vasques in 12. Disp. 200. n. 39, 40.  Catharinus; he held contrary to the Council in the point of assurance, yet was a catholic Bishop: And others before named by Bellarmine, contrary to the Council of Nice in the point of Image-worship; yet in being good Papists, they are good Catholics; So the Pope is the sum of Popish religion and unity: And is it our unhappiness, that, because we believe not in the Pope, but believe in Christ, our belief in Christ will not serve our turn for religion, unity, and salvation?  
But now in his Answer to the second objection, somewhat like a right Cavalier of Rome, he runs at Tilt against Calvin, and thus he breaks his Lance on him:  
The next objection is yet more stupid than the former; and I wonder how calvin's rage against the Church could put him so far out of his wits, as that he would ever take it into his mouth: For it is he who (being pricked with our noting their want of unity towards their fellow Brethren) thinks to retort it back upon us, by saying that we are not in case to object any such thing against them; for as much as that forsooth we have as many Sects among us, as we have several Orders of religious men; and then he reckons up Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, and whom he will. Wicked man, who well knew that none of these holy Orders doth differ in any point of doctrine from any of the rest; and are so far from breaking communion with them, as that still they prevent one another in all honour and good respect.  
All this we must take upon his bare word, and his title also which he giveth to Calvin, wicked Calvin: yet well fare the honest Belgicks purgers; for when Calvin was named, they, in stead of Calvin, did put in studiosus; so, upon the matter, they called him not wicked, but studious Calvin: But why wicked Calvin? because he knew that no one of those Orders doth differ in any point of doctrine. Did Calvin know this, or doth any man, yea, the Author himself yet know it? We come but now from the differences of Jesuits and Priests, Dominicans and Franciscans, etc. And this Author himself confesseth there, that each opposeth the contrary opinion by all arguments that occur. Besides, it is no new nor strange objection, that divers covents have their several Masters whom they follow. Again, look on the Jesuits doctrine of kill Kings: do all Friars agree in these doctrines, upon which much more justly may be cried out, wicked Mariana, wicked Friar Clement, wicked Barradius, wicked Garnet? doctrines, in my opinion, plainly contrary to the faith; since the faith is plainly taught by the Scripture in this point: And I think more heretical it is to deny and contradict such a point, being thus plainly taught in the Scripture by David, Solomon, Peter and Paul; then to deny what the Pope hath decided by letters sent from Rome unto Trent.  
But will you see this Author's ingenuity? he accuseth Calvin, 
1 Sam. 26.9. Eccles. 10.20. Rom. 13.1, 2. 1 Pet. 2.13, 17. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 13. n. 14.  but produceth not the place whence he taketh his accusation: the nearest place that I find is not for the Author's purpose; for there Calvin retorts not the want of unity of faith among the Friars, by the diversity of Sects among them: But Calvin shows, That the Friars, by dividing themselves from others in the Sacraments and public Assemblies, did dissolve the Communion of the Church, and depart from it, and excommunicate themselves: And he says, that so many Ministeries as there be of this kind, so many Assemblies of schismatics (he says not heretics, as differing in faith) which, troubling the Order of the Church, are cut off from the lawful fellowship of the faithful. And, that this departing should not be secret, they have given to themselves divers names of Sects: Neither were they ashamed to boast of that which S. Paul doth so much detest; In stead of Christians we hear some called Benedictines, some Franciscans, some Dominicans. So that here we find neither mention of Carmelites, nor indeed of differing in points of faith; but of a schismatical separation from other Christians by different sects, expressed by different names. And to them he might have added Jesuits, who by a more near separation have divided Jesus from Christ, and so themselves from Christians; though, as it hath been told them (and as it is said by a Pope from S. Paul) all Christians are called ad societatem jesu Christi, to the society both of Jesus, and of Christ, 1 Cor. 1.9. But surely, if this be the Author's place in Calvin, it is likely he hath either forgotten Calvin, or was not trusted with the reading of Calvin; and some one that was trusted, but not trusty, told him it would serve his turn, and deceived him.  
As for the wonderful wisdom which this Author speciously sets forth in the differences 
Habitus & tonsura modicum conferunt; sed mutatio morum, & integra mortificatio passionum verum faciunt religiosum. T. Kemp. de Imit. Christ. lib. 1. c. 17  of those Order; That wisdom is here come to pass which Solomon condemneth, when he saith, 
Salvatur secularis per fidem in Christum, per eandem & Religiosus. Non te salvabit quòd Minoritanus 〈◊〉, sed quòd Christianus. Ferus in Rom. 3.  Be not wise over much: for humane wisdom hath so far wrought herein, that Orders have been multiplied far beyond the gifts of continency; yea, above the good both of Church and Common wealth. And so far were they (as this Author saith) from stripping themselves from earthly incumberances to fly fast into heaven, that too much they stripped both Lai●y and Clergy of earthly maintenances, and therewith have made to themselves fleshly incumberances. But of this wisdom before hath been given to the Reader such a representation, that I think it appeared to him not to be spiritual, but carnal, earthly, and devilish, if not in the invention, yet in the execution; and therefore for brevity thither I remit the Reader: Only I wish the Author would prove what he saith by some place of Scripture; That God inspired the Founders of Orders with several spirits, and that there is a special spirit with which an Order was first endued; especially if that Scripture were rightly applied by Abbot Whitgift, 
See the life & death of Archbishop Whitgift.  That Monkery was a plant which the heavenly Father planted not, and therefore should be pulled up by the roots: Which Prophecy was soon after fulfilled in this Land.  
The Cavalier comes now to dismount a third objection of Protestants concerning Romish difference, which ariseth, as he saith, in regard of the differences between learned and unlearned men: which he assayeth to take away by a distinction of explicit and implicit faith, in this manner; A man is said to have explicit faith of any article or doctrine, when he hath heard it particularly propounded to him, and hath some particular knowledge thereof, and gives particular assent thereunto: But as for implicit faith of any article or doctrine, a man is then said to have it, when he believes that concerning it, which the Church teacheth them explicitly who are capable thereof, although for his own part he have not perhaps so much as heard of it in particular; or if he did, he hath forgot it; or if he did remember it, he hath not capacity enough to apprehend or understand it. And when he hath showed this distinction, he labours with great vehemency to prove it, and affirms, That without this it would be wholly impossible to maintain any Church in any unity of faith at all: and finally concludes, That this sword of ours is turned into a buckler wherewith to defend them.  
First, for the pains he takes to make good this distinction, he takes it to make good our objection, and so labours for us, and against himself; for upon this distinction being grounded we ground our objection, and say; that this distinction leaves even the like differences amongst Romists for which they accuse and damn us, and leaves no better unity among them than it leaves among us. And if thus, than it is both a sword in our hand to hurt them, and a buckler also to defend us against them: neither have they any buckler to defend themselves against this sword; much less will this sword that wounds them, become a buckler to defend the wounds which itself gives. But the only safe way is, with that King who comes with the weak side, to send Ambassadors for peace to the stronger.  
Now to show that this distinction being strengthened doth strengthen our objection, and so is a true sword against Romists; I say, That in those points of faith which are beyond the explicites or fundamentals, & are called implicites, there are differences among Romists as well as among us; and these differences are not only such as are discovered by the ell, by which the faith of the unlearned is found shorter than that of the learned, but the Cloth itself within the measure of the learned is torn into pieces, and the learned themselves do differ in the belief of the said points among themselves as well as from the unlearned: And this hath been showed before, and is indeed a part of D. Whites undertaking formerly mentioned: I may instance in a point or two, 
a Audito nomine transubstantiationis, tanta inter recentiores aliquos scholasticos de natura illis exorta fuit controversia, ut quo magis se ab ea extricare conati fuerint, eò majoribus difficultatibus seipsos implicaverint. Vasq. in 3. Dis. 181. ubi Andabatarum pugna graphicè depingitur. vide etiam Suar. in 3. Tom. 3. Disp. 50. S. 4. Propter hanc difficultatem Theologi in explicanda hac actione, & termino ejus valdè divisi sunt. prima sententia est, etc.  Transubstantiation is an Article of their new faith, and not usually reckoned among their explicites; the one part of the learned hath believed that the substance of Bread being abolished, the Body of Christ is brought to the place of it; another part believes that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body; (which I nothing doubt was the first meaning of this new doctrine) each confutes either: And an unlearned man that stands by may easily (being over-weighed with the reasons of both) either believe neither, or somewhat else of his own. And indeed I myself have asked one of their 
b See the like in Anti Machavels preface of part 2.  Proselytes whether he would chew or tear the body of Christ with his teeth; and he told me that he did not think that their 
c Alii tradunt corpus Christi essentialiter frangi & dividi, & tamen integrum & incorruptibile existere: quod se colligere asserunt ex confessione Berengarii, qui confessus est coram Nicolao papa non solum sub sacramento, sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari & ●ideliū dentibus atteri. ●om. 4 D. 12.  Doctors would say it; so also in the point of Image-worship, a matter of deep consequence, and much concerning life and death, yet by them left among Implicites: One side of the Doctors holds a plain worship of the Image of Christ with Latria, or divine honour; and others hold this honour given properly to Images to be Idolatry, and either give it improperly, or give an inferior reverence, or no religious reverence at all. But the 
d Quis ergo dubitat ho●ū Imagines consecratas vulgus orare & publicè colere, dum opinio & mens Imperitorum artis concinnitate decipitur, auri fulgore perstringitur, Argenti nitore, & candore eboris nebetatur. Min. Foel. in Octavio.  unlearned man when he sees the Image set in Churches covered with gold, turning his head and eyes, weeping, & working miracls, saith, with the Lycaonians, Gods are common to us in the shape of men: and thinks he cannot worship God too much, and therefore doth it with all his soul and all his might, even with a perfect Idolatry.  
Now, are not these differences of moment among them in their Explicites? many more such there are which it were, too tedious to repeat; & indeed their differences must needs be much more than ours, because many of their learned Explicites are errors, and in errors there can never be a full agreement; for, if any one hath that good spirit which makes discovery of them, he commonly is opposed and contradicted by the others error; as here, the not worshippers of the Image with divine worship, is opposed by the worshipper. Besides, he that is in the dark, and sees not what to believe, if he believe any thing, he can but believe an imagination of his own, and not a real ttuth; and so must needs differ from him who seeth the truth, and believes it being seen: As for their unlearned who walk most in the dark, though sometimes it may happen two blind men may stumble upon one path, yet it is impossible but that mostly they must differ in their opinions concerning that which they know not.  
And whereas our Author would fain make these differences to be an agreement by a resolution to believe what the Church teaches; we have already showed that this resolution doth no way make them actually to agree that actually do disagree. And the Canon of Seville, I think, would scarcely have believed the Inquisitors, if they had told him, We agree with you about Image-worship, because we both resolve to believe as the Church teacheth, though we condemn you for an Heretic because we do not agree.  
And indeed there is no possibility of making an actual agreement in those lesser points, because of the different capacities and degrees of faith: And God in the Scripture hath not promised such an actual agreement to all the members of the Church in all lesser points of doctrine; for he hath not promised a full and uniform discovery of them to all: Yea, 
a Stapleton pr●fesseur de controverse● à Do●ay, un de plus doctes Catholics de nostre temps, & qui plus exactement à escrit cest argument tientque l● S. Esprit est Promise d'assister aux conciles seulement es choses necessaire● & qu'es autres ils pe●uent error. Ex. pacif. chap. 3.  it hath been showed out of your own great Doctor Stapleton, by a Roman Catholic, that in the discovery of small points the Church is not infallibly directed: And even therefore I conceive that this distinction was first framed to give leave for that difference which necessarily followeth humane ignorance, and which (even by the Cavaliers confession) cannot be avoided in different capacities, and measures of faith: And yet having acknowledged such a necessity of this distinction, he both labours to deny the differences on his own side, for which this distinction was necessarily made, and which the very making of it doth acknowledge; and he labours to accuse our differences which this distinction would excuse as well as his own: So it is still a sword against Romists to confound them whilst they deny their own differences; neither can the forge of Rome ever turn it to a Buckler to defend them in this denial: But it is a Buckler to us to defend us from their objecting of differences against us, seeing this distinction doth both acknowledge a necessity of some lesser differences, and so excuseth us.  
And thus may we come to a sight of the unity of faith in the Church; For in the explicites, that is, in fundamentals of absolute necessity which knit unto Christ the foundation, there is and aught to be an unity; and this substantial unity may cover the incurable differences in the lesser implicit points being held by Infirmity, and not with Contention, Scandal, and Schism: For unity in fundamentals doth take away the damning censure of differences in lesser points when there is a will of believing right in these points, but a want of power to attain this belief. And so these differences in lesser points not being put upon account for the will of unity in them, and for the real unity in fundamentals, this real unity in fundamentals is accounted an entire, or at least a solid and saving unity: So that the unity is not to be reckoned from this, that all do actually agree in this belief of all lesser points, (for in divers of these points divers do necessarily differ;) but because their unity in fundamentals, and a will of unity in these lesser points wherein they differ (the imputation of smaller differences being thus taken away) are accounted to them for an entire, or at least for a sufficient unity. And this truth is in not much unlike Terms to be seen in Tertullian: 
a 
Tertullian de velandis virgin. cap. 1.  
The rule of faith is only unmoveable. And de Praes. c. 12. Quaeramus ergò in nostro & à nostris & de nostro, idque dumtaxat quod salva regula fidei potest in quaestionem devenire. Let us inquire or dispute of that which may come into question without hurting the rule of faith.   Regula quidem fidei una omninò est, sola immobilis, & irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum, omnipotentem mundi conditorem, & Filium ejus jesum Christum, etc.  
But hereof more must be said in the following Chapters, wherein the Author brings us to fundamentals, being himself indeed necessarily brought to them by this former distinction of Explicites and Implicites; yet he goes about to fight against that unity which is established by this distinction, and against the distinction which himself hath established, and so will be accounted a Trespasser by destroying what he hath built; but indeed this distinction being resisted by him, will resist and overthrow him.  
In the mean time this stands still firm and unremoved, That the Romists have great, sharp and weighty differences among them, as weighty, if not far weightier then Protestant's; and therefore they want charity to Protestants in damning Protestants for such differences, while for the like or greater differences, even de fide, they are bountiful to give salvation each to other: and this they do because they are servants of one Master the Pope; whose service we wanting should indeed be no more hated for this freedom, than Israel for being delivered out of the bondage of Egypt: 
Exod. 14.5.  Yet both then and now we see the Egyptians make after us with violence and malice, hating us for no other fault but for our freedom from Egypt: But God that then began, and after made good his work of deliverance, I hope will do it also for us, and he will be above them, even in that wherein they were proud above us; 
Ex. 18.10, ●●.  and cover the Sea of Rome, the mother of uncharitableness, with a Sea of confusion.    

CHAP. X.  
Containing an answer to the Cavaliers eighth Chapter, wherein he quarrels at the distinction of Fundamental, and not Fundamental: and is divided into three Sections.  

SECT. I.  
First, showeth the Protestants separation from Rome to be reasonable, though it be true that some in the Church of Rome may be saved. Secondly, That the Papists are the faulty causes of that separation.  
A City generally infected with the plague, and a few persons only being free, will it be thought a reasonable question to be proposed to some that fly from this City, Why do ye fly, since you know and acknowledge that all are not infected to death, but some live in this City? But if the King of that City should banish all that should say that the Plague were in the City, yea, would put them to death; were it not yet a far more unreasonable question to ask those who had given out such a report, Why do you fly that are banished? and, Why do you fly that must die if you fly not? Yet such are the questions of this Author in the head of this Chapter, of which, it seems, that the repetition might serve for a confutation. It is the acknowledgement and complaint of a 
a Cass. Consult. Art. 7. Praecipuam causam hujus calamitatis & distractionis Ecclesiae, illis assignandam qui inani quodam fastu Ecclesiasticae potestatis inflati, rectè & modestè admonentes superbè & fastidiosè contempserunt & repulserunt. Quare nullam Ecclesiae pacem sperandam puto, nisi ab iis initium fiat qui distractionis causam dederunt, etc. Item in libello de Off. pii viri. De correctione admonentes, & ad curationem exhortantes, operamque suam ad id efficiendum offerentes, non modo reji●iunt, & ab Ecclesiae societate depellunt; verum etiam multis in locis crudeliter interficiendo censuerunt: quae res huic miserabili schismati occasionem dedisle videtur.  son of the Church of Rome, The chief cause of the calamity of the Church is to be ascribed unto them, who being puffed up with the vain pride of Ecclesiastical power, have proudly and contemptuously despised and driven away those who rightly and modestly admonished them, etc. And again, Those who speak to them of amendment, that exhort them to be healed; yea, that offer their help to effect it, they not only cast out, and drive from the fellowship of the Church; but also in many places have judged them miserably to be slain: which thing seem; to have given the occasion of this wretched schism.  
See here Rome diseased, and her healers cast out that tell her of her diseases, yea, cruelly slain. And now, if the Author be not ashamed, let him ask why Protestants fly from Rome; yea, let him ask of Saint john the Divine, why men should go out of Babylon, that they may not be partakers of her sins, nor of her plagues; and of Christ himself, if they persecute his members in one City, why should they fly into another; and of the blind man in the Gospel, why do you stay out of the Synagogue when you are cast out? Surely, when the Author useth these questions, what will his Readers think, but that he is very unreasonable to have Protestants stay where they are cast out, or where they must be spiritually or corporally slain for staying? This unreasonableness of his puts me in mind of a Captain, who espying his enemy going up Ludgate hill faster than he could follow him, having drawn his sword, called out to him, and swore that if he did not stay, he would kill him; but the other believed that if he had stayed he should be killed, and therefore went away the faster: So this Cavalier, when the Pope drives out Protestants before him with excommunications, pestilence, fire and sword, he cries after them that they shall be damned if they stay not, whereas they doubt that they shall be damned and killed if they stay: indeed, this was a great fault of theirs, that they did not stay to be killed, that, by taking their death patiently, the Pope might go on with selling Indulgences and his other merchandizes quietly. Yet may you hear the Cavalier even choleric in such unreasonable questioning; With what colour could certain single, base, and filthy men have presumed to depart from the visible Catholic Church of Christ our Lord, and to erect their conventicles as they did, if they had not at least professed that they could not find salvation there? Where first we acknowledge the titles to be of the Author's mere bounty, out of a Romish Treasury of charity mistaken; and because they bear the superscription of Rome, we send them back to Rome, as being theirs and not ours. But secondly, we deny that they departed from the catholic Church; for, in the second Chapter, we have showed that Protestants have still communion with the catholic Church; they fled not from health, but from the plague; not from salvation, but damnation; not from the whole, but from the sick: Neither did they fly only, but were cast out and banished; and not only cast out, but in danger of death if they stayed, except they would deny that the plague of Rome was a disease. The remnant that hath salvation there they pity, and love as their living brethren in a deadly Pesthouse, or Israel in Egypt, sweeting under the burdens of brick, and under the whips of Egyptian and Romish Taskmasters. And whereas the Cavalier speaks of Conventicles, to his grief, he sees that they are not shut up in private Conventicles, but have obtained large Congregations: And being excommunicated from the Romish Synagogue, as the blind man from the Jewish, jesus hath found 
a john 9.35. The word found seems to import, that jesus sought him being cast out, and seeking found him. So Ferus out of Ezek. 34.16. I will s●ck that which was lost.  them, and vouchsafed his communion to them; and he not only converseth with them, but teacheth them: he hath taught their Teachers by giving them gifts from on high, and he hath taught the hearers by writing his Laws in their hearts; he hath given them the spirit of prayer and praise; and they have prayed heartily against Babylon, her Idolatries, Invasions, Treasons; and being heard, they have given praises for the ruins of Babylon, and the deliverances of Zion: and having such encouragements from jesus, can you blame them if they meet in Congregations where jesus thus meets with them, and is in the midst of them with his grace and blessings? As for this Nation (whom this Author's words, by the language he writes in, should chiefly concern) we have a true Church, and an orderly Reformation, Cassander, a better Romish 
b Eos damnare non possum qui in fundamentis Apostolicae doctrinae persistentes, study sincerae Religionis cum aliqua correctionis indigere ab eruditis & piis viris admoniti intelligant, in aliqua Ecclesiae parte, praeunte summâ authoritate, accedente communi illius Ecclesiae consensu, in doctrinae genere aliqua repurgarunt. Quis enim membro vitio vertat, si reliquo corpore laborante, & sui curam negligent, ipsum sui curam suscipiat? Cassander de Offic. pii viri.  Author, being Judge.  
And whereas the Cavalier accuseth at once both our straightness and our largeness; That being fallen into straits, we become so bountiful and large, as to affirm, that the differences between us concern not the fundamental points; and that Romists may be saved. I think that the Author may mislead his Reader both in our straits and our largeness; for we are at large where he counts us in straits, and we are straighter than his words of our largeness would seem to import: for few Protestants, that I know, do say without limitation, That Romists generally may be saved; yea, our Author himself will not suffer them to be saved, though they hold fundamentals: for, if they hold them by a humane faith, because the Pope, their friend, tells them so, his own doctrine will not suffer them to be saved. But indeed, for those that believe fundamentals by a supernatural faith, we do say, that they may be saved by this faith. But of this in the former Chapter we have spoken more fully; only let this Author know, that we do it not for any straits (as he would persuade) but out of largeness, even largeness of verity and charity; and I may return the saying of Saint Paul to all true believers, even in Sodom and Egypt, Ye are not kept strait in us, but in yourselves: 
2. Cor. 6.12.13.  for a recompense, be ye therefore enlarged; for we justly expect a return of the like acknowledgement of our salvatiom from all true members of Christ, and say, That the denial of it, according to the Authors words, Lays an heavy charge of uncharitableness upon the deniers.   

SECT. II.  
The Cavalier is angry at the distinction of matters fundamental or not fundamental: 1. Because some Popish vanities are thereby excluded. 2. Because the Pope's power to make slight matters fundamental is denied.  
He goes on both to clear and condemn us in this which follows: This discourse of theirs, and their standing so much upon fundamental points of faith in the sense which they use, is a mere Chimaera; but it is frequented by them through an high kind of craft: For, though it be most true, That some doctrines are in themselves of far more importance than some others, because the knowledge thereof may be necessary for the performance of some duty which is required at our hands; or else because they may contain the very heads, and first grounds of Christianity more than others do, and therefore do exact a more explicit belief at the hands of Christians, and consequently may be accounted in some respests more fundamental, etc. Here, though they seem to accuse us of an high craft▪ and of a Chimaera; yet withal, thus far he acknowledgeth our Truth, and cleareth it from being a Chimaera, That some doctrines are of far more importance than some others, containing the very heads and first grounds of Christianity more than others do, and therefore do exact a more explicit belief, and consequently may be accounted, in some respects, more fundamental. This I desire the Reader to observe, because this confirmeth that which hath been formerly spoken concerning the agreement between Fundamentals and Explicites, and must serve hereafter for a Confutation of his own objections against Fundamentals. In the mean time, that which pains him for the present is this, That we do not believe every Decree or Error of the Pope, as well as these important grounds of Christianity: for thus he presently subjoineth, There is no doctrine at all concerning Religion, the belief whereof is not fundamental to my salvation, if the catholic Church propound and command me to believe it. So the Cavaliers quarrel against us is this, That we do not make the worship of Images, kindred of Gossips, and such popish vanities, fundamental to our salvation, as the Articles of the Trinity, and Christ's Incarnation. A fearful blasphemy, and which should make his heart hate his hand for writing it: but they well deserve to be given up to the belief of such impious errors, who receive not the love of the truth revealed in the word with du● estimation: For such will easily equal the word of Man to the word of God, and will not suffer the word of God to stand for a sufficient saving verity, nor a sufficient ground of unity, except man give his word for the word of God, and Man add his word to the word of God: For▪ if the Pope give his word for a doctrine contained in God's word, than his Popish disciples must receive it; and until that they may without heresy not believe it: and if the Pope add his word to the word of God, God's word is not a sufficient ground of unity, but the unity made by that word is to be torn in pieces, if withal we do not join the word of the Pope in one belief with it. Thus is the Pope made Christ's Rival, and takes the faith of the spouse from her husband to himself. And so, whereas he would accuse us of an high craft, our craft is no other than that simplicity of S. Paul, by which he did labour to espouse the Church as a chaste Virgin to one Husband which was Christ: 
2. Cor. 11.2, 3.  But this Romish doctrine is the very craft of the old Serpent and Dragon, which goes about to seduce Eve (the pattern of the Church) from her Husband, 
Iste seipsum praedicat non sponsum, & idcircò pellendus est de interiori thalamo, quia Adulter est foris. Agab. ad Clericos.  and to marry her to the Pope, or rather to make her his Adulteress. But let him remember, Whoremongers and Adulterers (especially such great ones) God will judge; Yet this would he approve by that which follows: For there is no error in faith, which may not be made damnable by the manner of holding it, when it is done so obstinately as that in defence thereof a man denies the authority of the Catholic Church. But briefly I answer; First, that the Church cannot make a point of faith of that which is none. Secondly, Stapleton tells us that the Church hath no promise to be infallibly directed in the decision and resolution of small or light points, and so the Church not having this infallible direction, cannot have authority to make such points fundamental, nor to command faith to them where she hath no infallible direction in them. Thirdly, the Church in these lesser points not having this authority, he doth not disobey the authority of the Church who believeth not these points which she hath no authority to command as points of faith. Fourthly, if the Church were this foundation, and could make a point fundamental, yet the Pope, and his confederacy for whom this Author fights, is not the Church. Fifthly, the same Popish Church hath taught and propounded many gross errors and untruths for points of doctrine, which are so far from being fundamental to salvation, that they shake the very foundation, and so are rather fundamental to damnation. But here I cannot but complain of this Author in that he useth craft, which himself accuseth; for, while he goes about to lay the Pope (the Chimaera of Rome) for a foundation of faith, he names him not in his whole book, but still tells us of the catholic Church, let him come forth plainly out of his Covert, and show us his catholic Church, even the Pope and his adherents, if he be not ashamed of them; and not thus draw disciples to a fancy, and a piece of Poetry, under the real and reverend name of the catholic Church. But this may serve as a caveat to the Reader, that the Cavalier tells us of the Church, when the Pope is his errand. Another point whereof he seems to be ashamed is the worship of Images, which he never reckons among the doctrines of difference; but, if it please him, he may now fitly conjoin them together, and then his discourse may run thus: If the Pope decree the worship of Images, it may be fundamental to salvation, if with the denial of Idolatry the Pope's authority be denied: Yet our Author having spoken that which is proved to be fearfully untrue in his sense, (that what the Pope and his conspiracy under the name of the catholic Church do propound, and command to be believed is fundamental) he is bold to say, This (untruth) is unanswerably proved by the mere catalogues of heresies which have been made by several Fathers of the Primitive Church, and especially by S. Austin, in his Treatise ad quod vult Deum: which I have touched before, and which I earnestly exhort my Reader to peruse at large. This is so far from being unanswerable, that it hath been answered; and our Author can never make it good that those points, which he acknowledgeth to be of little importance in themselves; were there declared to be fundamental, for being obstinately maintained against the decision & command of the Pope and his Council, e●ther private, or public; so that the Author only makes up with boldness and undertaking, what he wants in evidence and proof.  
And, as in the following piece he prefers his Reader to the sixth and fifth Chapters, so I also refer him to the answer of those Chapters; and there, besides other solutions, he may see that the example of Saint Cyprian makes mightily against the Pope's authority, since it plainly appears that Saint Cyprian did hold the Pope's fallibility, when he plainly held the contrary to that which the Pope had decided.  
And thus, being put besides his premises, he is also deprived of his conclusion: The distinction of points of faith into fundamental and not fundamental doth stand still in such full truth and power; that the unbelief of points not fundamental doth not presently forfeit salvation, though the same points be decided by the Pope, and his conspiracy; much less do worship of Images, Prayer in an unknown tongue, salvation by merits, the Pope's supremacy (especially taken for a foundation of faith) though decided and commanded by the Pope, cause damnation by being unbelieved, but rather by being believed.   

SECT. III.  
The Papists as much bounden to declare their Explicites, as the Protestants their Fundamentals. This distinction may be rightly used for the manifestation of our union with the Fathers, to prove the perpetual visibility of the Church, professing the same Fundamentals with us; but unjustly objected as a ground of our severity against Papists, who are punished here as Traitors, for overthrowing the foundations of State; not as Heretics for contradicting the foundations of Faith.  
He goes on: I should be glad to know of the Authors of this distinction, what points of their faith which are controverted between them and us, or between the Lutherans and them, are fundamental, and which are not fundamental; Then he says, That a fundamental point being such, that whosoever believes it not cannot be saved; there is nothing which more imports a man exactly to learn, than what is fundamental, and what not, and yet there is absolutely no one thing which hath been so frequently and so importunately desired, as that they would give in some exact List or Catalogue of all and the only fundamental points of faith; and yet there is no one thing wherein we are so little satisfied, and which upon the matter they do so absolutely refuse; And yet (as hath been here expressed) if according to their grounds, a man should fail of believing any one fundamental point of faith, by his not knowing (through their fault) that the point which he believed not was fundamental, he must be sure to perish, and that for ever.  
First to his question, what are fundamentals, and what not, he ought to give an answer himself; for he himself hath told us, Page 74. That some doctrines are of far more importance than others, because they may contain the very heads and first grounds of Christianity more than others do, and therefore exact a more Explicite belief, and consequently may be accounted in some respects more fundamental. It being then acknowledged by him, that there are such doctrines of far greater importance than others, that exact a more Explicite belief, and are more fundamental; why doth he not answer himself concerning that which himself affirmeth, and yet withal questioneth? Let him truly tell us, or himself if he please, which are those doctrines of more importance, that contain the heads of Christianity, and are more fundamental, and give us a List of them, and we may tell him or he may tell himself an answer to his question: And then also may he by this List, as by a Touchstone and Rule, find what differences between us and any others are fundamental and not fundamental. So that he being herein engaged himself, either he hath spoken that whereof he cannot give an account, or else asks of us an account of that which he knows, and wherein he can answer himself. And indeed the 
a Quantum ergo ad prima credibilia, quae sunt articuli fidei, tenetur homo explicitè credere, sicut & tenetur habere fidem: quantum autem ad alia credibilia, non tenetur homo explicitè credere, sed solum implicitè, vel in praeparatione animi in quantum est paratus credere quicquid divina Scriptura continet, etc. Aq. 22. q. 2. A. 5. See more hereafter in the diversity o● Explicites.  Authors own partners or rather leaders, have laid the foundation of these fundamentals in their Explicites: for their Heads, Articles, and Grounds of Religion to which they require an Explicite belief, are such as those which we call fundamental; yea, not only we but the Author himself calleth such points more fundamental, and his own Priests 
b The Priest T.W. as I find him alleged by B. White in his Orthodox Page 134. And the Priest Master Smith asks Mr. Walker whether the Church of England may err in points fundamental: and the Council of Trent, Sess. 3. calls the Creed Fundamentum firmum & unicum.  call them positively fundamental. Besides, the very rules of faith mentioned and rehearsed by 
c De prescript. cap. 14. Certè, aut non obstrepant, aut quiescant adversus Regulam. Nihil ultra scire, omnia scire est.  Tertullian and 
d Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 19 Cum teneamus Regulam veritatis; id est, Quia sit unus Deus omnipotens, etc.  Irenaeus, and other Fathers 
e In his verè completur Prophetia qua dicitur verbum consummans, & brevians in AEquitate— Istud indicium posuerunt, per quod agnosceretur is qui Christum verè secundum Apostolicas Regulas praedicaret. Ruffin. in Symbolum. Sigillum integrum, id est, Symbolum Catholicum. Optat. lib. 2. adversus Pa. Symbolum est breviter complexa Regula fidei. Et, totius Catholicae legis fides Symboli colligitur brevitate. Aug. de Temp. S. 119.115. Regula fidei pusillis, magnisque communis. Aug de fide, etc. Est autem Symbolum per quod agnoscitur Deus, quod quique proindè credentes accipiunt ut noverint qualiter contra Diabolum fidei certamina praeparent. In quo quidem pauca sunt verba, sed omnia continentur Sacramenta, etc. Isid. de off. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 22. Patrum consensio non in omnibus legis divinae quaestiunculis, sed solùm, certè, praecipuè, in fidei Regula. Item in iis duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus totius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nitantur. Vincent. Livin. cap. 39 & 41. , the Symbols and Creeds of Nice▪ other Counsels, and of Athanasius, and Lirinensis his precipua Capita, or chief Heads (yea, he hath the word fundamental) are sums and acknowledgements of such fundamentals. And now how can this Author either be so far uncatechised as not to know such grounds of Religion, or call Protestant's the authors of this distinction? and how can he object any thing against Protestants, or require any thing of them, but object the like against his own Teachers; yea, against the Fathers of the Church, and require the like of them? Accordingly, how can he ask an exact List and Catalogue of Fundamentals of Protestants more then of Fathers, yea, of his own Doctors and Masters? And indeed, let him bring an exact List and Catalogue of all the only Articles of Faith contained in the Father's rules of faith, and an exact List of all and the only Explicites of the Romists; and he may quickly receive a Catalogue of our Fundamentals. But this Author is here again exceedingly out of his way, and that the Title of his Chapter might tell him by the wariness of it; for his business is not to deny a distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals, in regard of greater or lesser importance of the Articles themselves; but, this being granted, to adjoin and superedifie; that, though this distinction do stand, yet even points of lesser importance, and in themselves not fundamental, may be made fundamental by the command and authority of the Pope: So that his quarrelling at this distinction is not only a quarrel from his errand, but a quarrel against the Fathers, and a quarrel against himself, and against his fellow-Romists: and if he make quarrels against himself and his fellows, why may we not leave them and him to make up their own quarrel among themselves?  
And accordingly, whereas this Author makes a fearful noise how dear it concerns men to know which are fundamentals, we might turn him to get an answer for this outcry from himself and his fellow-Romists, yea, from the Pope himself; for Romists say, that the Explicites are such points, that he who doth not know them cannot be saved: Then the Authors terrible words do thus warfare against himself (putting Explicites for Fundamentals) That there is nothing in all Christian Religion which imports a man more exactly to learn, then what are these Explicites, without the knowledge whereof none can be saved: And an exact List and Catalogue should be given of these Explicites, which yet the infallible Pope hath never given to his Papists: So that if a Papist should fail of believing an Explicite, by not knowing it to be an Explicite, he must be sure to perish, and that for ever.  
Yet the Cavalier (in wrath and war against unity) proceeds further in fight against his own confessed and undeniable distinction of Explicites and Fundamentals; and he so proceeds, that it may easily be seen that his anger puts out the eye of his judgement, or carries him beyond the ken of it: For thus he saith, Whereas, if either they framed not the distinction of Fundamentals at all, or else would clearly let men know which points alone were fundamental; then this would follow, That whensoever we should convince them in any particular Doctrine which is denied by them, and which yet was believed by the ancient Fathers, they would be obliged to confess, that either that point was not fundamental, which would dis-able them from railing at us for believing the same; or else that the Fathers were of a different Religion in fundamental points from them, and that in their own opinion those very Fathers could not be saved: which would put them to much prejudice another way. Here leaving to the Author his own term of railing, (wherein I wonder he should delight, but that I see elsewhere he takes pleasure in the mentioning of scurrile and blasphemous Invectives) I say, that some errors be not fundamental which are found in the Fathers, and now maintained by Romists: yet we are not disabled by this distinction to reprove Romists for them; for we do not say in this distinction, that no errors should be reproved but those which are fundamental, for even lesser errors are to be reprehended; but we say, that these errors in lesser points do not break the unity which by greater and more fundamental points is made between Christ and his members, and between the members themselves.  
And secondly, we say, that Romists are much more to be reproved if they hold any errors of the Fathers now in controversy between us; for these controverted errors have been now by the Scriptures more evidently discovered to be errors; and it is a thing far more worthy of blame, if a man should run into a ditch by day, then if he should stumble into it by night.  
But whatsoever exactness this Author may require or imagine in this distinction, this exactness being granted, it will never make it to appear, that we differ from the unanimous belief of the Fathers in the main points mentioned in their rules of faith, now called Fundamentals. And for his Argument concerning the Lutherans, it doth not endanger us; for, if the Lutherans should be found by this distinction to differ from us in these fundamental points which should unite them to Christ, it is no hurt to us to renounce the communion of those who renounce communion with Christ. And on the other side, if by it they be found to differ from us in points not fundamental, it would be no danger nor just disreputation to us to avow those points, wherein we differ, not to be fundamental: but we will much rather disavow the quarrels which are made where there is no fundamental difference.  
The period which follows, as far as it is a true Narration of our way of making peace by this distinction with the Fathers and the Lutherans, is a commendation both of the distinction, and our peacemaking by it. But, by the way, I deny, That Romists have brought us from denying via facti; That the Fathers taught the doctrine of Praying to the Saints, or for the dead, in the sense and manner of Rome; for the Fathers did not unanimously teach praying to Saints; I am sure Saint 
a Profecto quod sacer Psalmus pe●sonat verum est, Quoniam pater meus & mater mea dereliquerunt me, Dominus autem assumpsit me; Si ergò dereliquerunt nos patres nostri, quomodo curis nostris & rebus intersunt? si autem parentes non intersunt, qui sunt alli mortuorum qui noverint quid agamus, quidve patiamur? Ib● ergò sunt spiritus defunctorum ubi non vid●n● quaecunque aguntur, aut eveniunt in ista vita hominibus. August de cura pro mortuis cap. 13.  Augustine, who was above 400. years after Christ, doth deny Saints to know ordinarily the affairs of the living which happen after their decease. And for prayers for the dead in Purgatory, the Cavalier cannot show a good pattern for more years than the former.  
As for the difference in the number of Canonical Books (which it seems this Author is sorry that it is not avowed to be fundamental) it is not altogether new, but ancient; and we see it at this day in the Syriack: and it were pity to cut off from salvation all the Churches and Fathers which ever differed in this number; yea, 
b Major difficul●as est circa posteriora Capita ejusdem libri (Esther) ab illis verbis, Cap. 10. Dixitque Mordochaeus, à Deo facta sunt omnia. Haec enim non esse veram Scripturam, neque pertinere ad librum Esther Canonicum, opinati sunt ante Concilium Trident. Lyranus, Dion, Carthusianus, Hugo Camotensis, & Caj●tanus; & post Concilium, Sextus Senensis, Lorca ●ract. de locis Cathol. lib. 1. Dis. 3. membr. 3. n. 23. Liber Baruch: Hunc librum à Canone rejiciunt nonnulli ex haereticis; & ex Catholicis Dri●do. Idemque sentit Cal. in fine libri Ester, qui nullos libros admittit praeter eos quos Hieronymus expres●è Canonic●s vocat. Id. n. 27. & similia passim in seq.  he must damn many Romists, if he will make this difference fundamental: They that believe all necessary saving truths, though they be not fully persuaded that just so many Books were wholly indicted by some one of the Apostles or Evangelists, I know now how this Author may damn them, if these saving truths being believed do save them: sure I am, that in their own Explicites, or points of importance, which we call fundamental, and they say must be known and believed under pain of damnation, they do not mention any names, much less the number of Canonical Books: So, it seems, by their own doctrines, the names and full number of the books of Scripture are none of their own Explicites and Fundamentals; but other points believed may serve to save such believers: And, if such may be saved though they know 
b Etiam quando aliqui dubitabant, libri isti erant Canonici, licet illi probabili ignorantiâ excusantur, negaren●. Id. n. 38.  not the set number of Books; why would you have us to break unity for a point, the not explicit knowing and believing whereof, in your own doctrine, doth not exclude salvation?  
He goes on, and objects a second good use that we make of points fundamental, which is a proof of the visibility of our Church. And true it is, That if there have been still a visible Roman Church, which hath held points fundamental, until the Reformation begun by the Protestants, then is that visibility since that time still continued by us. The former we leave to the Romists to prove for their own sakes; and the later we can very easily prove for ourselves: And whereas he repeats (but confutes not) that some of ours have said, that there is no necessity that the Church must have been continually visible: I tell him, that if this were an absurd Doctrine (as he terms it) they were led to this absurdity with a great show of reason. For (not to run out at large into the common place of visibility) when 
a Universum Romanum Imperium funditùs concussum & emotum est. Vin●. Liri. cap. 6.  Lirinensis saith at the deluge of Arianism, The whole Roman Empire was fundamentally overthrown and removed: And we read elsewhere the 
b Liberius, Sozom. lib. 4. c. 14. Cum his verò simul projicit à sancta Dei Catholica Ecclesia, similiterque anathematizari praevidimus: Et Honorium, qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae, ●ò quòd invenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Se●gium● quia in omnibus mentem ejus secutus est, & impia dogmata con●irmavi●. Con●. 6. Act. 13.  Pope himself was turned Heretic, where was the visibility of the Cavaliers Romish Church itself? But I need not to dwell much on the defence of this doctrine, because he only confutes it by the Epithet Absurd; and because that which follows next most concerns the present business; though this also is a rehearsal and not a confutation: Some few of them affirm (when they are urged by us to show that visible Church of theirs) that theirs and ours do make but one true Church, and so in showing the visibility of ours, they do withal (as they say) show their own to have been visible. And these men tread in this way, because they well know that no other Church but ours can indeed be showed to have been visible through all ages since Christ our Lord. But I must here deny his repetition, if by the word Church he mean the Pope, and those that have made him the foundation of their faith; for these and ours, we say not to be one Church with us, because they have changed the foundation: But if you mean those that by believing fundamentals have fastened their faith on Christ the true foundation, we allow That our Church hath been one with them, and hath been visible in their visibility; yet avoiding this, That he can ever prove that other Churches have not been as truly and continually visible as Rome; for it will still trouble the Author to show that the Churches of Greece and afric, have been less truly visible than Rome, since the Primitive times of their first conversion.  
And now this Author, being past our use of fundamentals for visibility, yet walks on, though beyond his right business: but he that is out of the way in his main matter of making division to excuse Romish uncharitableness, may well walk into byways in his prosecution of it: yet I cannot deny that he hath two Errands; one to bring forth a jest upon our Fox and his followers, under the names of Fox and Geese: But, if it had pleased this Author duly to follow this Fox in the reading of his martyrology, he might have found out the true Fox that follows, and tears, and destroys those whom our Author by a new Metamorphosis, and Romish transubstantiation hath changed into Birds. His second Errand he thus expresseth; I find, when they are put to name their particular Professors of former ages, they do but muster up those several single false doctrines which have been held by other heretics by Retail, during ten or twelve 〈◊〉 since Christ our Lord: many of which doctrines together themselves do now profess in gross; for what other men of former times did they ever or can they ever name, as men of their Religion, but such as believed some one or two of those heretical doctrines which now themselves embrace, and wherein they are contrary to us. But all this, as it is not very pertinently brought in, to excuse Romish uncharitableness, so it is not very truly objected; for we can prove our doctrines (which he calls heresies) by the Fathers and Scriptures, and the Scriptures he cannot deny have been believed above twelve ages. Besides, Popish Authors do acknowledge that the Waldenses agree with Protestants in more 
a See the History of the Waldenses, lib. 1. cap. 8. when it was said by a Jesuit, that the Waldenses, and the Ministers of Calvin agree in twenty seven Articles, viz. About the Pope's Supremacy, Purgatory, Prayers to Saints, worship of Images, marriage of Priests, sufficiency of Scriptures, etc. which are more than one or two points, Ibid. part. 3. & lib. 1▪ ●b. 6. It is very likely their doctrine came from the Apostles, and agreed with them; for Reynerius the Inquisitor saith, Some hold so: And again, They live justly before men, and believe all things well of God, and all the Articles contained in the Creed; only they hate and blaspheme the Romish Church. Speeds Chronic. Fox Martyrolog. a● Ann. 1160. The Confessor of L●wes the twelfth, being sent by him to examine some of the Waldenses, at his return wishes that ●e we●● so good a Christian as the worst of them. Histor. of the Waldense●, ●●b. 1. cap. 5.  than one or two doctrines; for they are said to be more than twenty wherein we agree with them: And though afterward this Cavalier affirms it, yet he proves not that for other points these were express heretics in the Protestants opinion; neither do we hide any fundamental errors in them which we object against Romists. But if these had not been in the world, it is most true that the main point of Popery, which is the Pope's tyrannical headship of the Catholic Church, the very root of Idolatries, errors and divisions, hath in 
b See the Mystery of Iniquity, by Philip Momay L. of Plessis.  all ages been denied since it was first broached. But our Author is still much displeased with fundamentals, because by them we have unity with those who have heretofore differed in some doctrines from their Papacy; for saith he, If it were not for this distinction, no man could be of the same Religion with any other that is not wholly of the same Religion: so far forth at the least as that he must not obstinately deny any one doctrine thereof, whether it be important more or less, when once, as hath been said, it is lawfully and sufficiently propounded and commanded to be believed by the true Church; as it is true and certain when Luther rebelled from the Church of Christ our Lord, nor in any age before his time, there was in the whole world any one Kingdom, or Country, or City, or Town, or Family of men, or Pastors, or Flock, yea or any one single person so much as of Luther's own, & much less of the now Protestant Religion, which is now forsooth so far refined beyond his. Here, the Cavaliers true Church being that confederacy whereof the Pope is the head, he would fain dissolve that solid unity which is made by fundamentals in Christ Jesus the true head, to make a fictitious unity in the Pope: But if he should cast off this only true and substantial ground of unity, which knits together all the sound Churches that are at this day, or ever have been through all Nations on the face of the earth since our Saviour, to make an unity by agreeing, under pain of damnation, in all points propounded and commanded by the Pope and his Church of Rome, whether important more or less, he shall not only by this means break the unity of all the true Churches on earth into pieces, but of Rome itself: For (to return almost his own words) Since the Pope, who hath rebelled against Christ, and usurped the Headship of the Church, first coined and established a Religion in Trent, neither then, nor in any time before, there was in the whole world any one Kingdom or Country, or City, or Town, or Family of men, or Pasture, or Flock, yea or any one single person, who by a supernatural Faith, which this Author only approves, did embrace the whole body, and every Article of the Trent Religion. Yea even at this day it is not received in divers parts that bear the name of the Church of Rome, much less in Greece, Armenia, Syria, Ethiopia, most of which either know not, or acknowledge not this Council, nor the Pope's Supremacy. All these therefore refusing any of these Articles, must be torn in pieces from the body of Christ, and cast into Hell fire. Thus the Scarlet Whore, drunk with the blood of the Saints, speaks in the right voice of the Harlot, If she may not have the whole child, 
1 Kin. 3.26.  let it be cut in pieces: Let the Church be distracted and damned, if the Pope may not be her Lord and her Tyrant. And so whereas Christ was a head that gave himself to death, to save his body from damnation; is not he an Antichrist that throws the body of Christ into hell and damnation, to make himself the head?  
But in a third place he objecteth not an use of ours, but an abuse of his own: For he abuseth his Reader in saying to him, That the making of this distinction between Fundamental, and not Fundamental points of Faith, and the resolving not to declare which is which, doth save them with a great part of the ignorant world from the imputation of rigour in their proceeding with us. For how could they persecute as they do, without extreme note of cruelty? But neither the making nor hiding of Fundamentals is the cause of prosecuting Romists in this Kingdom, but the cause of their punishment hath been their own making of Treasons, miraculously revealed by God's goodness, notwithstanding their hiding, even in the vaults and depths of the earth. And though there were no Fundamentals of Religion, but only Fundamentals of State; the Fundamentals of State are very plain, and cannot well be hidden, which justify the execution of Rebels and Traitors. But of this some proof hath been given in the beginning of this Book, and the Author will call for more towards the end.  
As for that which follows, Yea, or even, how could they descent without apparent impiety from our belief and practice of those Doctrines wherein we have had, and still have prescription of so many ages, if the contrary thereof should be confessed by themselves not to be Fundamental? It is so weak, that I wish that some child, and not the Cavalier, had spoken it to save his reputation: For, will any man say that it is impiety to descent from others in ancient errors, though these errors be not Fundamental? Tertullian might have taught our Author much more wisdom, who, upon the custom of an error not very Fundamental, thus saith, 
b Hunc qui receperunt, veritatem consuetudini anteponunt. Tert. de vel. virg. cap. 1. Consuetudo ●ine veri●a●e v●tustas erroris est; propter quod relicto errore s●quamur verita●é. Cyp●. apost. 74.  They that have received the holy Ghost, prefer truth before custom.   

SECT. FOUR  
showeth the differences amongst Popish Divines about their Explicites or Fundamentals; with some reasons of those differences: and directions for discerning fundamental points from others.  
THe Cavalier thus goes on: It is more than probable, that one reason why they are so unwilling to give in any Catalogue of the fundamental points is, Because they know so well how ridiculous they would make themselves by the infinite variety of their Catalogues. For, if it be so familiar with them to be of different minds concerning particular doctrines, how much more would they be so in this, which is a root of many branches, or rather a monster of many heads; and so there can be no doubt, but that some of them would not be more resolute in restraining the fundamental points into a narrow compass, than others would be in enlarging them into a broader. The Author here goes about to make the Fathers, yea, himself and his own partners ridiculous; for, if variety in the Catalogues of Fundamentals, or chief heads and grounds of Christianity be ridiculous; how shall the Father's escape the merriments of this Author? Yea, how shall himself and his own partners not be mocked by himself? For it is plain, that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian, in sundry patterns of the rule of Faith, do enumerate Articles just of the same number and breadth. Neither do the three usual Creeds hold equal measure by the Authors ell; yea, let the Author himself, who confesseth that there are such Heads and Grounds of Christianity more fundamental, make a Catalogue of these Heads, and he can never agree with all his fellows, who agree not among themselves. And thus, if he will look into this glass, he may see himself laughing at himself: And indeed, if the Reader will peruse the Romists where they write of their Explicites, they may see the same variety wherewith the Cavalier here makes himself merry; some contracting them into a narrower, some enlarging them into a broader compass: And to save labour to the Reader, I will here give him a Model of this variety: 
b Quaedam in doctrina Christiana tam fidei quam morum esse simpliciter omnibus necessaria ad salutem, qualis est cognitio Articulorum Symboli Apostolici, decem Praeceptorum, & nonnullorum Sacramentotum; cae●era non ita necessaria, ut sine eorum explicita notitia, & fide, & professione, homo salvari non possit. Bell. de verbo Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11.  Bellarmine saith, That there are some things in Christian Doctrine, as well of faith as of manners, which are simply necessary to all unto salvation, as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed, ten Commandments, and some Sacraments; other things not being so necessary, that without their explicit knowledge, and faith, and profession, a man may not be saved.  
But 
c In Symbolo Apostolorum & Niceno, ●liqui praeter illos contin●ntur, quos rudes non debent ex praecepto scire, nec fideles communiter; fed si quis audiat eos in Symbolo contineri, debet credere: nam Communionem Sanctorum non omnes sciunt; imo, etiam inter homine● literatos non paucos invenias qui ignorant quae sit haec Communio Sanctorum; Articulus autem de Ecclesia multis viris doctis videtur difficilis ad docendum, & putant rudes in illo communiter errare.— Caeterum adhuc ego non dubitarem concedere esse non paucos rusticos inter Christianos qui absque culpa ignorant aliqua mysteria ex iis quae necessa●ia sunt. Vasques in 12. Disp. 121. n. 2.  Vasques thus differs from Bellarmine in some Articles of the Creed; There are (saith he) some Articles in the Apostles Creed, and the other of Nice, which the ignorant are not commanded to know, nor commonly the faithful: for all do not know the Communion of Saints; yea, you shall find not a few learned men that know not what the Communion of Saints is; and the Article of the Church seems hard to teach, and learned men think that the ignorant do commonly err in it. Yea, he comes at length to this short measure of faith; I would not doubt to grant that there are not a few Country people, that without fault are ignorant of some of those mysteries which are necessary.  
Azorius 
d Quisque fidelium crede●e explici●è debeat omnes Articulos fidei, vel qui juxta numerum Apostolorum duodecim in Symbolo continentur▪ vel qui juxta Th●ol●gorum sententiam q●atuordecim proponuntur.— Quaeritur, An quisque, etiam vulgaris & rudis, credere explici●è debeat aliquid praeter praedictos fidei Articulos. Sunt qui ita affirmant, e● ratione permoti, quòd unusquisque expressim credere debeat, immortalem esse animam hominis; item, esse peccatum originis, etc.— Q●●rundam est opinio, unumquemqu● fidelium debere credere quicquid expressè in Symbolo Apostolorum continetur, & ob id minimè sufficere ●i singul● credant explicitè qua●uordecim Articulos fidei, prout à Theologis propununtur, quoniam quisque praecepto ac lege compellitur ad credendum expressim descensum Christi Domini ad inferos, unam sanctam Ca●holicam Ecclesiam, Sanctorum communionem, peccatorum remissionem, perpetuam Deiparae Vi●ginitatem, de quibus singulis nihil explicitè quatuordecim fidei Articuli praescribunt. Mihi ●amen videtur dicendum, satis ●sse ad salutem cuique fidelium credere explicitè quatuordecim Articulos fidel, vel Symbolum Apostolicum.— Quaeritur, An si quis adeò hebeti & obtuso sit ingenio, ut ipsos Articulos secundùm substan●iam capere nequeat, fidei praecepto satisfaciat si aliquos clariores Articulos explicitè credat; reliquis verò quos non as●equitur, credat implicitè, etc. Respondeo satisfacere.— Quar●, si quis Trinitatis Articulum nequeat per●ipere, satis est si credat explicitè alios clariores, nimirum Ch●istum D●i filium, natum ex Virgin, passum, cruci affixum, m●●tuu●, & sepultum, ex mortuis resu●rexisse, & in c●elos conscendisse. Az●r. Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 6.  the Jesuit speaks of other differences and varieties, differing also himself from others. First, he saith, That every Believer ought explicitly to believe all the Articles of faith, either as (according to the number of the Apostles) they are accounted twelve, or according to the sentence of Divines, they are reckoned fourteen: But then he adds, That some affirm, the unlearned must believe more than these Articles, because they must believe the immortality of the soul, original sin, etc. Again, he saith, Some hold that both the twelve Articles and the fourteen must be believed; but himself thinks that it is sufficient to salvation if a man believe explicitly the one or the other. Yea at length he comes to show, That if a man be so dull that he cannot perceive the Article of the Trinity, it will suffice if he believe explicitly some other plainer Articles; as that Christ the Son of God is borne of a Virgin, that he suffered, was crucified, d●ed, and was buried, that he rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven.  
Canisius, as we have seen before, saith, That the sum of faith▪ or of all things to be believed, is the Apostles Creed. And whereas 
a Aqu●2 ●2. Q. 1. Art. 8. Lorca Expos. Art. Conclusio est; conveniens est & sufficiens distinctio & numeratio Articulorum, qua v●l du●decim, vel quatuordecim potius numerari ●olent.— For tas●e mens Ecclesiae in hac summa Articulorum non fuit comp●ehend●re omn●s Articulo● qui vel speci●lem d●●sicultatem continent, vel ab omnibus f●delibus explicitè credendi sunt. Ib.  Thomas Aquinas concludes, that the Articles to be believed (of Christ's Divinity and Humanity) are fitly numbered either twelve or fourteen; Lorca, after this acknowledgement, adds, Perchance the Church did not intend in this sum to comprehend all these Articles which contain any special difficulty, or ought explicitly to be believed of all the faithful. And when he comes to speak of those Explicites, he confesseth plainly, 
b Omnes concedunt minoribus necessarium esse credere aliqua explicitè, licet non obligentur ad omnem latitudinem fidei. In assignanda tamen R●gula quâ diffiniatur quae credere teneantur, dissentiunt, & diversas Regulas statuunt. Communis Regula ferè ab omnibus Theologis ●radita est, Omnes fideles d●bere credere explici●è Articulos qui solenni ritu celebrantur in Ecclesia, & sufficere sibi ●i ●os credant. Hanc Regulam tradunt S. Thomas Art. 7. & ali● Schol●stici in 3. distin●i. 25. etc. Hec tamen Regula quibusdam insufficiens apparet tam excessu quam defectu. Sco●us quaest. 1. Art. 2. indicare videtur praeceptum commure fid●i solum constringere, ut credantur ●aciliora, quae ipse vo●●t ●rossa. Qu●dam ex juni●●●●us (Suarez. in 3. Tom. 2. d. 43.) affirmant, sufficere communi pl●bi si credant A●ticulos qui in Symbolo continentur. His ergò Regulis omissis, asserendum est omnibus fidelibus inesse praeceptum, expli●it●●ide credere haec; Primò, Articulos fidei tam secundùm illam numerati●nem quà quatuordecim numerantur, quam ●os q●● in Symbolo Apostolorum exprimuntur. Tenentur p●●●terea credere Decalogum, & communiora praecepta quae ad Decal●gum reducentur, doci●●nam etiam de septem Sacramentis, & de Oratione, de authoritate 〈◊〉, & Pralatorum Ecclesiae. Haec omma 〈◊〉 ●ideli 〈…〉 docet 〈◊〉. in Summa verbo, Ignora●tia. 〈…〉 Ignorantia. Lorca in 22. 〈…〉.  That in assigning the Rule by which it may be defined what the vulgar should believe, Divines do differ, and do put divers Rules: the most common Rule is, That they should believe those Articles which are by Solemnities celebrated in the Church; and that it sufficeth if they believe these. But this Rule seems insufficient to others, both in excess and defect. Scotus seems to say, That the common precept of faith doth only bind to the belief of the easy (which he calleth gross) points. Some of the later (as Suarez), It sufficeth the common people if they believe the Articles in the Creed. But Lorca himself goes beyond all that hitherto have been mentioned, and saith, These Rules being laid aside, it is to be affirmed, That it is commanded to all the faithful explicitly to believe, first the Articles of faith, both the fourteen, and the twelve in the Creed; They must also believe the Decalogue, and the more common Precepts which are reduced to the Decalogue, the doctrine of the seven Sacraments, of Prayer, of the Pope's authority, and the Prelates. Behold a great variety in Romish Explicites.  
Yet, I confess, that I find not myself so merry hereat as the Cavalier, (at our supposed differences in Fundamentals) but will rather strive to excuse them, and to find reasons for their variety: for the reasons seem to be serious, as the matter which they go about is weighty and profitable; even the proposal of those grounds whose knowledge is necessary to salvation. So far is it from being a monster, as this Author terms it, that his calling of it by this Title is so much the more monstrous, as it is true that himself acknowledgeth that there are such Heads of Christianity, which himself thus calleth monstrous. Behold a Truth of the Authors own bringing forth, and then mocked by him for a monster: but I will go on to speak for his Truth, and against his Monster; even against him, to plead for him and his fellows. True it is, that there may be a different enumeration of the Articles in the Father's Rules of faith, in the Creeds, and in the Explicites of later Writers, as well as our Fundamentals; and that for divers reasons.  
One may be this; Because some Catalogues may put in more Articles for more full unfolding and expressing of other Articles; so it is said by the Council of Chalcedon, that the Additions in the Creeds of Constantinople 
a E●ag. l. 2 c. 4.  concerning the holy Ghost, was only that the Essence and Godhead of the holy Ghost might thereby be more cleared and expounded: And 
b Propter nonnullos haereticos addita quaedam videntur, per quae novellae doctrinae sensus videretur excludi. Ruff. in Symbol.  Ruffinus speaks to the like effect.  
A second reason of this variety might be the 
c Variatu●, fides augetur, vel diminuitur ratione dispositionis hominis; nam fides potest esse major in uno quam in alio, non ratione primae veritatis, quae, cum sit unica. & simplicissima, non diversificatur in credentibus, sed est una in omnibus: Tamen ea quae materialiter credenda proponuntur, sunt plura, & sic ex parte credendorum, personarum, & temporum, potest fides accipi major & minor. Reyn. Pant. de Fide, cap. 1.  various measure of capacities. Some measures of understanding and faith are small; and it is not to be denied but that some Articles, which are now necessary to be particularly known and believed, were then known only and believed in gross, without danger of salvation. And that there is now no toleration of less degrees in this kind, for weakness of faith, or shallowness of capacity, I think wise men scarce dare to affirm.  
A third reason of this variety may be the various affection and intention of the designers of these heads: For one perchance would be sure not to exclude any man from salvation, that hath any true, though never so little interest in it, by the knowledge of never so few fundamentals; and therefore this man contracteth them. Another he fears, lest by the lessening of them, thereby to include the salvation of some, others may be excluded from salvation, by not knowing or not believing those points which are lessened, and therefore enlargeth them.  
Now these reasons being given, to defend this Author and his fellows against himself, I will add essays of some certainty upon this variety.  
A first, That certainly so much must be known and believed of God in Christ Jesus, as may unite us to him, and so make us partakers of his death and resurrection unto remission of sins and regeneration: And therefore ordinarily his 
a Rom. 4.24, 25. Rom. 10.9. 1 Cor. 15.1, 2, 3, 4. In absoluto nobis ac facili est aeternitas; Jesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum credere, & ipsum esse Dominum confiteri. Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 10. where he calls it also, Religionis portum. Itaque sine ista Fide, hoc est, sine Fide unius Mediatoris Dei & hominis, hominis Christi Jesus, sine Fide inquam Resurrectionis ejus, quam Deus hominibus definivit; quae ut que sine Incarnatione ejus, ac morte non potest veraciter credi: Sine Fide ergo Incarnationis, & Mortis, & Resurrectionis Christi, neque antiquos justos, ut justi essent▪ potuisse munda●i, & Dei gratiâ justificari verita● Christiana non dubitat. Aug contra Pelag. & Coelest. lib. 2. cap. 24.  Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection are certainly to be known and believed.  
Secondly, That so many Heads and Articles as conduce to this union, may be called Fundamental, because they knit and unite us to Christ the foundation.  
Accordingly, more of these points being known to one then to another, and the more points working the union in one, and the fewer in the other, the more may be called Fundamental to the one, and the fewer to the other; so a great house built on a rock, and by more stones knit unto the rock then a lesser, may be said to have more fundamentals than the lesser; yet both have as true an union with the rock each as other.  
Thirdly, it is good, in teaching, to enlarge the points as much as may be; 
The most fundamental is the Incarnation of the Deity. For the foundation itself is God with us. For there is no Rock but God, Psal. 18.31. And all the Church is built on this Rock unto salvation, Mat. 16.18. Therefore Arians, or any others that build not their faith on the Godhead of the Son, are not built on the Rock, but on the sands. And the Judge himself hath made known his judgement on them: They shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them, John 3.18, 36. So also John 20.31. 1 Tim. 3.16. 2 Corin. 5.18, 19 Colos 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 2 Cor. 4.3, 4. Wherefore, Ignorantes eum qui ex Virgine est Emanuel, privantur munere ejus, quod est vita aeterna. Iren. l 3. c. 21.  so to give a full measure of fundamentals, for the largest measure of knowledge and capacity, that no measure may want his fullness: But in censuring to damnation, it is good to contract the measure as much as truth will possibly give way to charity, that the least measure of saving knowledge and faith be not damned.  
Fourthly, as the Teacher should enlarge his teaching, so let not the Learner voluntarily shut or contract his learning, knowing, nor believing the grounds of Christianity; but go on as far as his measure will give him leave, until he have found Christ Jesus dwelling in his soul by his Spirit, and by that Spirit witnessing to his soul, that he is a Son of God, even an heir annexed with Christ: For then, and only then shalt thou have a comfortable certainty of the sufficiency of thy fundamentals, when thou feelest thyself an habitation of God by the Spirit. Besides, if God intent to lay in thee the foundations of a palace, do not thou contract them into the foundations of a cottage.    

CHAP. XI.  
In opposition to the Cavaliers ninth Chapter, containing a vain Challenge of Protestants, for not daring to declare their Fundamentals, divided into three Sections.  

SECT. I.  
Wherein are confuted his Cavils against the Apostles Creed, as not containing all points Fundamental.  
THe title of this Chapter, and the Chapter itself are at some discord: For the title saith, That the Protestants neither do, nor dare declare what are their fundamental points of Faith: and the Chapter, even in the first words, saith this, It is usual with many to affirm, that the Apostles Creed contains all fundamental points of Faith. So it seems that Protestants do declare, and do not declare their fundamental points; and the Title beats them for not declaring, and the Chapter beats them for declaring: Thus the Protestants must be beaten howsoever, not indeed for declaring, or for not declaring, but because they are Protestants. A right mark of faction, which commonly makes an ill construction of all, even of the good actions of those against whom it is factious. But let us see how he chastiseth us for our declaring: These men, when they are pressed, grow soon ashamed of that opinion; when they are told, that in the Creed there is no mention made at all, either of the Canon in holy Scripture, or of the number or nature, yea, or so much as the name of Sacraments. But let this Author consider, whether he ought not to be ashamed, who thus casting shame on Protestants, casts it also on the Fathers. For, do the Fathers in their rules of Faith make mention of the Canon of Scripture, or the number, or of the name of the Sacraments? Let him survey them in Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. and he shall see, that they do not. And yet Tertullian saith of the rule of Faith, Nihil ultra scire, est omnia scire. Again, do you not thus cast shame on your own fellows? For do not many of your own Doctors in their Explicites (called by yourself, more fundamental) leave out the Canon of Scriptures, and the number, yea, the nature and name of Sacraments? If therefore they do say, that it is a mortal sin, not to know explicitly these important points, which are more fundamental, then may they be ashamed to leave their Disciples in mortal sin, by not naming the 
a See before Romish Authors alleged, who say, that twelve or fourteen Articles (whereof these of the Canon and Sacraments are none) do suffice to be explicitly believed; and divers Romish Authors alleged by Lorca, that differ in the number of the Canonical Books.  Canon or number of the Sacraments explicitly to be believed: And if you clear them, you shall clear us also. But withal, give me leave to ask, even in defence of these your fellows: Do you think that no man can be saved that doth not know the number of Canonical Books, if he believe the fundamental points contained in those Books? Or do you think that one who was baptised in his infancy, not knowing then the virtue and use of the Sacrament of Baptism, and dying before he come to the knowledge of the use of the Eucharist, may not be saved by believing in Christ, and being regenerate by this faith? Your own Jesuit 
b Si finis Sacramentorum esset excitare fidem, Baptismus non prodesset infantibus; sed iis ●otius qui p●aesentis sunt-. Iton, illi dicunt, Sacramenta ideo instituta esse, ut excitent fidem; ex quo sequitur effectum illorum esse fidem, 〈◊〉 ja●● re●uta●i—. Becan. Manu●●. c. 11. n. 3●. 31. & seq.  Becanus may stop your mouth, when he saith, That Faith is not so stirred up by the Sacraments, that it is the effect of them; and that otherwise the Sacraments would not profit children. 

And Vasquez brings in divers great Doctors, that distinguish between the mysteries of Faith, without the knowledge of which a man cannot be saved; and Baptism, and other Sacraments.  
Ex his tamen Doctoribus, Alexander, Bonaventura, Gabriel & Adrianus locuti solùm videntur de ignorantia Fidei circa mysteria, sine quibus salus non contingit alicui; caeteri verò de ignorantia cujuscunque praecepta divini positivi, quale est Baptismi— Cum praedictis Doctoribus concordat Corduba; quod attinet ad fidem mysteriorum, quae ad salutem necessaria sunt, non tamen in eo quod spectat ad praecepta positiva Dei, qualis est Baptismi, & aliorum Sacramentorum. Vasquez m. 1.2. Disp. 120. cap. 1.   So till you answer him, do not require of us to bring in Sacraments as fundamentals of that faith, which is denied by your own to be an effect of them. But you are soon weary, and I hope ashamed of this point; and therefore wander to another, not much more of kin to the point, than the Chapter hath been hitherto to the Title. You say there are great differences between the Protestants and you, about the understanding of the Article of the descent of Christ into Hell, and the other of the holy Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints, etc. But what do you here talk of differences in understanding fundamentals, where the present question is, Whether the Protestants do acknowledge their fundamentals to be contained in the Creed? For, if Protestants declare that their fundamentals are contained in the Creed, than your Title is gone, which saith, That they do not, nor dare not declare them. And surely it will ask a greater strength, and a far bigger volume than Charity mistaken, to prove that Protestants do not rightly understand the Articles of the Creed. But secondly, the Authors objection is grounded not only upon a new, but upon a false supposition, if his fellow Romists may be Judges: For his supposed proposition is this, That all the Articles in the Creed are Fundamental. Now this is different from the first proposal of our opinion, That all fundamental Articles are in the Creed. It is also denied by his own fellows: For, though all fundamental Articles be there, yet they say, that some Articles that are there may not be fundamental, or explicitly to be known upon loss of salvation; as before hath been showed out of Vasquez and Azorius: Therefore to stand upon a different understanding of those Articles, which are denied by your own men to be Explicites (or doubted) is besides the matter. But thirdly, Do we differ from you in understanding those points? What is that to the point undertaken in the end of the last Chapter and promised to be showed in this, That we differ among ourselves in the number of Fundamentals. You are now gone ●●om our ridiculousness, by differing in the number of fundamentals; and are come to a ridiculousness of your own, by your differing from us in the false understanding of some Articles of the Creed, which all your own Prophets do not account Fundamentals. But you add: It is to little purpose to know or confess, that the Creed contains all Fundamentals, unless there were some certain way to understand them right. This is again a ranging from showing our differences among ourselves, or that we have not these Fundamentals: Yet I answer, We have a certain, and the best way of understanding them right; we have a learned Ministry endued with gifts from on high, which teacheth and preacheth these Fundamentals, and the right meaning of them. And the right meaning thus taught, the Spirit in the hearers doth so discover and certify the truth of them, that the hearers see the Articles to be God's truth and not man's: And accordingly, their faith thus believing them, resteth on God as the sole Foundation of their faith; and this teaching of the Catholic Church we use, commend, and allow. But that The single Article of the holy Catholic Church should contain the reason of all our faith fundamentally, seems to me an high kind of Blasphemy. And this blasphemous doctrine, as we have before showed, is the very spirit of Popery or Antichrist, which sets up the Pope in God's place, and makes his believers truly Papists or Antichristians. And this great offence and mystery of iniquity carrieth Papists by throngs into the Land of darkness; and into this secret of theirs the souls of the saved may not enter: True it is, that God useth the service of the Ministers, or, if you will, of the Church, in publishing the Articles of faith; but no other Foundation of supernatural faith there is but God himself, though speaking by man unto man; the Fundamentality of our faith passeth through man that is the instrument, and resteth wholly upon God. But saith he, If we understand it otherwise, the Scripture itself speaks of particular errors, which are damnable in them by whom they are embraced; and yet they are not at all against any express Doctrine of the Creed: As namely, where Saint Paul calls it a Doctrine of Devils to forbid marriage, and meats, etc. I answer, first, That the Author hereby proves that which we deny not, and disproves not that which (he saith) we affirm: For the point is not, Whether there be any damnable errors besides those that are against some express doctrine of the Creed: But, Whether there be in the Creed those fundamental points, which being truly believed, will cause unity with Christ the Head, and unity with his Body the Church. Other errors against other Truths in Scripture not fundamental, we acknowledge there are many, and proceeding from the Devil, the Father of Lies, and in themselves damnable to such as hold not the true Foundation, Christ Jesus, by believing Fundamentals. And it is to be feared, that such are many of those true Papists, whose foundation is the Pope: But otherwise they may be rather 
a It is a Romish distinction, Reatus simplex, & redundans in personam.  damnable in themselves, then actually damning to those who by 
b Sequitur, illum solum amittere f●dem, qui peccat contra fidem sciens & prudens; errans voluntariè, aut dubitans. Ille tamen qui peccat ignorantià, quamvis crassa, & culpabili culpâ mortali, sicut non est haereticus, sic etiam nec fidem perdit; ut satis clarè S. Thomas Articulo illo tertio (q. 5.) docuit illis verbis: si enim non p●●tinaciter dissentit, non est haereticus, sed solum errans. Lorca in 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 33.  infirmities hold them, and by believing fundamentals are in Christ Jesus, to whom there is no condemnation. Secondly, not only Fathers in their Rules of faith, but the Romists themselves do not place the lawfulness of meats and marriage among their chief Heads of Christianity, or Explicites and Fundamentals, and therefore this Author doth ill require of us that which he cannot obtain of his fellows. Wherefore, let him first make this objection against them, and when he hath their Answer, then let him take it for us.  
But being unhappily, as well as impertinently fallen into the mention of these damnable errors, he saw, that as soon as they were brought in, they looked, at least asquint, on the Church of Rome, and claimed kindred of her: And therefore he thought that there was need of an Apology to put off this kindred and acquaintance: Which by the way is not to be understood of the chastity and fasts of the Catholic Church (as Protestants do most perversely affirm) which knows that those things are lawful; but that yet it is most grateful to God, when his servants for his love deprive themselves of those delights: But of the Heresies of the Manichees, as Saint Augustine doth expressly declare, who forbade both marriage and meats, as being abominable and impure through the institution thereof; which they said was derived from a certain second ill conditioned god of their own making. But this, nor all the water in the Sea will wash away all the kindred between Romists and these errors: For though Saint Augustine may apply this Prophecy to the Manichees, yet may he not also apply them to the Montanists, 
a Semel in totum macellum in Apostolo admissà detestatione eorum, qui sicut nubere prohibent, ita jubeant à cibis abstinere à Deo conditis; & ideo nos esse jam tunc praenotatos in novissimis temporibus abscedentes à fide, etc. Tert. de Iejun. adver. Psychios,  Tertullian himself acknowledging that they have been taxed out of this very place? And if to the Montanists, why not to those Romists, who, with Durandus, maintain a curse, and so an impurity of flesh, and cleanness of 
b How shall a spectator believe that flesh is not thought unclean, when he seeth a Fast to exclude it, and yet to admit all delicate and incendiary fishes, conserveses and wines? Licet liberè saepius vinum. Navar. Man. cap. 21. n. 13. In more positum est, ut in diebus jejuniorum piscibus, leguminibus, fructibus, & vino similiter utamur; & omnes communi consensu testantur, id quod solum in potum, non in ●ibum sumitur, cujusmodi vinum etiam est, jejunium minimè relaxare. Azor. lib. 7. cap. 10.  fish: who also forbid marriage to Priests, which this place plainly condemneth? And whereas this Author talks of voluntary deprivation, it is certain, that many (whatsoever this Author saith) have not deprived themselves voluntarily of marriage; but have taken it upon them as a yoke and burden, which neither they nor their Predecessors were able to bear, many sinking under it unto the very pit of Hell. And let them labour with their wits and pens so much as they can, they will never by reason, nor by the lives of their Priests disprove Christ's truth, That all men cannot receive it; nor prove their own 
c Est verum, omnes qui volunt posse continere. B●llar●. de Mona●bis cap. 31. Yet we read in the History of Trent, lib. 7. many reasons were given for Priest's marriage, whereof one wa●, Want of continent persons fit to exercise the Ministry. And the chief reason of forbidding it, is there expressed; It would turn the Priests affections to their Families, from the Pope's Hierarchy.  untruth, That all men can receive it: And surely, the Fornications, Adulteries, Murders, and pollutions that have issued from this Law of Coelibate, I doubt not, cry aloud to heaven against Rome (as once against 
d Sodomitium scelus ex Coelibatus rigore eas radices in Clero Romano defigit, ut Petrus Damianus eremum petere coactus, librum conscribat cui Titulus, Gomorrhaeus, in quo omnes ejus species edisserit▪ quales tum apud eos bacchabantur, eumque L●oni n●no inscribit, cujus adversus tanti mali diluviem opem implorat. P●ess. M●st. Iniquit. ad annum 1060. In the year 1563. Proclamation was made within the Province of Sivil, that whosoever knew or heard of any Monks or religious persons that had abused Auricular Confession to abominable acts with Matrons and Maidens, they should come in within 30. days, laying great penalties on the refusers. Presently there came in such a number of women, only inhabitants within the City of Sivil, that twenty Notaries, and as many Inquisitors would not have sufficed to take the complaints. Wherefore the Inquisitors gave 30. days more. The Monks, Friars, and Priests go up and down very melancholy; and as great a plague was feared as the persecution which was then hot against the Lutherans. But the Inquisitors fearing to bring their spiritualty into hatred and obloquy, and especially to discredit their Auricular Confession, contrary to all men's expectations, made a stay therein, though the Court was orderly seized. Discov. of the Spanish Inquisition.  Sodom) for that sore to which it is condemned.  
He adds further: In like manner Saint Peter saith, That Saint Paul in his Epistles had written certain things which were hard to be understood, and which the unlearned and unstable did pervert to their destruction: Saint Augustine declares upon this place, that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of justification, which some misconceived to be by faith alone, by occasion of what Saint Paul had writ to the Romans; and of purpose to countermine that error, he saith, that Saint James wrote his Epistle, and proved therein, that good works were absolutely necessary to the Act of justification. Hereupon we may observe two things; the one, That an error in this point alone, is by the judgement of Saint Peter, to work their destruction who embrace it. And the other, That the Apostles Creed which speaks no one word thereof, is no good Rule to let us know all the fundamental points of faith. To this I answer, First, That this Author goes on still upon a false ground, as if we said that all errors in faith that may damn men were fundamental, and expressly against some Article of the Creed. Whereas, we have often affirmed, That any error, though not fundamental, may damn men that by a lively faith hold not rightly the fundamentals, and so are without Christ. And it seems, that these men were not well grounded and founded by fundamentals in Christ Jesus, whom Saint Peter calls unlearned and unstable, and their error the error of the wicked; A generation of vipers turn wholesome food into poison, and abuse Scriptures to their own condemnation.  
But secondly, That faith doth not justify, but that good works are absolutely necessary to the Act of justification, is most untrue, and against Saint Augustine himself: Untrue; for, a man is justified by faith in Christ, and not by his own merits; which, in your language, are good works, as divers of your own Authors 
e Pighius, Contarenus, Colonienses, Ferus, etc. And the very Council of Trent saith, That Justification is free, and not merited by faith or works. Nihil eorum quae Justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, gratiam promeretur. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. And therefore Becanus, Sequitur ipsa Justificatio, id est, acquisitio, seu infusio justitiae inhaerentis. Cujus justitiae duplex est effectus formalis; Alter expulsio, seu remissio peccatorum: Alter sanctificatio & renovatio interioris hominis; uterque, respectu nostri, gratuitas. And he cited this Chapter of Trent. Bec. Manu. lib. 1. cap. 16.  affirm. And a man in the instant of his Justification may die before he hath had time to do good works, and yet his Justification may be good. And it is against Saint 
c Cum ergo dicit Apostolus arbitrari se justificari▪ hominem per fidem sine operibus Legis; non hoc agit ut praeceptâ ac professâ fide, opera justitiae contemnantur: sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem posse justificari, etiamsi Legis opera non praecesserint; sequuntur enim justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum: unde in praesenti opere non opus est latiùs disputare, praesertim, quia modò de hac quaestione prolixum librum edidi, qui inscribitur de litera & spiritu. August. de fide & operibus, cap. 14. Per ipsam (Gratiam) quip justificatur gratis, id est, nullis suorum operum praecedentibus meritis; alioquin gratia jam non est gratia, quandoquidem ideo datur, non quia bona opera fecimus; sed ut ea facere valeamus. August. de spiritu & litera, cap. 10.  Austin even in the same place, whence the former saying of Saint Peter is taken, where you may find that commonly known sentence of his, Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum; Good works follow justification, and do not go before it: So that whiles this Author observes two things, he gives more than two scandals to his Reader. For first, he chargeth falsely not Saint Austin only, but Saint james with holding this error, That good works were absolutely necessary to the act of justification. And then secondly he will make him to say, that the not holding of this error, is an error which may work their destruction that embrace it: Yea thirdly, that the Apostles Creed is no good rule to let us know all the fundamental points of faith; because it speaks no one word, to teach us that the Cavaliers error is a fundamental point of faith.  
Lastly, his own Doctors do bring into their Explicites, our faith in Christ's 
d Quem commissio peccatorum diabolo subdidit, remiflio pecca●orum per sanguinem Christi data à diabolo eruit, ut sic justi●iâ vinceretur diabolus, non po●entiâ. Sed quâ justitiâ? Jesus Christi: Et quomodo victus est eâ? Quia in ea nihil dignum morte inveniens, occidit eum tamen. Et utique justum est, ut debitores quos teneba●, liberi dimittantur, in eum CREDENTES, quem sine ullo debito occidit. Lombard. (ex Aug.) lib. 3. dist. 20.  passion, & resurrection for justification, but not this his Article, That good works are absolutely necessary to the act of justification. And if they do not, why doth he require it of us in our fundamentals?   

SECT. II.  
Wherein his Exceptions against the 39 Articles of Religion established in this Church are answered.  
BUt having quarrelled in vain with the Creed, to prove the insufficiency of it for fundamentals, now he comes to the Articles; where he thus begins: Others say that the Book of the 39 Articles declares all the fundamental points of Faith, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England; but this also is most absurdly affirmed: For, as it is true, that they declare in some confused manner (which yet indeed is extremely confused) what the Church of England in most things believes; so it is true, that they are very careful, that they be not too clearly understood. And therefore in many Controversies, whereof that Book speaks, it comes not at all to the main difficulty of the question between them and us, and especially in those of the Church, and freewill. While the Author speaks of a confused manner, and which is extremely confused, his words do return upon himself, and his own discourse: For, that he may make his discourse confused, it seems he makes use of this doubtful word Declare. For if we say, That the Book of Articles declares our fundamentals of faith, we do not say, it declares all the knots of questions which are between us and the Romists. For it is well known there are divers controversies between us and the Romists, which are not of fundamentals. And neither the Fathers in their rules of Faith, neither Romists in their Explicites do declare the knots of questions which may arise even concerning fundamentals themselves; if the fundamentals be so expressed, that their true and saving sense may be received and believed by the working of that Spirit, which makes Christ's sheep to hear Christ's voice. They that thus believe, shall be saved, though they know not all the knots which cunning and erring men do make. They that write rules of Faith, Explicites, and Fundamentals, do not in the same undertake to write all knots of controversies which concern them. And the Cavalier doth not find them in his own Doctors among their Explicites: wherefore the answer which he makes for them, let him take for us.  
Secondly, for his particulars of the Church, and freewill: First, for the Church; Doth our Church hold, that the visibility and inerrability of the Church are fundamentals? And if she do not, how can this Author accuse her for not showing fundamentals; because she shows not those points which she doth not hold to be fundamental? The 
h Sciendum est quod Ecclesiam credere, non tamen in Ecclesiam credere debeamus, quia Ecclesia non Deus, sed domus Dei est. August. de tempore, s●●m. 181.  Church is not the foundation of the Church, but she herself is built on that only foundation Christ Jesus. And even your own men are not agreed about making the Article of the 
i Acknowledged before by Vasqu●z, and by those who hol● 〈◊〉 fourteen Articles to suffice for Explicite faith.  Church one of the Explicites; or at least agree not in declaring these points of controversies concerning her to be explicitly believed.  
And for freewill, I might ask first: Doth this Author find in any of his Doctors this knot of freewill for an Explicite? But secondly, Doth the Council of Trent itself, called of purpose to end controversies, so set down the knot of this controversy, that your own Romists are agreed of it among themselves? True it is, that the main body of the Papacy dotes upon freewill, according to their Leaders, who, as this Author well affirmeth, have many (profitable) Doctrines; as that of Merit, Supererogation, etc. depending upon it. But yet there are among them some that hold the efficacy of grace on the will, which the Protestants do teach; and so the Authors confused manner doth now light on the precious Synod of his dear Mother, whose Champion he is; but not without prevarication: For, while he condemns a confused speaking of freewill, he is become that son of Solomon, who shameth his mother: For she hath taught, and, as he calls it, Declared freewill, in such a confused manner, that her own children cannot agree about her meaning.  
And now he sets down the words of the tenth Article concerning freewill, and concludes, That this is true Catholic Doctrine, which we believe better than they. A man would have thought here, that we had been almost friends; but let not the Reader be mistaken: for the work of mistaken Charity, is not to make peace, but division. Therefore after a confessed agreement, a disagreement is to be picked out; They declare not (saith he) whether or no a man have freedom of will to do a good work, or not to do it, when first he is inspired and moved to it by God Almighty's grace; which we affirm, and they deny: which is the only knot of our question, and the point upon which so many other Catholic Doctrines depend. I desire the Reader to take special notice of these words of the Cavalier, That upon the Doctrine of freewill many Romish Doctrines do depend: For hence may arise a caution to those that affect this Doctrine of freewill, since here they see it confessed by the Cavalier, that on this Doctrine many Romish Doctrines do depend; so it concerns them to beware how they admit this Doctrine, which hath so much Popery in the belly of it.  
But now to the main knot of his question I give this answer, That in untying this knot there is yet left unfolded the chief pleat of the knot: For the chief fold of this knot is not, Whether the will, being inspired and moved by God, there be freedom in it to will, or not to will; but whether the will be not at any time so moved by grace (especially in conversion) that though it may will, or not will; yet it will certainly & infallibly move that way, to which Gods grace inclines it. For indeed the freedom which these men speak for, is a freedom of the will from the grace of God. For they would have the will so free from God's grace, that grace should not actuate and work it to will and to do. For other freedom of the will we acknowledge, even the most excellent freedom; affirming, that when the will is thus moved by God, it willeth freely that way to which Gods grace moveth it; yea, most freely, because most willingly. For this is the sovereignty of power issuing from the highest cause, that it worketh in second causes according to their own natures: and therefore it works in the will of man, by making it most freely willing. Accordingly grace doth so work in the will, that the will determines itself that way to which grace doth incline it. And thus (as it hath been well observed) The fear of overthrowing freewill is removed, 
Hist. Trent. lib. 2.  since things are violently moved by a contrary cause, but never by their own: And God being the cause of the will, to say it is moved by God, is to say it is moved by itself. And indeed this is the chief freedom of the will which we maintain, when the will doth freely move, being moved by the highest cause, whose service is perfect freedom: Only, because the word hath been abused, 
k Vocabulum ambiguum in altero sensum verum & bonum, in altero falsum & perniciosum. Bellar. lib. 4. de lib. ●rb. cap. 6. ex Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 2.  we do abstain from that term, which by this abuse is likely to be misunderstood. But this highest and most excellent freedom we truly maintain, even that by which the will is free, when God worketh it freely to will: Yet many Romists complain, because no other freedom will please them, but that the will may be freed from God, and not be wrought by him to will as he will. But thus do they mainly fight against God's glory, and man's safety: For first, great glory is got hereby unto God, that he can turn the wills that are most averse from him, and make them willingly and gladly to will what he willeth: Even Saul breathing out threatenings and slaughter in his natural will, he can change into Paul, in his new and spiritual will, 
Act 9.1, 6. & 21.13.  ready not only to be bound, but to die for the Name of the Lord jesus. And thus he that glorieth, can only glory in the Lord. Secondly, it gives God the glory of performing his promises: God hath promised a Seed to the woman, 
Rev. 12.17. Gal. 3.16, 28.29.  even Christ mystical, as well as Christ personal; and he hath promised a Seed to Abraham out of all Nations. Now, by this effectual power on the wills of men, doth he perform his promises: Therefore the Psalmist, when he speaks of Gods establishing Christ's Kingdom, saith rightly, 
Psal. 110.2, 3. Psal. 2.8.  The people shall be willing in the day of thy power: and accordingly, Abraham, having received the promise of this Seed, 
Rom. 4.21.  is said to believe, that what God had promised he was able to perform: He did not believe in the wills of men left free from Gods ruling and effectual grace, that they would perform God's promise; for indeed so he might have been deceived: but he believed in God and his power, that he would perform this promised Seed; and accordingly the Seed of promise is borne like Isaac, 
Rom. 9.7, 8.  by the will and power of the Promiser. And in thus believing it is said, That Abraham gave glory to God. Wherefore, this being Abraham's faith, and this faith of Abraham giving glory to God, 
Rom. 4.11, 34.  Let men first consider, whether they can be the Seed of Abraham that have not this faith of Abraham. And next, If this faith of Abraham give glory to God, Let men be afraid by a different faith, even a faith in man's free will for the performance of God's promises, to rob God of his glory. Thirdly, it gives God the glory of our prayers; for therefore we pray unto God that his Kingdom may come, and his will may be done, because we believe that Gods effectual grace doth set up his kingdom in our Wills, and cause them to will the Will of God. Therefore we pray to God for this doing of Gods will, which we could not pray for to God, if God did not produce this effect: for otherwise the Free-will-prayer must run thus; Lord give me only such free will, that I may choose whether I will do thy will or no; and not, that thy will may be certainly done. But for the certain and sure doing of Gods will, they must pray to their own free wills, which they believe do bring the possibility of doing Gods will into effect. But this is many ways abominable; One abomination it is to pray to God that I may do his will, and yet not believe that God worketh the will and the deed for which I pray. Another, not to pray indeed that Gods will may be done, though Christ hath commanded it, but to pray that it may not be done, as well as be done. For if I pray only to God that he may merely leave it to my will whether his will shall be done or not, I do not pray certainly that his will may be done, but that it may stand in an even balance, whether it shall be done or not: and then it is very possible, yea likely, (as woeful experience hath too often showed) that his Will will not be done. But howsoever, sure it is, to God they cannot pray; but (which is another abomination) must pray to their own wills that Gods will may be surely done, the certainty of doing Gods will being suspended only on their own wills, and not depending on God's effectual grace. How much better doth our Liturgy imitate this pattern of Christ Jesus, and fulfil his direction? It prays for the King, 
Collect of Christ his Circumcision. First Sunday in Lent.  That he may always incline to Gods will, and walk in his way: and for the people, That they may lead a godly, righteous, and sober life; that they may in all things obey God's blessed will; 
First Sunday after Trini●y.  that they may ever obey his godly motions in righteousness and true holiness; that they may please God both in will and in deed; 
17. Sunday.  That his grace may prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works. And indeed, these prayers, and especially the Lords prayer, being so sound good that the souls of men cannot but approve and use them, it doth seem to evince, that those who do use these prayers, though otherwise they seem to favour this Romish free will, yet do not heartily believe that free will which crosseth and denyeth these prayers: 
Q●idam non credendo credunt. Tertul.  as on the other side, it would be a mighty accusation, if they should so believe free will, that they could not say the Lords prayer. Lastly, It takes from God the glory of praise and thanks for our obedience; and especially, for our differing from others: for the free-will-men cannot praise God so well as the Pharisee, who yet was not justified; for, they cannot say, Father, I thank thee that I am not like other men; but they must say, Father, I thank thee that I was like other men, and had the same free will and grace which they had; but, That I am not like other men, I thank my own free will, which, by a different use of the same grace, wherein by thee I was made like other men, hath made me unlike to them. To conclude, This opinion of free will, as it robs God of his glory, so it robs man of his safety; for it hangs man's safety upon man's free will: God and his grace do not keep man, but man's free will keeps grace, and by grace keeps man; grace dependeth on the will, whether it shall be kept itself, and whether it shall keep man or lose him: But thus the will, grace, and the man are not safely 
a Natura h●●mana etiam si in illa integritate in qua est condi●a permaneret nullo modo scipsam▪ Creatore suo non adjuvante, servaret. Concil. Ar. Ca 19 1 Pet. 1.5▪  kept by the power of God unto salvation. Man is brought back again into the state of free will which the old Adam had, and lost; but with this disadvantage, that he hath now a mighty law 
b Rom. 7.23▪  in his members, rebelling against the law of his mind, which the old Adam had not: And now shall man, with all his imperfections issuing from this body of sin, stand by free will, wherewith Adam in his full perfection fell? Whosoever thinks so, hath need to think better of his imperfect self, then of perfect Adam: But, for my part, I see great cause to be afraid of that free will which hath undone him. Again, Is there no more stability issuing from the second Adam, Christ Jesus, who is God and man, than there would have been by descent from the first Adam, who was only a man? Doth Regeneration from Christ give no more stability with his seed, then with Generation should have been communicated to us descending from the old Adam, if he had stood in perfection? Yet of Christ that is said which could never be spoken of Adam, nor can be spoken of free will; He is that Rock on which the Church being grounded, The gates of Hell cannot prevail against her: 
Mat. 16.  And of the Seed of God given through this second Adam, 
Joh. 3.9.  we read, It is a remaining Seed, which keeps us from reigning sin. Briefly, as we are borne of promise, so God gave to the promised Seed a Land of promise; and the bringing that Seed unto the Land of promise is sure to this Seed by the effectual power of God the Promiser, as the promised Seed was surely given by his promise: And accordingly, for the establishing our hearts, we do often hear of the 
* 1 Cor. 1.9. 1 Cor. 10.13. 1 Thes. 5.14. 2 Thes. 3.3. Heb. 10.23.  faithfulness of God who hath promised. In God therefore is our safety, and not in our own free will; He is our Shepherd, therefore we do not fear; his grace keepeth our wills and us, and our wills fundamentally and finally keep not this grace and us. And thus God's glory and man's safety are joined together by God's powerful grace; and therefore we may close up this Point in the words of Saint Paul, God shall preserve us unto his heavenly Kingdom; to him be glory for ever, Amen. Yet may we add this Lesson as a Corollary from the joint consideration of Saint Paul's Conversion and Doctrine, That they who have felt most the effectual power of God's grace in their conversion from the kingdom of Satan unto God, will be most earnest in teaching this grace, and in giving glory to God for that effectual grace by which they have been converted.  
Yea, let us hereunto join that memorable 
a Cass. Art. 18. ex Bonavent. Hoc piarum mentium est, ut nil sibi tribuant, sed totum gra●iae Dei; unde, quantum cunque aliquis det gratiae Dei, à pietate non recedet, etiamsi multa tribuendo gratiae Dei, aliquid subtrahat p●testati Naturae, vel li●e●i arb●t 〈◊〉: cù● verò aliquid gratiae Dei subtrahitur, & Natu●ae t●ibuitu● quòd gra●●●● est, ibi potest periculum intervenire.  Caution, which may serve for a Loadstone to direct those that sail in the deep of this Controversy to the harbour of safety where they would be, That in all doubts and difficulties they incline to that opinion which gives most glory to God: For, as it hath been well taught, This is the disposition of godly minds, to attribute nothing to themselves, but all to the grace of God; whence it will come to pass, that though a man should give never so much to the grace of God, and thereby take away somewhat from the power of Nature and free will, he shall never depart from piety: but when something is taken from Grace and given to Nature, thence danger may arise.  
He goes on: So also do they play at fast and loose, when in the sixth Article of holy Scripture, they enumerate all those Books of the old Testament which they allow to be Canonical; wherein, by the way, they are rather 
b Then was a Saint of Rome & a Cardinal rather Jews than Christians, by the Cavaliers censure; for thus saith Lorca, Gravior Controversia est de his li●ris, quos à Canone ●ejiciunt, non solum hae●etici recentiores, sed etiam sanctus Antonius & Caj●tanus. Tract. de loc. Cathol. lib. 1. Disp. 3. Mem. 3. ubi de libris Tobiae, judith, Eccl●siastici, Sapientiae, & Maccabaeorum disputat.  jews than Christians▪ for not admitting the Books of Judith, the Maccabees, and divers others in the Canon. This Author is still busy in bringing in the number of Canonical Books for fundamental; (as before in the Creed) when his own Masters put it not among their Explicites and Fundamentals.  
But yet, if the number were on all sides taken for a Fundamental, our Church hath sufficiently expressed her meaning to men whose eyes are single, and not troubled with the fiery humour of uncharitableness and contention: For first, for the number of the old, they enumerate (as himself confesseth) all the Books of the old Testament which they account Canonical; so then, if the number of Canonical Books be a Fundamental, the Articles have showed this Fundamental concerning the old Testament: Yet thus he is not pleased, but is still angry with the Articles, to his own hurt, and runs against them with a sword, whose point he turns against his own soul, and the head against our Church: For he saith, They are rather jews than Christians, for not admitting the Books of Judith, the Maccabees, etc. But the Author endangereth himself in this point, to be censured as neither good Jew, nor good Christian. 
Rome 3 1, 2.  For Saint Paul, who was an excellent both Jew and Christian, saith, That whereas great was the preferment of the Jew, yet herein it stood chiefly, Because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. So that if that was the chief preferment of the Jew under the Law and Old Testament, that the Oracles of God were committed to them; what shall we say of that Christian, that takes this chief preferment from them, and scandalizeth them and others for following them, even in that wherein the holy Ghost by Saint Paul giveth them a chief preferment? Again, if those were the Oracles of God which were committed to the Jews, and these of judith and Maccabees were not committed to them by God as his Oracles, and accordingly not received by them; either these are not Gods Oracles, or Saint Paul's word will be denied, that God's Oracles were committed to the Jews. So that the Author hath herein good matter, not for penance only, but for true and hearty repentance; for shaming the Jews and us for following them in that very point, wherein Saint Paul saith, that their preferment or advantage chiefly consisteth. Again, the Romists themselves hold the Church of the Jews to have been the true Church in the time of the Law; and the high Priest an unerring head of that Church, as our Author before hath taught us. Now is it not against these Romists own grounds to say, That the Church of the Jews, when it was unerring, did err in the number of Canonical Scriptures, a fundamental of this Author, or else an impertinency? Therefore Lorca more warily alloweth 
a Nec tamen concedendum est, hos libros antiquae Synagogae, ante adventum C●risti ignor●●●uisse, & ex●ra Canonem● quoniam ●●●l●sia ab e●s pr● Ap●stoli●is 〈…〉.  (though in danger to be censured for a Jew) That those Books were anciently given to the Jews. Howsoever, if the high Priest had not then the infallibility to discern Canonical Scriptures, how hath the Pope now that infallibility? For our Author brings in the infallibility of the individual high Priest, to prove (as it should seem) the present infallibility of the Pope; so that the high Priest either had this infallibility, and so the Author is put to shame, for shaming the Jews in their discerning and numbering the Canonical Scriptures; or he had not this infallibility, and so he is put to confusion, in his proving the Pope's infallibility by him that was fallible.  
But he goes on, and talks of Trifling, and not only talks of it, but doth it: They trifle also (saith he) when they tell us that they understand those only Books both of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. For they know as well as we, that the Apocalypse, the Epistle of St. James, Saint Judas, and one of Saint Peter, were not acknowledged, till proofs were made, during the space of three or four hundred years after Christ our Lord. But if a Romist had written the same words which our Articles do, no question he would have found'out some gentle construction, to have made it sound and good; perchance he would have said, that there was never any general doubt in the Church, and that the universal Church never doubted them: (For we know, that the most ancient Fathers received them, and used testimonies from them) Or, upon the word, Doubt, there was no just sound, or sufficient doubt of them, no doubt that was worth the name of a doubt. But indeed, this Article (as it seems) mainly looking to the Apocryphals of the Old Testament, wherein alone stands the doubt, and difference of number between us and Rome; it might hold it sufficient to use such words as concerned that difference, not mentioning or regarding ancient differences in that of the New Testament, wherein between us and Rome is present agreement. But yet more trifling and frivolous is our Authors inference: Th●s● men have been pleased out of th●●● great grace to admit them, though the Maccabees must be rejected, because they speak of prayer for the dead. For we, or rather the Scripture hath showed before, why the Maccabees are not received as Canonical; because, contrary to this Author, but agreeabe to Saint Paul, they were not committed to the 
b 〈◊〉 Scriptu●am quae app●llatur Maccab●●●rum, ●udaei non h●bent sicut Legem, & Prophetas, & Psalmos, etc. 〈…〉. Epi●●. Gau●en●. l. 2. ca 23.  Jews as the Oracles of God. So we 
c Non oportet libros qui sunt extra Can●nem l●gere, nisi solo● Canonicos Novi & Veteris Testamenti. Q●●e a●tem opo●●●at legi, & in authoritatem recipi haec sunt, Gen●sis, 〈…〉. A● Macca●●●o●um lib●i in ho● Catalogo nusquam legu●tur. 〈◊〉. L●odicen. in s●xta Sy●odo confirma●um.  found them left out of the Canon, and do not thrust them out: But they are Romists that bring in the Maccabees to be Canonical, to prove prayers for the dead; because they have no proof for them in the Canon. If the Canon prove not prayers for the dead, being beneficial to the Papacy, the Papacy must make Canon, to prove prayers for the dead. For surely, if Apocrypha had not been made Canon, there had been no Canon to prove their Apocryphal prayer for the dead.  
But now concerning the Books of the New Testament, the Author hath discovered an Elephant in an Atom: Observe, saith he, what this book of Articles saith concerning the Canonical Books of the New Testament; it saith only this: All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them for Canonical. But why do they not particularly enumerate all the books which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament, as they had done them of the Old? A strange wonder, and one that deserved observation; and an observation that well deserved a question: but the question scarce deserves an answer; especially seeing the Author answers himself before he makes the question. For first, who doth not see, that in the books of the New Testament, there being no differences between us and the Romists, it was sufficient to say, That those are received for Canonical, which are commonly received?  
And secondly, this Author himself so far answers his own question before he makes it, that he acknowledgeth, the Page foregoing, That these men have been pleased, out of their great grace, to admit Saint James, Saint Judas, etc. Yet now he takes a deep exception for not naming St. james, which is so admitted, that he himself can by name say that we admit him. So it seems we had no great depth in hiding the name of Saint james, which our Author, as shallow as his pen runs, did so easily find. But I confess, I am sorry both for him and myself: for him, that he is troubled with working such Cob webs; and for myself, that I have the labour of sweeping them away. Yet will he needs go on in such industrious vanities: But abstracting from all these insincerities, wherewith that book of Articles is full fraught, they do not so much as say, that the Articles of Doctrine which they deliver are fundamental, either all, or half, or any one thereof, or that they are necessarily to be believed by them, or the contrary damnable if it be believed by us. But they are glad to walk in a cloud for the reasons which have been already touched. Our Author commends the book of Articles, while he calls the Insincerities of it, These Insincerities; that is, these which before have been showed to be invisible, and no Insincerities; Insincerities only in the eye of the Author, which did cast the shape of them on the book, when he read it.  
But, saith he, They show not which are fundamental, and which are not: Neither did they ever promise you that they would do so. The fundamentals are said to be there, but no man said, for aught I know, that there it was showed which are fundamentals, and which are not. Yourselves hold points of importance, which are more fundamental, and to be explicitly known▪ and doth every Romish Council tell you which are these points, and which are not? And if it doth not, why do you demand it of our Church in her Synod, more than of your own? Or if you can excuse your own, why do you quarrel with ours? It was not the intended, much less promised business of our Church, there to distinguish fundamentals from superedifications; but to set down both fundamentals, and superedifications. And these being taught to her children, the Spirit of Christ the foundation, will discover the fundamentals to his members, and thereby settle them on Christ, and further build them up by the superedifications, according to their appointed measure. And I have before showed how our fundamentals may be discerned, though I may say somewhat like to that of our Saviour to the Jews, Why of yourselves discern ye not that which is right, and rightly fundamental? For if you know how to find out these grounds of Christianity, which must be explicitly known, which yourselves acknowledge to be more fundamental, you may easily find out our fundamentals; so that all this is but an empty outcry, to affright the Reader with noise without reason: thus to call for a designment of fundamentals, where none was undertaken, and where in like case yourselves do it not; and to quarrel with fundamentals, which yourself and yours do acknowledge. Yet when Romists have agreed of the set number themselves, let them send to us their Catalogue defined by a Synod, and it may be we may deal with them upon exchange.  
The Cavalier goes on: Master Rogers indeed in the Analysis which he makes of those nine and thirty Articles, speaks loud enough by way of taxing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as being contrary to that of the Church of England; and he gives it 〈◊〉 many ill names as his impure spirit can devise; and affirms, among other things, that many Papists, and namely, the Franciscans, blush not to affirm, that S. Francis is the holy Ghost, and that Christ is the Saviour of men, but one mother Jane is the Saviour of women: a most execrable aspersion of Postellius the jesuit; with a great deal of such base trash as this: And yet his Book is declared to have been perused, and by the lawful Authority of the Church of England permitted to be public: But yet even Master Rogers himself is not so valiant as to tell us in particular which point of their doctrine is fundamental to salvation, and which is not. True it is, that Master Rogers doth very clearly and audibly speak against, and condemn divers errors of the Church of Rome, as being not only contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, but to the Word of God, with which commonly he confronts the errors which he brings forth to judgement. And among them he showeth some errors of a high nature, which make Saviour's of Merits and Masses, and Popish Pardons; yea, which carry the faith of the soul from God unto man, the Pope and his Counsels. And, for aught I see, he doth not give worse names than the purest and holiest Spirit gives to the Pope, who calleth him, 
2 Thess. 2.  the Man of sin, and son of perdition, etc. And the impurity which this Author at his own costs, and upon his own word lays on him, Mr Rogers lays on Rome by proofs and allegations, as in divers places, so particularly in the nineteenth Article, Propos. 7. whereof the Title is this, That the Church of Rome most shamefully hath erred in life, ceremonies, and matters of faith: But, for that to which this Authors spirit gives the ill name of base trash, it is brought in as the filth of his own Associates, and testified by other Writers; and therefore the baseness of it most justly should light on them that are the first Authors of it. Neither is it strange amongst Papists to make creatures to share salvation with our Saviour; 
Tu per Thomae s●nguinem, etc. La● Matris misce●e volo cum sanguine Nat●. Ave salus 〈◊〉 s●cul●, Arbour 〈◊〉. Item, In Cruse Christi ponimus spem salutis; Cantat enim Eccl●●●●, O C●u●, a●e spes u●ica, etc. Aquia. 3. ●●ast. 25. Art. 4.  the hymns concerning the milk of the blessed Virgin, the blood of Thomas, the virtue of the wooden Cross, singing it aloud in the ears of the world. Filthiness and baseness, most abominable, and that deserves to be swept out of the Church with detestation, and to be carried out as the Filthiness out of the holy Place in the Reformation of Hezekiah: 
2 Chro. 29.5.  And why, in an equal judgement, should not Master Rogers his Books much rather be permitted to be public for naming such filthiness with detestation, than Rome allowed to be Catholic, though using such filthiness with practical approbation? Lastly, The want of valour in Master Rogers to tell us which point of our doctrine is fundamental, and which is not, I think is no just accusation; because, for aught I know, he did not undertake this as his business; neither had any Romish Cavalier yet challenged him upon this quarrel.   

SECT. III.  
Wherein is discovered the vanity of his boasting, That the Protestant Church is unlikely to define which are the fundamental differences betwixt them and the Papists, since they scarce dare avow any difference at all.  
He goes on; Much less is there any appearance that ever the Church of England should do it; since even now we have seen, that it dares not, in divers points, so much as declare in public manner, that it professes the express contrary of what we held: Nay, we are not likely to see the fundamental points of faith, whereof they talk so loud, to be avowed by so much as either of the Universities; yea, or yet by any one College or Society of learned men amongst them. This Author is exceedingly troubled for want of more division, and complains there is not opposition enough between us and Rome; yet, when we express a contrariety to the Tenants of Rome, than he cries out, There is such a crossness between us, that we cannot be one Church: and when we do not express it, than We dare not so much as declare it in public manner. And now he calls for Fundamentals, as Goliath for Combatants, Give me a man that we may fight together; and yet a man would think, that one trained up in the School of Rome to such an eminence, as to take him to be her Champion and Cavalier, should so know the first grounds of Christianity, which himself calls more fundamental, that he should not make it a quarrel against us, that we do not teach him: Yet, before hath been showed, how a man that hath not much more skill than himself, may guess with as much certainty at our fundamentals, as at his own Romish Explicites. But if he lack work for his Cavalier, and to that end desire plain points of Controversy, our Church hath evidently declared her judgement against the Papal Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Worship of Images, Merits, Purgatory, Prayer in an unknown tongue, Sacrifice of the Mass, and divers other points: And I wonder how this Author got leave either of his judgement or modesty, to say, that she who da●es in these points to declare her opposition to the Synagogue of Rome, dare not do it in others, if she pleased: For, to omit the other points, she that dares declare her opposition against the Pope's Supremacy, hath dared to oppose the very Head and Heart of Popery; and if she dare oppose the Head, why should she be afraid of the Limbs and Branches? But, both in the Head and many Branches, our Church hath declared her judgement; and therein may he and his fellows exercise their valour, if they do so much overflow with it, even to complaining of want of quarrels: And when they have dispatched these Controversies, and quit themselves in them like Cavaliers, then let them call for more, and find fault with want of differences. And now if I would answer a wise man according to his wisdom, I would use his own words, and make them speak against himself and his fellows; We are not likely to see their Romish Explicites, whereof they talk so loud, avowed by their Universities, Colleges, or Counsels, etc. Yea, we are not likely to see the point of worshipping images with Latria; nor the Pope's power to depose Kings, determined by any Council: and yet of these points Papists speak aloud, & for them fill the world with Treasons against God in heaven, and Gods Deputies on earth. And I might, with very little exchange, adjoin his own following words; The reason of their Reservation is plain: for, if a Council should be convinced of errors, their main Cause would receive a mortal wound. But now, when some particular men defend these errors, they may say as Master Hart did to Master Reynolds, 
Reynolds and Harts conference, Chap. 2. dist. 2.  I care not for the judgement of Andradius, or Cajetane, or any other private man, though you could bring an hundred of them. But I am weary of waiting on his words, which either have no weight, or weight to press himself to the ground. But a swelling, yet most empty vanity, is that saying which our Author imagineth to be great with reason; I have heard some Catholics affirm (and that, to my thinking, with great reason) that they would hold it to be no ill work for them, if the pretended College of Chelsey, or any other, were founded by Protestants, expressly for writing Books of Controversy by common consent. For, as I said before, Our Church by common consent hath declared her judgement in divers points of Controversy already named, and the Romists have here work enough to confute, if they can, what hath been established by common consent, Hic Rhodus, Hic saltus. This they have assayed hitherto with shame and loss; and though they lose by the quarrels they have already undertaken, yet they are not ashamed to call for more quarrels, that is, for more loss. Besides, this vanity may be turned against themselves: For, why should not we also demand, That the Pope and his Council should establish a College at Rome, or Rheims, which should write Controversies by a Pseudo-Catholcik consent? which when they have done, then let them call for a College from us. I wish this Author would try to speak something against us, wherein he might not speak against himself. But our Cavalier is now like a Ship drawing near to the Harbour, and his water is still shallower and shallower: yet hath he descried one Doctor, of whom, if he do not make prize, all his Adventures are lost: But what if we disclaim the Doctor, as Master Hart did Andradius and Cajetane? then is our Author put to silence, for want of a College writing with common consent: Yet saving to ourselves these and the like exceptions, Let us see what he saith; and first, take notice of the Preface, which, like a Beadle, doth usher and make way for the Doctor; On the other side, at times they make eager Invectives against us for declaring so many, yea, and all the Doctrines of our Church to be fundamental; so far forth as that whosoever refuses obstinately to believe any of of them, doth forfeit the salvation of his soul. And in the strength of this zeal of theirs, Doctor Dunne, in a Sermon made before his Majesty at his first happy coming to this Crown, doth bitterly exclaim against the Catholic Roman Church, as making every toy to be fundamental: And can you blame our Writers or Preachers to reprove you, that you will damn so many souls for toys, yea, for errors? For herein they have God for their pattern, and your pattern is that which God reproved in jonah. For we, with the Father of Mercy, would save many thousand souls, who by faith in Christ the foundation are united unto God, and by repentance and regeneration do strive and endeavour to obey him. But you, imitating the fault of jonah, for the Pope's honour and supremacy, will have many thousands of such believing and penitent souls to be damned (who know not the right hand from the left, in many of your frivolous Doctrines) if the Pope do affirm it: For example; If a man believe all the Truths in the Bible, and all those which are in the Romish Decrees, and withal lives justly, soberly, and godly; yet believes not, that it is unlawful for Gossips to marry, this man must be damned. And how may not Preachers than say to the Romists, Now walk ye not charitably, when through your vanities the brother must perish, for whom Christ died? Christ would have saved him as a foundation of salvation; but the new and supposititious foundation, the Pope, damneth him whom Christ would save. But the best is, he who by a fundamental faith is built upon Christ the true foundation, can never be damned by unbelieving any Article of faith created and coined by the Pope, a counterfeit foundation.  
And here, while the Author doth quarrel with the poornesses of the Doctor, not being able to maintain a combat with his rich●s; it seems he doth it with a greater poorness: For what a poor quarrelling is it with the Doctor for saying, That Papists will not let Protestants to be saved, though they believe the same Creed, except they will believe the same Mathematics, and govern themselves by the same Calendar: when thi● Author knows his meaning, and expressed it himself in the words nearly preceding, That the Roman Church makes ●oyes fundamentals? And might not the Pharisees thus have taken a poor exception at our Saviour for saying, that they strained Gnats, whereas they strained not Gnats, but paid the tithe of Mint and Cummin? Besides, he doth not say, that it is really so done; but premising this: When every thing must be called Foundation, we shall never know where to stop, where to consist. If we should believe their Sacrificium incruentum, their unbloudy sacrifice in the Mass; if we did not believe their Sacrificium cruentum too, that there was a power in that Church to sacrifice the blood of Kings, we should be said to be defective in a fundamental Article. If we should admit their Metaphysics, their transcendent Transubstantiation, and admit their Chimiques, their Purgatory fires, and their Mythology and Poetry, their apparitions of souls and spirits; they would bind us to their Mathematics too, and they would not let us be saved, except we would reform our Almanacs to their ten days, and reform our clocks to their four and twenty hours; for who can tell when there is an end of Articles of faith, in an arbitrary and occasional Religion? So the Doctor only shows how such an unlimited making of fundamentals, may go on in a perpetual procession, it having already made things not so profitable as Clocks and Kalendars, Articles of faith, and points fundamental: Witness the Service in an unknown tongue, the Lords Supper without wine, etc. But the Cavalier fights in earnest with this supposition, and tells us, that Romists do rather govern themselves with the less perfect Calendar, which now is used in this place: Yea, he gives a moral of this their deed; letting the world see thereby how willingly we can accommodate to them in all things, which belong not merely to Religion. The controversy of Kalendars, I leave to the Critics of time, to be decided and rectified in their emendatione Temporum. But the argument of accommodation, taken from our Almanacs, is retorted by a greater argument remembered in our Almanacs: For, when in them we see the Papists Treason on the fifth of November, we are thereby put in mind, that Papists do not accommodate to Protestants in all things that belong not merely to Religion. For it is not merely a matter of Religion for a King to sit in Parliament; and yet the Papists would have accommodated him, by blowing him up with powder, thus sitting in Parliament.  
But the Cavalier having thus spoken to ill effect, to amend the matter, brings not forth the Doctors words, but his saying to this effect: But that the Reader may be his own guide, and the Doctor the speaker of his own effect, and the Cavaliers fair carriage may more plainly appear, I will here confront the Doctors words with the Cavaliers. The Doctors words are these: Call not superedifications, foundations; nor call not the furniture of the house, foundations; call not ceremonial and ritual things, essential parts of Religion, and of the worship of God, otherwise then as they imply disobedience: for obedience to lawful authority is always an essential part of Religion. The Cavalier thus repeats him, That difference in belief in points which are not very important, is not to prejudice a man's salvation, unless by not believing them he commit a disobedience withal. For, saith he, obedience indeed is of the essence of Religion. I think that the Cavalier, seeing his face in this glass, finds that it looks red with blushing at the misreporting of the Doctor. The Doctor speaks of ceremonies, the Cavalier reports him speaking of differences in belief: The Doctor speaks of ceremonies commanded by lawful authority; the Cavalier of points of faith, commanded by the unlawful authority of the Pope. But if it please him to remember what hath been already told him, That the Church, much less the 
a It were good that the Cavalier would answer his own great Masters, Driedo, Castro, and Vasquez, who say, that a Lawmaker cannot at his pleasure by his command, make a sin venial or mortal. Materiae quae praecipitur gravitas & utilitas tantae considerationis est, ut non pendeat ex voluntate Legislatoris ad mortalem, aut venialem culpam obligare, posito semel praecepto, sed ex ipsa majore gravitate & levitate respectu finis, cujus gratia praecipitur culpa venialis, aut mortalis judicanda sit. Vasquez ●●. 12. Disp. 158. cap. 4. And it seems it is not for the Pope's honour to command points of small importance: For Thomas Aquinas saith of the Pope, Ad quem majores & difficiliores Ecclesiae quaestiones referun●ur. 22. quaest. 1. A. 10. So it seems this Eagle should not take Flies. But the Council of Ephesus, Decrevit sancta haec Synodus alteram sidem; Nemini licere proffer, aut scribere, aut componere praeter ●am quae de●inita fuit à sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam urbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis. And A●hanasius gives a reason for it: Nam fides quae mihi à Patribus, secundùm sacras Scripturas, & Confessionibus confirmata est, satis mihi idonea ●●ticaxque videbatur ad omnem imp●●tatem emovendam, & pi●tatem ejus, quae in Christo est, fidei 〈…〉 A●hanas. ad Epict. epist. Corinth.  Pope, hath an Inerrability in points of small importance; and where she hath no Inerrability, she hath no authority. Again, in respect of the different capacities of the hearers, all are not capable of every little point and subtlety of faith: and I think no Pope hath power to command his disciples to believe that, which their capacity is not able to understand. But lawful Rites or Ceremonies, not being points of faith, but of action; and being easy to be understood, the obedience to lawful authority in them may more concern the essence of Religion, than obedience to the Pope in those small points of faith, wherein the Pope hath no unerring power, and no authority to make a lawful command; for the people do not sinfully disobey, where the Pope hath no lawful authority to command.  
The Author having thus lost his premises and proofs, yet goes on to a conclusion, which cannot but be lost in the loss of his premises; so that his concluding inferences, This shall serve for discharge both of what they object against our unity in faith, and of what they allege in the behalf of theirs: And, I conceive, that I have sufficiently secured these two main grounds, upon which this whole discourse is turned, are but commendations of a false conception, and of a discourse, which is turned upon grounds over-turned: For neither is his first ground sufficiently secured, That there is but one true Faith, and one true Religion and Church, out of which there is no salvation; the word Out being understood in the sense of the Author, that is, That if a man be out of the faith professed in the Church in the least hair, part, or degree, that there can be to him no salvation. Nor more secured is his second ground, That Catholics and Protestants cannot possibly be accounted of that one Religion, Church, and Faith. For, as it may be true that Protestants and all Catholics do not agree in every small title and mite of faith; yet it is most true, that true Catholics and Protestants are so entirely of one saving Faith and Religion, that they are also of one Church. And from these Catholics, I desire not to exclude all of the Roman Diocese: But indeed Papists, whose humane faith is grounded on the Pope, as their foundation, being ready to believe Idolatry, Treason, or whatsoever the Pope shall decree for a matter of faith, these I know not how to account members with us of that true Church, whereof Christ is the Head. They are not so truly Christians of Christ, as Papists of the Pope.  
But still I infer, that when the Author hath his two grounds granted, That if Protestants and Papists be not of that one Church wherein is salvation; yet Papists are uncharitable for damning Protestants who are of that Church wherein is salvation; so that neither are his grounds sufficiently secured, neither if they were, are Papists secured sufficiently from uncharitableness. But after his pretended sufficient securing of his grounds (either by way of supererogation, or because he was not secure of his securing) he yet brings in more proof, that we are of two Religions: And now for the final proof of this last point, according even to their practice as well as ours; Let my Reader but look upon the body of their Laws made against us, and especially upon the Preambles thereof, wherein they plentifully show how hateful an opinion they have of our Church; Let him look upon the several Acts of State which have issued from my Lords of the Council: Let him look upon the Proclamations which have been made and published from time to time: Let him look upon the large Commissions which have been granted to Pursuivants, whereby that scum of the world hath been, and is enabled both to ransom and ransack us at their pleasure. Surely, thus far there is little said, but that many of the late Traitors against the French King may take up for a proof that they were not of one Religion with that King, because against them there issued Acts of State, Proclamations, Messengers or Pursuivants (though all of them perchance were not the scum of the Country) to apprehend and ransack them. But he goes farther; Let him look upon those speeches which have been uttered in both Houses of Parliament, not only against Professors, but even the Profession itself of our Religion; and how his most excellent Majesty hath been importuned by their petitions to add more weight to our miseries: for thus it will easily be scene, how false, how rotten, how superstitious, how idolatrous, how detestable, how damnable, and even destructive of all truth and goodness they profess themselves to esteem our Religion: And in fine, that we carry such a mark of the Beast in our foreheads, as must needs, in their opinion, shut up the gates of heaven against us, and set open the gates of hell to devour and swallow us up: So that, certainly, we are no more of one Church with them in their opinion, than they are of one with us in ours. Here indeed he hath many good Epithets of Popery, rotten, superstitious, idolatrous, etc. but I find one great one wanting, and that is traitorous; for this Epithet had a great share in the Parliamentary Complaints and Accusations of Popery. But, to answer his many words in few, (because they were answered in that which last preceded) we deny not, but that which we call Popery, and Papists call their Religion (that is, a beleeeving in the Pope, and obeying of him commanding Idolatry, Treason, Rebellion, and whatsoever else he shall please to decree for a point of faith) is a rotten, superstitious, idolatrous, and traitorous Religion; And of this it is truly said in the prayers of the fifth of November, This their Religion is Rebellion, their faith is faction, their practice murdering of souls and bodies. But yet we charitably hope, that there are some, though two few, who have not so bowed the knees of their souls to this Baal of Rome, that they submit their souls and faiths to him in all his idolatrous and traitorous Doctrines, Decrees, and Commands; but being rather in Rome then of Rome, are Christ's and not the Popes; and therefore will hear Christ's voice, and not the Popes, when the Pope's voice is the voice of a stranger, and an enemy to Christ.    

CHAP. XII.  
Wherein the Cavaliers tenth and last Chapter is annihilated, which he calleth a Recapitulation.  

SECT. I.  
The total of the Cavaliers many nothings is cast up in two short Conclusions, contrary to all that which he hath endeavoured to prove: And some additionals to that total examined; viz. The false remedies of his impertinent fear, lest Papists should grow in love with the civility of Protestants.  
THe Cavalier having said many nothings in his former discourse, he now sums up these nothings, which being never so many, yet it is well known they can amount but to nothing. Wherefore, not to make this work tedious by unnecessary repetitions, I refer the Reader to the former several confutations and annihilations of the particulars, out of which he would here frame this Recapitulation: and instead of the author's not inferred, but intruded Conclusion upon forlorn and vanishing premises, this Conclusion still stands right and strong for us, that since there is but one true Church, and one saving faith, and the Protestants (notwithstanding any of this Authors hollow, answerable, and answered objections, from difference in Sacraments, Traditions, etc. do hold and believe this saving faith, and so are the true Church; the Papacy and adherents thereof professing a difference and division from them, so far as to be of another Church and faith, do excommunicate themselves most heavily, even to damnation. And secondly, The Protestants being the true Church, the Romists separating themselves from us, persecuting us and pronouncing damnation against us, do herein exceeding uncharitably, while they cut off, hate, persecute, and sentence unto hell and damnation the true Church, even the living members of Christ Jesus: For indeed, Papists can never prove against us any change of the Foundation, and therefore are uncharitable in damning those who are lively stones, built on that only Foundation and corner stone, Christ Jesus. But, as if Rome were not enough uncharitable, and though the Title seemed to tell us that the Cavalier would but have recapitulated his former uncharitable speeches; yet he breaks forth into new Capitulations and Incentives of uncharitableness: He doubts (yea seems to be grieved) that some of the Romish Communion, seeing the fair and just conversation of Protestants, may grow into love with them and their Religion. But let the Cavalier upon better consideration remember, that this is not the great and most dangerous and suspicable fault of Popery, that it is so in love with Civility, that for it it neglects Religion; but that Popery hath so mightily depraved and corrupted Religion, that Popish Religion hath destroyed Civility, and fairness of Nature: So that, whereas Religion should have advanced men beyond natural candour and fairness; Popish Religion hath destroyed this natural fairness, and made them worse than men, whom true Religion would have lifted up above men, unto Saints; an evident mark that it is not a true, but a false and foul Religion: This appeareth plainly in those of the powder Treason; divers of which were men of candid natures, and ingenuous dispositions; yet by Popish Religion turned out of nature, made worse than themselves, and brought to the acting of the most unnatural of Treasons. A foul Religion, that doth black even the white of nature; yet the Cavalier desiring, Romishly, to die white into black, he prescribes Antidotes, and Remedies of Love and Charity; and thus adviseth his Readers to hatred and opposition against Protestants: See how Saint John carried himself towards Cerinthus, and Policarpe to Marsyon, and Saint Anthony to the Arrians, and a thousand others. And lest it should be thought that Saints fall not foul but only upon such Heretics that deny even the very prime Articles of Christian Religion, which concern either God the Father, or the immediate person of Christ our Lord himself: Cast but an eye upon Saint Bernard, that mild and merciful man of God, and see how he treats the Heretics of his time, who had too much affinity with those of ours; 
Videte detractores, videte canes, etc.  See ye Dogs, see ye Detractors. Behold how he gives his Romists patterns and precedents to make them fall foul with us; but indeed, his first Precedents are impertinent, for they show a falling foul with such as we are not: wherefore, because his first patterns were incongruous, and would not serve the turn (those heresies of Cerinthus not belonging to us) he leaps over many hundred years of the purer times of the Church, where, it seems, he could not find grounds for his better falling foul with us, and at length comes unto the times of Popish errors and superstitions; there he finds a good old man, one, I think, of the seven thousand which belonged to God's Election, though not altogether without a glass on his eyes, particoloured by the prejudice of his birth and education in those times of superstition: This good man he seeth angry with some of his time that derided the Baptism of infants, Prayers for the dead, and the Suffrages of Saints; the former of which did justly deserve a sharp reproof; and indeed, upon that he chiefly insists in his confutation. But the later we impute to the superstitious darkness of the times, and would have covered these sores of this holy man, but that this Author will needs discover the nakedness of his father. Yet, if he will but look into that very Sermon of 
a Superstitionis impietat●m nomine Religionis intitulant— In operimentum turpitudinis continentiae se insigniere voto.— Hi adeo, aut bestiales sunt, ut non advertant qualiter omni immunditiae laxat habenas qui nuptias damnat, aut certè ita pleni nequitiâ, & diabolicâ malignitate absorpti, ut advertentes dissimulent, & laetentur in perditione hominum. Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile Connubium, & thorum immaculatum, nun reples eam concubina iis, incestuosis, seminifluis, mollibus, masculorum concubitoribus, & omni denique genere immundorum? Elige ergo utrumlibet, aut sal●a●i universa haec MONSTRA hominum, aut numerum salvandorum ad continentium redigi paucitatem. Bernard. in Cant. serm. 66.  Bernard, he shall see more just and weighty reasons to accuse his own Romists for crimes, which draw Almighty God himself to fall foul with some of their chief limbs and members. For here he disputes against that forbidding of marriage which defiles the Church with adulterous, incestuous, and unnatural sinners, whom he calls, The monsters of men; yet by Rome's forbidding marriage, such monsters have been too often found among those, who yet are called Priests, Abbots, Monks, and Friars. But yet, that this Champion may still nourish his root of wormwood and division, and that the Romish palates may be still kept in distaste and loathing of us, he saith of Protestants, That they are cruel enough to such as they see not, and withal their civility, and courtesy, and suavity in ordinary conversation, they can find in their Heretical hearts at a clap to rob all dead men of the help and comfort of the prayers of the living, and all living men of the prayers of the Saints, who are in heaven; and the same Saints, of all the honour which Catholics pay to them here on earth: to omit in this place their infinite and innumerable detractions, and slanders, and reproaches of the whole Church of God. But here is as little verity as charity; for the three Alls, are all three untruths. For it is not true, that Protestants rob all the dead of the prayers of the living: For first, those dead which are in heaven, are not robbed of prayers by denying prayers to those that are not in heaven, but supposed to be in Purgatory. Secondly, those prayers that belong to the dead, we give for them; and that is, to join with them in their own prayers: even the prayers of the souls of Saints under the Altar. 
Revel. 6.9, 10.  We pray that God would hasten the coming of Christ, and so their resurrection and their consummation in glory. And to this end, that God will hasten the judgement of the great Whore, 
Revel. 19.1, 2.  which hath shed their blood, and avenge it on her. A second untruth is this, That we rob all living men of the prayers of the Saints in heaven; I might indeed say, that this building is of another stuff, and different from the foundation, That we are cruel to those that we see not; for we see those that are living: But, howsoever, it is also untrue; for we allow and embrace the prayers of the Saints in heaven for the living; yea, we doubt not, but that those souls who are in the triumphant part of the Church, and perfect in charity, do love that part of the Church which is here militant, and pray for her victory, and that it may be joined with her in triumphant glory. True it is, that we find not in the Scripture, that the Saints departed have such knowledge of the particular affairs of the Saints living, that we can believe by a supernatural faith that they know our necessities, our thoughts, 
Rom. 14.23.  and desires. And, what is without faith being sin, we dare not offer prayers without faith, 
Eccles. 7.1.  lest they should be turned into sin. Thirdly, it is no less untrue, That we rob Saints of all the honour which true Catholics pay unto them. The name of the Saints is to us as a precious ointment, 
Psal. 112.6.  and it is kept by us in everlasting remembrance. We delight to make mention of their heavenly virtues, of their valiant actions, and constant passions, of their wise counsels, powerful exhortations, excellent expositions of divine truths in their sayings, sermons, and writings. We desire to follow their examples, to be instructed by their knowledge to be inflamed with their zeal, and enlived with their heats, who quicken being dead, as the dead Prophet enlived the dead soldier. These honours we do them, and thus should it be done to those whom God doth honour. And if thus we do honour them, then far from truth is it, that we rob them of all that honour which true Catholics pay them. And lastly, where he speaks of infinite detractions, slanders, and reproaches of the whole Church of God; this is a most unjust, and unjustifiable slander. We reverence the whole Church of God as our Mother, we love her peace; and to this end is that which is written in the first Chapter, and to this end are these lines, which write against this slander. We reproach not the whole Church; but a botch, a wen, a disease, and burden in the Church: A faction, that disturbs and distracts the Church; and which, to set up a counterfeit head, tears the true body of Christ into pieces: And this seems also to be the business of this Champion in this work; and even at this time, when by unjust accusations he both persuades to uncharitable divisions, and strives by his clamours to terrify souls into the net of the Papacy. But this Champion, while he liveth, will never be able to prove, that the Papacy (or the Pope and his faction) is the Church: And yet, until he prove this, all his book is but a carcase, mere dead paper, without strength and life: In the mean time, they are most guilty of detractions, slanders, and reproaches of the whole Church of God, that lay the title of damnable Heretics or schismatics on all the members of the whole Catholic Church, that are not subject unto the Man of sin, which sits as God in the Temple of God.   

SECT. II.  
An absurd compliment of the Cavaliers, attended with three gross slanders of the Protestants Religion, That it is a profession suited to the pleasure of superiors. Secondly, that the ground of it is sense and appetite. Thirdly, that they labour more for conformity then unity, are all answered.  
ANd now after his bitter pill of dissension, to take away the offence of it, and that at parting he may flatter the taste of his Reader with a farewell of sweetness, he puts this sugar to it: All which I have not said either by way of aggravating their sins, or of alienating men from their persons, which I esteem and love, and desire to serve with my whole heart. If the Reader will make a due conjunction of this with the former, and make a right construction of the whole, he may see it run into this confusedness, The Romish faction must be rigorous to Protestants, and avoid them, as Saint John did Cerinthus, etc. Yea, they must fall foul upon them, though holding lesser heresies, and call them Dogs; they must take them for cruel Robbers of the living and the dead, for slanderers and detractors, and all this is well done, and may be done without being alienated from their persons. But doth this Author think that there will be a separation, a falling foul, and an accounting of us for Dogs without alienating of affections from our persons? Or would he have such a not alienating from our persons, as, upon meeting with us, to part presently from us, or to fall foul upon us, and to call us Dogs? Surely, whatsoever this Author afterwards speaks of his intent, his former words teach such a separation, division, and hatred, that these later words do not take them away; but only make a fair show by a mannerly distinction, teaching a counterfeit art of falling foul upon men, without being alienated from their persons. But will any wise man think it a charitable speech, if Catesby should say unto Faulx, Be not alienated from the person of the King, nor of his royal issue, nor of the Nobility, but only fall foul upon them, and blow them up with gun powder? As for that following profession towards their persons so diversely expressed, which I esteem, and love, and desire to serve with my whole heart, I acknowledge them to be fair words, and of a very good countenance: But perchance, by some other way there might have been given to a doubtful Reader more solid satisfaction. For a scrupulous Reader may possibly say, that these words by Travellers are vented often but as the froth of compliment, and by Romists are often eluded by a latent equivocation, or mental reservation, and may now be doubted, because they do come in suspiciously with very bad company; even as attendants on exhortations and incentives, to separate from Protestants, to esteem them as Dogs, and to fall foul upon them; yea, not to hold the Reader in doubt, but to let him see there is no soundness in your distinction of not hating our persons, you have in this book before taught, that he who doth not obey your Church, 
Page 35▪  be taken for no other than a Pagan, or a Publican, that is, a mere Idolater in his Religion, and for a most infamous and base person in his conversation. The Reader might have been more sound satisfied, if in stead of all these verbs, (esteem, love, and serve) the Cavalier had only said this single sentence, with one adverb, I have heartily taken the oath of Allegiance.  
As for his good intent, in showing us what Heresy is, and how odious, we thank him for it, and do make this use of it, That because Heresy is so odious, therefore we abhor the Papacy, which hath in it sundry Heresies, Idolatries, and Doctrines of Devils, and is not the Church, but a faction in the Church; and desire by grace to continue true and lively members of the Church, truly Catholic, consisting of all Kindred's, Tribes, and Nations over the face of the whole earth, whereof Christ Jesus is the only and unquestionable Head. And if by the Authors mispersuasions we should remove from this truly universal Church to become members of the Papacy, we should remove from the Church truly Catholic, to a piece and portion in the Church; and that not so much a piece of the Church, as a faction and disease in the Church; whereof the taking away, and not the increase is a special, if not only preservation of the unity and health of the Church truly catholic. And towards this let the Pope hear his 
a Tu quid Christo universalis sanctae Ecclesiae capiti in extremi judiciidicturus es examine, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris universalis appellatione supponere? Quis rogo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad incitandum proponitur, qui dispectis Angelorū legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur. Greg. Mag. lib. 4. Epist. 38.  better, even a better Pope than any since him, making a question which he cannot well answer but by removing his universal Headship; What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head, who goest about to subjugate all his members to thee? And elsewhere 
b Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo s● caeteris praeponit. I●. lib. 6. Epist. 30. Mauritio Augusto.  he saith, that such a one is the forerunner of Antichrist. But such a one was the Pope within twenty years after this was written. And if the Pope, a thousand years since, was the forerunner of Antichrist, we may well think that Antichrist is not all this time behind his forerunner.  
And now, if the Pope's universal Headship be an Antichristian error, and an error unanswerable at the last day, it were good that the Author himself being moved by his own motives, would withdraw his faith from this Antichristian heretical Headship, and become a right child of the Church, truly Christian and Catholic; wherein, and not in the Papacy, is salvation▪ But how far from verity this is which followeth, I think he cannot but see when he comes to himself; his words or insimulations are these, What indeed do they, but show by their whole course, that they desire, and resolve to believe and profess according to the occasion, and to comply with the superior powers of this world? But doth the Author believe when he is awaked what he spoke in this dream? Have the Protestants done thus? or doth not this Author know that they have not thus done? Whom do Papists esteem a superior Power in the world above the Popes? Therefore they have blasphemed him into a King 
a john Tankerill, a Bachelor of Divinity, defended, that the Pope, Vicar of Christ, is Monarch of the Church, and may deprive Kings & Princes, who disobey his commandments, of their Kingdoms, States, and Dignities. For which he being condemned to recant by the French, the Court of Rome spoke of the French men as of lost sheep, who denied the Authority given by Christ to Saint Peter. Hist. Trent. lib. 5. And yet Optatus saith, cum super Imperatorem non sit, nisi solus D●us qui fecit Imperatorem— Dixisti, Ego sum Deus; Ide●, quia quam vis non sit usus hâc voce, tamen aut facit, aut passus est quòd defectum hujus vocis impleret. Extulit corsuum ut nullum hominem sibi comparandum arbitraretur & tumore mentis suae altior sibi visus est esse; quia quicquid est supra homines jam quasi Deus est. lib. 3.  of kings, and Lord of lords. And did Luther, and the first Protestants comply with this superior Power of the world? He 
b Hist. Trent. lib. 1.  neglected both the threatenings of Cajetane, and the fair promises of Vergerus. Again, in Queen Mary's days, did those whom you burned here comply with the superior powers in point of Religion? Yea, look through Christendom, and your own fires, which you have kindled to consume a world of Protestants, will flash into your faces, blast them, and make them look red with the shame of this scandal.  
And that which follows is a like empty of Truth; but, indeed, that emptiness is again filled up with malice: They desire to obey appetite and sense, without being ever so much as told, if they can choose, that they must lose heaven for their labour. You have had Scriptures, Fathers, and Reasons for our Religion, which never yet were, nor never can be answered; and with these hath Popery been battered into pieces. Why then talk you of appetite and sense, when your own smart and shame can tell you, that we have had stronger weapons which have beaten you with sound blows? Rather speak of sense and appetite when you see a Papist in his ●at days, before Ash-wednesday, to make work for the Priest, or speak of sense and appetite when a King is moved to go to the dames of Paris, and then offered to have a Cardinal (a man of sense and appetite) to be his Confessor, as Lewis the eleventh at the interview told Edward the fourth: rather speak of sense and appetite among the stalled Monks, the fleshly Cardinals, the luxurious Popes, that may draw a world of souls into hell both by doctrine and example, and who of you durst say to such a one, What dost thou? or in our Authors words, tell them that they must have hell for their labour. But indeed, we justly take it ill, that Papists should tell us, that when we are going to heaven, we should lose heaven for our labour, only because we give not up our souls to this Man and Head of sin, by schism and error leading millions of souls from heaven to hell.  
He goes on, and says; The children in this are as like their Mother as they can look: For, who perceives not that the Protestant Church doth rather carry a respect to outward conformity, then to real unity in matter of Religion; and that indeed they are but as in jest, when there is speech of saving souls in any one Church rather than in another? A large scandal cast on a whole Church, (and, I doubt, once this Authors Mother) yet without proof, and against proof; for no proof doth he bring that our Church is in jest in matters of Religion, or accounts all Religious alike: and even his own words next following might have holpen him to disprove his own false witness; It is true that they make both Laws and Canons, whereby they obliged men under a world of penalties to frequent their Churches, and to receive their Sacraments. For the Laws and Canons which he mentions, do express a care for the believing her doctrine, since they command a subscription to it, a teaching and preaching of it (and preaching, Saint Paul saith, 
Rom. 10.14, 17.  is the means of believing), and lastly Excommunication against those that affirm the contrary: But the Author, having spoken a broad scandal against the whole Church, brings in a very narrow tax of some Ministers for a proof of it: For I put the case, 
It is likely the Pope himself was of a contrary opinion to the Cavalier, and doubted that uniformity would bring to uni●y, and therefore forbade his Disciples this uniformity.  If a man who were known to be wholly affected in his heart of the Catholic faith, should yet, for the saving of his lands or goods, resolve to comply with their Laws, by going to their Churches, and by receiving their Communion; yea, and withal, should declare in company the day before, that he was resolved to do so the day after, for the only saving of his estate, and for the showing of obedience to the King's Laws; though yet withal he were persuaded that their Sacraments were unlawful, and their Church impure: Would that 
a It seems, Ministers had need to look carefully to their carriage; especially, since notice is given of a book written by Papists, of the lives of divers, with their names and actions.  Minister refuse to let him go to his Service, and for to communicate with the rest? Infallibly he would not; and we see daily, that they do not in like occasions; for that Church, as I said, aspires not to unity, but uniformity. But here first let the Reader take notice, That the Cavalier brings in sons of Rome as like the mother as they can look, and just the same which he reproved before. For he speaks of a man who is wholly affected in his heart to the Romish faith, and yet, for saving his goods, will come to the Church and receive our Communion. Now let me borrow the Cavaliers words, and see how his own words do fit with his own Catholics; They profess according to the occasion, and comply with the superior Powers of this world, and obey the motions of appetite and sense, and are as like their mother Rome as they can look, who for a long time hath fitted Religion to temporal ends, if we may believe judicious and truth-telling Guicciardin.  
But now, for the admitting of such a one to receive as shall profess his believing our Church to be impure, and our Sacraments unlawful, I can hardly think that this Author believes that our Church doth allow it: 
Can. 3. Can. ●.  For the Canons do excommunicate, ipso facto, those that say our Church is not true, and maintaineth the Apostles doctrine, or affirm part of the Articles is erroneous: now, the doctrine of our Sacraments is a part of the Articles. Besides, the Rubric before the Communion doth order, That if any have done any wrong to his neighbour by word or deed, the Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him, and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repent. Now, I think our Church is a very near and honourable neighbour, and that he who professeth that he holds her impure, doth also profess, that he exceedingly wrongs her; and than you may see what doth follow: But that I may somewhat speak for Romists; Though Rome, which is called an Harlot, cannot but have a Whore's forehead, yet I profess, that I know no Romist so impudent, I never heard of one, & in charity, I can hardly think there is such a one, that will openly profess our Sacrament to be unlawful, and yet receive it presently upon the saying of it: for my part, if I were a Romist, though I indeed knew such Romish Catholics, I should not boast of their shame to the Protestants, it showing an extreme need of scandalous objections, when a man must first cast the filth of a scandal at his own wholly affected (for so he terms them) Catholics, that it may rebound from their faces and light on Protestants. And, for our aspiring to unity, it is far more real and solid than such a single and slight objection can dissolve or dissever; for we have those mighty bonds of unity, 
Ephes. 4.  One God the Father of all, one Lord, and one Spirit; one Baptism, and one saving Faiht. Neither is our faith le●t lose to Libertinism, but the doctrine of it is contained in Articles agreed and subscribed to by the Clergy, and enacted by the State, and (as hath been showed) there is Authority and Law for the punishment of those that cast scandals upon it.   

SECT. III.  
Wherein a vain boast of the Romists confidence in maintaining their Religion by Excommunications is confuted: And an inconsiderate charge, That treason is pretended against Papists Priests in this Realm, because we dare not avow the punishing them for heresy, is retorted.  
BUt I wonder no less, that this Cavalier should withal boast of his Catholic Church, That she is so far from obliging a man that believes not in his heart as she teacheth, under pecuniary mulcts, to repair to her Service and Sacraments, that she will by no means admit him thereunto, till he have first cleared himself of that suspicion, and sufficiently showed himself free from any such want of belief. For first, what kind of converts are those, whom Rome from whatsoever heresy converteth by the Faggot, and admits to her Sacraments? And is there not very just cause to suspect, that they believe not from the heart all that she teacheth, or at least do not sufficiently show themselves free from any such want of belief, when they are turned to their new faith, only by such wooden arguments? Secondly, it seems this Authors Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church whereof 
a 
Sub persecutore Floro, Ch●istiani Idol●●um cog●ban●u● ad T●●pla. Sub M●ca●io 〈◊〉 (Donat●lae) compellebantur ad Basil●cam. Sub Horo d●●eb●tur, ut n●ga●etur Christus, & Idola ●ogarentu●; contra, sub Macario commonebantur omnes, ut Deus unus pariter in Ecclesia ab omnibus coleretu●. Optat. lib. 3.  
Aliorum autem Imp●●atorum justitiam▪ l●g●sque quae veh●m●nte▪ adversus 〈◊〉 l●●ae sunt, qui▪ ignorat? In quibus una Generalis advers●● omnes qui Ch●istian●s s● d●ci volunt, & Ecclesiae Catholicae non communicant, s●d in sui● separatim c●nventiculis congregantur, id continet ut vel ordinato● Cle●ici, vel ipse ordinatus deni● libris auri mulct●tu●. Locus verò ipse qu● impia separatio congregatur, redigatur in F●●cum. 〈◊〉 ●ontra Parm●●. lib. 1.   Optatus and Saint Austin were members. For Catholics of that Church did compel men to Church by penalties, that did not altogether believe in their heart as the Church taught. And we know, the Church's intent is to bring them to hear, and by hearing to believe what she teacheth, and so to fit them for the Sacraments. Thirdly, 
b Ecclesia paulatim progressa est, & ●m●ia rem●dia expe●ta, primò solum excommuni●abat, deinde addidic P●CUNIARIAM mul●tam. B●llar. de 〈◊〉, cap. 21.  Bellarmine himself confesseth, that the Church hath used such means for the reducing of Heretics; and in the very terms which the Author denieth, Pecuniary mul●ts. And whereas our Author eftsoons speaks of Ostiarii, set to keep out men of contrary belief, what known Protestant in France is hindered, or at least how commonly are they admitted by the imaginary Ostiarii to be present at the Mass? And, in the Archdukes Court, Protestants have come to the Mass, and known to be such by most notorious Papists, though they came in only to see the acting of it. Secondly, what Ostiarii did put off 
c Tu id sentis de certitudine tollente omnem dubietatem, ac si divini●ùs nobis esset certò propositum, id esse revelatum à Deo. Ego verò, & credo Cath●lici omnes, auscultantes SANCTUM DECRETUM, id a●negamus. Dom. So●o. Apolog.  Catharinus for holding contrary to Trent, That a man by faith may be sure of his salvation? Or 
d Castro libro 3. contra haereses verbo. Baptismus haeres. 9 sententiam Cajetani, ut haereticam damnare videtur. Suarez m. 3. T. 3. disp. 27. sect. 3.  Cajetan for holding, That infants dying without Baptism might be saved? Who puts off the French, that hold the Council to be above the Pope; a point of faith much differing from the present faith of Rome? That which followeth, I think at the first reading may appear to be the mere swelling of one that hath drunk the poisoned cup in the hand of the Scarlet Lady. This Church, enriched and endowed with the holy Ghost, proceeds like a body, which knows itself to belong to an omnipotent head, and fears not to avow both what it saith, and what it doth. And, as on the one side she expresses all the suavity which can be conceived, and is most ready to wrap up the most enormous sinners of the world, and the most mortal enemies which she hath, in the very bowels of her compassion, if they will come to God in the way of Penance. For can the Reader keep himself from laughter, when he seeth the lofty description of this Romish fortitude; and withal seeth the low pusillanimity and meanness of the Pope, taking in an Excommunication denounced against the State of Venice, without penance and satisfaction; and so neither avowing what it saith, nor what it doth, to the plain disavowing of that which this Cavalier saith? Again, doth not this Church proceed much rather like a body ruled with a head possessed not with a seventh virtue, but with many of the seven deadly sins, whereof a great one is 
e Quod convocandi Concilii intentio satis sincera non fuit, Romanae avaritiae artificiosa provisio patefecit. Multi enim evocati, quibus iter cundi ad Concilium difficile vel intolerabile videbatur, interventu pecuntae turpius exactae quam praestitae relaxari meruerunt. Neubridg. lib. 3. cap. 2. Quando hactenus aurum Roma refudit? Bernard. de consider. lib. 3.  Covetousness. For, do we not read that (which may make a modest Romist to blush, when he reads it) when the 
f At (nuntius ille Rufi) priusquam abeam tecum secretiùs agam: Mansit ergo ibi per dies plurimos— munera quibus ea cordî esse animadvertebat disperti●ndo, & p●llicendo. Deductus ergo à sententia Romanus Pontifex est. Ladmer. lib. 2. Nec mirum, nam omnes satisfactiones quae poenitentibus imponuntur à Confessore, juxta Ecclesiae Romanae statuta possunt commutari in pecuniarias. Texeda Hispanus C 5.  Popes own soldiers and servants fight for his supremacy, a principal point of their forged and fictitious faith, he by money hath been brought from avowing what he said for those servants, and their services.  
It follows, She goes on so far, if she see cause to separate them in the quality of Heretics from her communion, and proceeds not against them as against Traitors to Princes or States, according to that poor shift of Protestants, whose guilty consciences make them not dare (though their hearts be well bend that way) to punish our Priests capitally, as for a corrupt Religion; but they set upon them false and impudent pretexts of Treason. First, We acknowledge, that the Pope doth outgo this Author with his Excommunication; for he goes on so far, not only when he sees cause, but when he sees no cause, to separate from his Communion, even without any proof of heresy: for, what cause was there seen of excommunicating the King of Navarre out of his Kingdom in the quality of an heretic, who was taken for a Romist; especially since it is recorded, that the King of Spaine's conscience in his deathbed was not satisfied with the Pope's eyesight of the cause; but spoke as seeing cause of Restitution, where the Pope pretended cause of Excommunication? And what cause had the Venetians given of Excommunication, when their Restitution without penance shows plainly, that they were without cause excommunicated? And what cause had the Pope for excommunicating Queen Elisabeth, and giving away her Kingdom? And whereas you say, She proceeds not against them as against Traitors to Princes or States; This is so true, that I cannot confute it. But to make your truth yet more true, I must also add this, That your Papacy proceeds against Protestants, because they will not be Traitors to Princes or States; as appears by the penance of the Irish Pilgrim formerly mentioned; and by the Bull of Pius quintus, where he curseth and excommunicateth those subjects that will not be Traitors to their Sovereign: And indeed, by that Bull the Papists themselves were exceedingly troubled between two fears; one of being tied with the cords of this excommunication for want of Treason; and another, of being tied up for Treason, in obeying this Excommunication: Which grief, with the remedy thereof, I find thus described by Master Hart, a not unlearned Romist; 
Execution of justice, pag. 16, 17.  The Bull of Pius quintus (for so much of it as is against the Queen) is holden among the English Catholics for a lawful sentence, and a sufficient discharge of her subjects fidelity, and so remains in force; but in some points touching the Subjects, it is altered by the present Pope. For, where in that Bull all her subjects are commanded not to obey her, and she being excommunicated and deposed, all that do obey her are likewise innodate and accursed; which point is perilous to the Catholics: for if they obey her, they be in the Pope's curse; and if they disobey her, they are in the Queen's danger: therefore the present Pope, to relieve them, hath altered that part of the Bull, and dispensed with them to obey and serve her without peril of Excommunication; which Dispensation is to endure but till it please the Pope otherwise to determine.  
But whereas this Author saith, That the guilty consciences of Protestants make them not dare to punish Priests capitally, as for a corrupt Religion; I leave it to the wisdom of State to consider how far such an imputation of guilt deserves to be removed. And let his own fellows weigh with themselves whether this Author hath acted the part of a Cavalier both valiant and wise, thus to provoke clemency armed with power, by putting the scandal and shame of guiltiness upon it? And whether he hath not brought a kind of necessity of capital punishments for the removing of his own objection of guilt: especially, since they who thus provoke patient clemency to turn into severity, have also already made smooth the way for it; for they have 
a Scriptures iisdem confirmat quibus probat. D. Cypr. de exhort. Mart. cap. 5. Quod sic Idololatriae indignetur Deus, ut praeceperit ●os etiam interfici qui sacrifica●e & servire Idolis suaserint. Quo loco vide A●net●t. num. 27. & latius in Epist. ejusdem 52. ad Antonianum. Pam●lius in Tertull. ad Scapul. n. 8. Quum autem jussu Divino debea● occidi Idololatra Exod. 22.— Moses talium sanguine putavit Levitarum suorum manus consecr●tas iri, Exod. 32. quod & Phin●ae ad justitiam reputatum est, usque in sempiternum, Num. 25. Psalm. 105. Propterea princeps, ut benè tibi sit, auseras Prophetas istos, etc. Quintinus inter Adnot. Pamelii. Tertull. de Prescript. n. 254. The Idolatry of Popery hath been proved by many: and above many, by B. Bilson, Christ. Subject. part. 4. B. M●rton of the Mass, lib. 7. Dr. Reynolds de Idololatria Romana: And confessed before by Cassander.  plentifully proved, That Idolatry should be punished with death; And the other half have the Protestants mightily and inevitably evicted; That right or very Popery is right Idolatry: And now what hinders, but that this Author may have his desired conclusion of capital punishment for an Idolatrous Religion, and not only for Treason.  
But as here his valour was inconsiderate, so now his inconsideration is valiant: For, not weighing the Treasons of Priests, nor indeed, the reasons by which they have approved the Justice of Laws made against them; this Author in a blind hardiness, to his own shame, doth accuse Protestant's of Impudence and Falsehood. For, that many Priests have been actual Traitors, our Chronicles too plentifully show; and their own 
b I hold directly the affirmative part, scil. That both her Majesty's laws and proceedings against all sorts of Catholics have been mild and merciful. Watson Quodlibet. 8. Act. 9 I said, that (caeteris paribus) her Majesty's proceedings had been both mild and merciful, and that we are not so much to exclaim against the cruelty of the Persecution, as to admire how that any of us are left alive to talk of Religion. Id. Appendix to the Quodlibets.  Pens have witnessed to the world the justice of our Laws, even against those Priests who have not been taken in actual Treason. And now that this Author may help us (as he usually doth) towards his own confutation, he giveth us a sentence that is a sword for the slaying of his own Charity Mistaken: His words are these; As the Catholic Church is most perfectly charitable, so withal she thinks she cannot express the virtue better, then by clearly distinguishing between truth and falsehood, and by exhorting men to embrace the one, and to avoid the other: so far off is she from demeriting by letting Protestants know, that if they die impenitent in that Religion, they lose their souls. Here is that truth which I told him long since, and which hath already served to overthrow a great part of his former discourse; That Charity cannot be better expressed then by clearly distinguishing between truth and fashood, and by exhorting men to embrace the one, and to avoid the other. For, herein do the Romists exceedingly offend against Charity, and can hardly better express the contrary (Uncharitableness) then by putting truth into place of falsehood, and by exhorting men to embrace falsehood, and to avoid truth. And until the Author hath disproved this mistaking, our Accusation of Romish uncharitableness still stands on foot, and his own plea for Rome lies still unproved: And Rome though very meritorious, yet doth much demerit, yea, sin against Charity, for falsely telling Protestants, That they lose their souls if they die impenitent in a true Religion.    

CHAP. XIII.  
Wherein are discussed divers false inferences from some Protestants doctrine, urged by the Cavalier in the Conclusion of his Book, to seduce men to Popery; and encountered with some true inferences drawn from Popish doctrines, the better to persuade men from that Sect.  

SECT. I.  
The Protestants denial of Merit no principle of corrupt living.  
THis Author having lost, or rather given away his cause in the premises of his discourse, the conclusion suitable to such losing premises should have been a mere surrender: and accordingly he should have said, That, notwithstanding all improbabilities, it is very probable that Romists want charity to Protestants, when they take them for odious persons, fall foul on them, blow them up, burn them, and damn them. And secondly, That though it be true that there is but one Church, and one Faith, wherein is salvation: yet Protestants being of this one Church, and having this Faith, and so being in the way of salvation, it is not an untruth but a truth, that they want charity who hate and damn the Protestants which are saved.  
Yet our Author goes on like Pharaoh, and to him (as to Pharaoh) may be said, Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed? Doth he not know the city, which is spiritually Egypt and Sodom, is going to destruction? and the probabilities and reasons are dead, by which (as by garrisons) this Egypt is maintained and defended? Wherefore it were good, that both he and Rome would let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God.  
But Rome still goes on in her purpose of holding the Church in bondage; yea, she sends forth Soldiers and Cavaliers to fetch back those who are gone out from her yoke, whereof this Champion is one. And now, that the sons of Rome may imitate the infirmities of Saint Peter, wherein especially their Fathers are his Successors, he comes with a piece of that pity wherewith Saint Peter would have Christ to have pitied himself; but so, that (without pity) he should have lost the salvation of the whole world; so would this Author have Protestant's to pity themselves, even to the danger of their salvation; and by a deadly Apostasy to turn from the living God to Romish Idolatry: But he doubts his pity will prove but a sleight and empty persuasion, and therefore to a vain pity he addeth some reasons which want nothing more than truth to make them forcible; He saith, That Protestant doctrine (under his false Title of heresy) is a Nursery of corrupt principles concerning life: and when he hath said it, he brings (as he is wont) proofs that do not prove it; yet thus he begins even in his Conclusion; When they teach men that there is no merit belonging to good works (though they be confessed by us to flow but from the grace and goodness of Christ our Lord) what courage do they give men to be frequent and cheerful in doing of good works? But is not this speech unworthy of a noble Cavalier, much more of a Christian? For, were it not ignoble in a Knight, when his Father commands him to do some valiant service for his honour or defence, to answer him, he hath no courage to do him service, because thereby he cannot merit any thing from him, seeing he oweth all his service, and himself unto him? Thus, because his Father hath deserved all, therefore he will do nothing. Again, If a Father should tell his Son, Do what thou canst to please me; or as Isaac, Go kill me some venison, and I will freely give thee a blessing, though the venison deserve it not: should the Son wisely return this answer to his Father, Sir, I have no encouragement by your free promise or gift of this blessing, except I can merit it from you by my venison? But ingenuous Christians, Saints, and Sons of God, whose understandings and wills are truly ennobled by the Divine Spirit, are far of another mind; they have indeed the divine gift of Love, and thereby love God as a Father, that hath already so merited of them all that they are and have, that his merit is to them a most sufficient motive to serve him heartily, even with all that might and being which they have received from him.  
Accordingly, the man according to Gods own heart calls upon all mankind for their service, as due to God for making them; 
Psal. 100  Come let us kneel and worship before God our Maker. Again, the love of God in redeeming us hath deserved all our love and service; and accordingly the Apostle raped into the third heaven, saith, The love of Christ constraineth us: 
2 Cor. 5.14.2.15.  and why doth it constrain? because we thus judge, that if Christ died for us, we should live to him. God's merits in creating and redeeming us are strong motives to serve him, though we cannot merit of him: though God's merit is so great, that it hath swallowed up all our merits; we are therefore to serve him not the less, but the more, the more he hath deserved beyond our requital. A good Son would serve and obey this heavenly Father for that which he hath done, though he gave him nothing hereafter. And surely, if there were not such an affection even in humanity, how should thee son of a poor father ever do him service? But yet we do not stop here, because the bounty of our heavenly Father doth not stop, but enlargeth itself further; for though God hath already deserved of us all that we can do, so that all that we can do were but our duty: yet he goes on, and promiseth to give rewards even for doing our duty: And doth not this reward move us as much, being given by free promise, as if it were gotten by the workers merit? yea, much more in a noble worker: For, such a one will reason thus; My heavenly Father freely gives me infinite rewards, even an excessively exceeding weight of glory for small and moment any passions and actions; 
2 Cor. 4.17.  he gives me that which he is not bound to give, he gives that which I can never deserve; and shall I not courageously and affectionately serve him who is so freely gracious and bountiful to me far beyond my deserts? But indeed, much rather (and that contrary to Romish Divinity) out of a right consideration of God's great rewards, and our great unworthiness, (we being, if jacob say true, 
Gen. 32.10.  less than the least of God's mercies) we may truly affirm, That we can have no courage to good works, if we will not work without a true confidence of Merits: 
Gen. 15.1.  For, if God's rewards be beyond all merits (as it needs must be, since he himself, whom all that we have and are cannot merit, is our exceeding great reward) how should there be good works raised from the confidence in that merit which is not? And though there be an excellency in the grace of the Spirit by which we work; yet even that grace is a free loan, and we are debtors to God for it, and how can we merit of him by growing in debt unto him? especially, because the money wherewith we should pay those debts is of a base Alloy, by the mixture of our corruption, then that which we received, and whereby we became debtors? And we cannot pay debts, much less become meriters by paying ten borrowed Talents of pure gold, with ten Talents of the metal of Nebuchadnezars Image. Therefore the Saints 
a 
Sancti totam spem referunt ad misericordiam Dei.  
Lorca m. 22. Sect. 2. Disp. 3. num. 12.  
Summum malum est in operibus nostris & meritis confidere; hoc enim est me itum Christi blasphemare, Ferus in Eccles. 4. licet renitente Indice Exp. Sandonal. At Ferus etiam in jonae cap. 2. Q●i in tentatione vel in scipsum, in sua scilicet sapientia, consiliis, v●●●u●, justitia, vel in quacunque creatura finaliter confidit, is verè vanitates observa●, in arenam aedificat, & mise●ic●●diam suam frustia relinquit, hoc est, Deum, qui est Misericordia nostra.—   trust perfectly in the grace of God, and not in their merits, and from that grace, as from a boundless and bottomless Ocean, fetch most sufficient motives of good works: While they have grace that enables them to work, and grace that forgives the imperfection of their works, and grace that rewards whatsoever goodness is in their works; yea, even the will for the deed, they are mightily encouraged to continue in good works, knowing that Their labour thus is not in vain in the Lord. 
1 Cor. 15.58.  And herein their hearts agree with the heart of him that rewardeth them; For his eyes are on them that fear him, 
Psal. 33.18.  and trust in his mercy. They fear God, 
Facit Potentiam in brachio suo: In quo animadverte, quod beatam se esse dicat (beata Vi●go) non proprio merito, atque virtute, sed Dei in se habitantis element â Hi●ronymus advers. P●lag. l●b. 1. Psalm. 147.24. Tum ergò justi sumas quando nos p●ccatores fatemur, & justitia nostra non ex proprio m●rite, f●d ex Dei consistit misericordia. Hieronym. Ib. Joh. 17.23, 24. Heb. 11.5.  and by good works keep his Commandments; but they trust not in the merits of their works, but in God's mercy: And in such God takes delight, and loves to behold them; and if God love to behold them, he will also bring them to behold him in a beatifical vision.   

SECT. II.  
Wherein are contained these two Tenets: 1. That the best works of God's children are mixed with some sin. 2. That no man doth, or will perfectly fulfil the whole Law; And yet (contrary to the Cavaliers lame Inferences) there are encouragements sufficient to good works, and to use our best endeavours toward the fulfilling of the Law.  
BUt that which followeth next, requires a patient Reader: For, if the Articles of the Church of England be but compared with this Authors words, I doubt the Reader will feel some need of patience; The Authors words are these; And what cause can they assign why men should abstain from sin, when they teach them that the best works which are performed by the greatest Saints in the world are no better than sins, and they in their own nature mortal? The Articles words are these; 
Art. 12.  Albeit that works which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ. And the like approbation of good works by the Church of Scotland, and foreign Churches of Protestants is to be seen in the harmony of Confessions: Wherefore, I should offend my Reader to say much against this, which appears so plainly to be a scandal, even one of those coals of juniper which comes from devouring tongues; and I wonder it had not burned the tongue or the conscience of the speaker. Briefly, we hold, that a good tree (made good by Regeneration, and engrafted by faith into Christ Jesus) bringeth forth good fruit, even this fruit of good works: and these works, as much as they come from the sap of the root of Christ Jesus, and partake of his fatness, so much are they good; but as much as they partake of us, and our remnant of 
a Yea, their own Conradus Clinguis writes thus: Opera justificatorum, quam vis ex fide Christi, ad laudem & gloriam Dei, atque dilectionem proximi fiant, quia tamen nos ex carne & sanguine polluti sumus; hinc est quod opera nostra in sua bonitate, natura, & dignitate considerata, sint i●pura & imperfecta, ex se & propria sua virtute; Et quoniam omnia opera nostra, etiam post fidem facta, sunt imperf●cta, & immunda, & involuntaria, ideò non possumus contendere cum Deo, quasi nobis aliquid debeat, & teneatur ex condigno, sicut mercenarius pro laboribus suis cum Domino. Et in eum finem dicimus quòd opera nostra non merentur vitam aeternam, sicut m●la & imperfectà monetâ nihil ●mi potest. L●c. Com. lib. 1. cap. 22. Heb. 11.26.  corruption, so much are they faulty. This faultiness hath need of mercy, and receiveth it through Christ, into whom we are engrafted; but this being removed by Christ, the goodness which the work hath from Christ shall eternally be rewarded. And this reward is a very good motive to good works unto all those who, with Moses, have an eye of faith where with truly to see the recompense of the reward.  
He goes on, and asks, When they teach men that the Commandments of God are not possibly to be kept by any man, even with the help of Divine grace, what reason can they have either to exhort men to keep God's Commandments, or to reprove them for infringing the same. The Cavalier is here troubled, and troubles us with an old 
b Duo à te (Pelagio) proposita sunt: unum posse hominem sine peccato esse si velit, etc. sine peccato esse perpetuo, summae solius est potestatis. Itaque, aut da exemplum qui absque peccato fuerint, aut si dare non potes confitere imbecillitatem tuam, & noli ponere in coelum os tuum, ut per esse & esse, posse, stultorum illudas auribus. Quis enim tibi conceder posse hominem facere quod nullus unquam hominum potuerit? Hieron. in Prooem. lib. 1. advers. Pelagianos. Si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos decipimus, & veritas in nobis non est: Hoc qui dixit, sapienter se ad Dei gratiam reservavit. Est enim Christiani hominis quod bonum est velle; & in Deo quod bene voluerit currere: sed homini non est datum perficere, ut post spatia quae debet homo implere, rester aliquid Deo ubi deficienti succurrat, quia ipse solus est perfectio, & perfectus solus Dei Filius Christus, caeteri omnes semiperfecti sumus. Opt. li. 2. Qui autem rectissimè sapiunt, intelligunt quemlibet hominum, quam vis jam pro consortio societatis humanae non absurdè dici possit justissimè vivere, non tamen posse esse sine aliquo vitio quamdiu caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus autem adversus carnem. Aug. contra Parmen. lib. 1.  Pelagian business of the possibility of keeping the Law, which S. Hierome long since told them, was but to speak of a power which was never brought to effect: For it is affirmed by the Fathers, and too much experience confirmeth it, that how possible soever the keeping of the Law is; yet no man ever brought this possibility to an actual keeping of the Law. To what end then doth he talk of this possibility, which gives such small encouragement by being ineffectual, that his own words may near be retorted against him? For what encouragement do Romists give to the keeping of the Commandments, when they speak of such a possibility of keeping them, by which no man yet did ever keep them? So that a man may thus only encourage himself by this possibility, that except he do that by it, which never man did before him, he shall never keep the Commandments by it.  
Besides, S. Paul saith, 
‖ Gal. 5.17.  That the flesh so lusteth against the spirit, that Christians cannot do what they would; which is as much as if he had said, They cannot be perfect if they would: for even 
c 
Q●ae potest alia major esse ●em●ritas quam Dei (non dicam similitudinem sed) aequalitatem vendicare, & brevi sentent●â omnia hae●●tcorum venena complecti.— Hoc est enim hominem ex homine colere, & in co●pore constitutum esse sine corpore, & optare potius quam docere, dic●nte Apostol●, Miser ego hom●, qui● meliberabit de corpore mortis hujus?—  
Si quod non vult (Paulus) operatu●, qu●modo sta●● potest hoc quod dicitur, p●sse hominem esse sine peccato si velit? Quâ ratione potest esse quod velit, ●ùm Apostolus asserat se quod cupiat implere non posse? cumque ab eis quaerim●s, qui sunt illi quos absque peccato putent; Nova stropha eluder● cupiunt ve●itatem, se non eos dicere qui sint vel fuerint, sed qui esse possint. Eg●egii Doctores dicunt esse posse, quod nunquam sui●le demonstrant, dicente Scriptura, Omne quod suturum est, ita sactum est in priore tempore. Hieron. ad C●●●●phon●. Apostoli una hora vigilare non possunt, somno, 〈◊〉, & carnis fragilitate superati; & tu p●tes longo tempore omnia peccata superare. Id. advers. Pelag. l. 2.   Paul saith of himself, 
† Rom. 7.18, 23.  That the good which he would do he had not power to effect, neither had he yet attained a full 
* Phil. 3.12.13, 14.  resurrection from the dead; and yet no doubt he improved the power which he had beyond any Romist: For he saith, he did reach forth, (a term of straining, and mighty endeavour) yea, he did press towards the mark; yet, notwithstanding all this he confesseth, that he had not attained, he was not already perfect. And now let Romists encourage their disciples by proposing a perfection of righteousness to which S. Paul attained not.  
And the question lies not in this, what the grace of God can do; but what man can do, having grace only in measure, and withal a great measure and remainder of concupiscence and law of the members. For, though the foot of grace would go upright, yet the other foot of corruption addeth a lameness; and so the best Christian, like jacob, goes halting. Neither therefore is it a just reason for a son that goes halting, yet with halting is able to perform some messages of his father, not to perform what he may, being commanded by his father: yea, he may be hereby encouraged to endeavour the more to do his father's 
* Psal. 103.14.  commands, because he hath a father that knows his infirmity, and his striving against it, and the more he strives, the more he will reward him. 
d 
Qui ad summum nititur, aliquoties in med●o subsistit; at qui medium destinavit nimio saepenume●ò residet. Eraesm. in Scholiis Epist. Hier. ad C●esiphont. Est quoddam prodire tenus si non datur ultra. Item, Nam vitiis nemo sine nascitur, optimus ille Qui minimis urgetur. Horat.  
Arduos agressus virtutis suspice: etiam si decidunt, magna conantes. Generosa res est, respicientem non ad suas, sed ad naturae (gratiae) vires, conari alta, tentare, & ment majora concipere, quam quae ingenti animo adornatis effici possint. Senec. de vit. B●a●. cap. 20.   A learner that cannot write so well as his copy, yet is to be encouraged to write so well and so like it as he can. And surely, if it were otherwise, the Cavaliers reason might discourage most Scholars from the study of Philosophy, because they cannot be so good Philosophers as Aristotle. And it might have discouraged the Cavalier from writing Controversies, because there was no possibility for him to do it so well as Bellarmine.  

e S. Augustine hath written a book de persectione justitiae, especially to answer this Pelagian question. Ratiocinat. Pelagianorum 6. Cur praeciperetur quod fieri omnino non posset? Respondetur, consultissimè homini praecipi, ut rectis passibus ambulet, ut cum se non posse perspexerit, medicinam requirat, quae interioris hominis ad sanandam peccati claudicationem, gratia Dei est per Jesum Christ. Dom. nostrum. Ratioc. 8. Tunc erit plena justitia, quando plena sanitas; tunc plena sanitas, quando plena charitas, plenitudo enim legis charitas; tunc autem plena charitas, quando videbimus eum sicuti est. Ratioc. 9 Quia peccavit voluntas secuta est peccantem, peccatum habendi dura necessitas, donec tota sanetur infirmitas, & accipiatur tanta libertas, in qua, sicut necesse est, permaneat beatè vivendi voluntas; ita ut sit etiam benè vivendi, & nunquam peccandi voluntaria foelixque necessitas. Ratioc. 11. Frustra non prohiberetur aut juberetur, quod vel caveri, vel impleri non possit. Respondetur— Ad hoc enim lex ista praecepit, ut cum in his implendis homo defecerit, non se extollat superbia tumidus; sed ad gratiam confugiat fatigatus, ac sic eum lex terrendo, ad Christum diligendum Paedagogi perducat officio. Ratioc. 15. Si est aliquod peccatum quod vitari non posset, quomodo justus Deus dicitur, si imputare cuiquam creditur quod vitare non posset? Respondemus, Jam olim contra superbos est clamatum, Beatus cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum, non enim imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt, Di●itte nobis debita nostra. Ratioc. 17. Dicit Apostolus, Non quia 〈◊〉 acceperim, aut jam perfectus sum, etc. Quotquot ergò perfectè currimus, hoc sapiamus quod nondum perfecti sumus; ut illic per●iciamur quo perfectè adhuc currimus.— Curio ergò non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio, quam vis jam in hac vita nemo habeat? Non enim rectè curritur, si quo currendum est nesciatur. Quomodo autem sciretur, si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur?— Testimonia, inquit, quibus probatur praeceptum esse homini, ut absque peccato sit. Ad hoc respondemus: Non utrum praeceptum sit quaeritur, quod valdè manifestum est; sed hoc ipsum quòd praeceptum esse constat u●●um in corpore mortis hujus possit impleri, ubi caro concupiscit adve●sus spiritum, & spiritus adversus carnem, ut non ea quae volumus faciamus.— Haec est nunc nostra justitia quâ currimus, esurientes & sitientes ad perfectionem plenitudinemque justitiae, ut eâ postea saturemur.  But to give this point a more serious conclusion; This state of imperfection, wherein with the new man begotten by grace, there is left a remnant of the old man begotten by nature, doth not lessen the power of God's grace, but sets forth the wisdom of God's dispensation. God, whose Spirit bloweth where, and how he listeth, for many wise ends, and especially for his own glory, dispenseth his grace in this manner, and measure, and mixture. For first, the corruption remaining with grace, doth humble man before God, and cause him to have a low conceit of himself, and an high estimation of God's grace, of which he hath continual need; the sufficiency whereof alone can forgive his falls, and raise him from falling, and enable him to stand, and walk in the paths of holiness in such a manner as the same grace will accept. Secondly, This life being appointed to the Church militant for a warfare, and the warfare for a way to the Crown; this contrariety of the flesh to the spirit is not the least part of this war; and to those that fight the good fight of faith, it serves for a way of advancement to the Crown: For, the more combats of the flesh, the more conquests of the spirit, and so the greater enjoy of the celestial Crown. And thirdly, God is mightily glorified, who by a little grace, even a grain of mustardseed, opposed by a strong concupiscence, and that backed by a world of tentations, and by those Tempter's which are Principalities and Powers, (though through many foils, faintings, and failings) the little grain becomes a tree, the smoking flax becomes a fire, and judgement is brought to victory. Though we lose in some single combats, yet we are gainers in the whole war, and we become more than Conquerors through him that loveth us. And indeed, this growing nature of the seed of grace, and especially the victorious success which Gods grace giveth to it, is a most strong encouragement to good works; even such as all objected imperfection of righteousness can never overthrow: for, though it be so little, either at first in the beginning of it, or perchance after in some spiritual desertions, (for there are ebbs and floods of grace) yet we are mightily encouraged to good works, because that seed is not only a remaining, but a growing seed; the house of Saul grows weaker, and the house of David stronger: we come still nearer to perfection, though we do not fully attain it; we grow from babes to young men, from young men to that measure of stature which is appointed to us in Christ Jesus. Lastly, our state of imperfection doth serve for an incentive, to spur up our desires towards the state of perfection: For, when we draw up hardly and painfully towards God's holy mountain, with a weight of flesh pressing down, and a body of sin cleaving fast, we pant towards heaven, and send up groans of the Spirit, which speak in their language; when shall we come and appear before God? We desire to be delivered from the body of sin, unto the glorious liberty of the sons of God: our souls being wearied, and parched, and dried up with the flames and vexations of tentations and sins, thirst for the living God, and desire to satisfy their thirst in the River of pleasures, which floweth from his presence, whose streams are perfect holiness, and perfect happiness.   

SECT. III.  
That the doctrine of denying free will doth not abridge the doing of good, and justice of punishment for evil doing.  
THere is yet one question more, which must have an answer, rather for some weakness which it may meet, then for any strength which is in it, When they profess that men have not so much as free will to do any good work at all, when they are first moved and assisted to it by the good grace of God, with what sense can they encourage men to do any thing which is good? or with what justice can they punish them for omitting the same? The Cavalier is deceived himself, as it seems, and goes about to deliver over his deceit unto his Reader; For, we do not say, That men have not so much as free will, being moved by effectual grace; But, That they have not so little as free will: For, we hold, that the will being moved effectually by grace, is more than free will; for it is free will fortified, actuated, and animated by grace. So his Reader is deceived by him, if he be persuaded by these words, that we do not allow men actuated by grace so much as free will; for we allow them more. And indeed, we allow them much more than Romists, and they quarrel with us because we allow them so much: Yet the more power and efficacy we allow grace in the will, the less efficacy hath the Cavaliers objection; but the more encouragement have men to good works: For the more God helpeth the will, the more courageously may the will go on to working; and the more may exhortation call for good works. Indeed, if God did not work in us to will and to do, but left man to stand only on the motion of his own will, exhortations might have but a cold encouragement, standing merely at the mercy of the creature for success and effect. But when God gives what he commands, then may exhortations call for the performance of God's commands.  
As for humane justice in punishing, he may know that our opinion doth not oppose but approve it. For even your own 
a Hist. of Trent, lib. 2.  Vega, in the Council of Trent, acknowledgeth That Protestants affirm a liberty in Philosophical justice, and in external works of the Law.  
But of free will I may here say the less, because I have spoken somewhat of it before, and elsewhere is more largely unfolded the truth of the point, and the consent of our Church. 
Great Oracle, etc.    

SECT. FOUR  
That the Idolatry and blood which springs from the Religion of Rome, should deter men from consorting with her.  
BUt here I may give this return to the Romists: Upon the love of God and man depends the whole Law; And in the love of God a principal place is given to the worship of God in spirit and truth: And in the love of man a chief place is given to the preservation of his life. Idolatry and murder being contrary to these, are main breaches of this royal Law of love: Now Rome permitting the doctrines and practice of idolatry and murder, (the main breaches of the Law of God) with what face can she require the keeping of other laws and lesser duties, that gives such encouragement to the breach of these greater ones? 
a Principale crimen generis humani, summus seculi reatus, tota causa judicii idololatria: Nam, etsi suam speciem tenet unumquodque delictum, & si suo quoque Nomine judicio destinctur, in Idoloterriae tamen crimine expungitur. Tertul. de 〈◊〉.  Tertullian proves idolatry alone to be a breach of every Commandment; and besides, it will not be hard to prove that Rome, jointly with idolatry, gives encouragement to the breach of every Commandment: but I especially fasten on these two, whose eminent guilt is haunted with the continual outcry of the Prophets, and at length avenged with heavy judgements by the Judge of the whole earth: And indeed, commonly these sins are twins, the same evil spirit first working by idolatry, as it were a not being of God in the faith and worship of man, and then provoking man to destroy the Image of that God whom he hath formerly abolished. But most fearful sins they are, and their hideousness may be seen in the horrid face of the judgements, which have been the counterparts and representations of them. He that would behold painted unto the life the lamentable countenance of these judgements, let him with an heart of life and sense read over the Lamentations of jeremy; 
Lam. 4.13.  And he that will see Idols and blood to have been the main meritorious causes of these judgements, let him read the words both of other 
* Jer. 25.4, 5, 6. etc. 2 King. 17.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 2 King. 21.10, 11, 12, 13, 16. 2 Chr. 36.14, 15, 16. Ezek. 36.18.  Prophets, and the same jeremy. But if for these Jerusalem hath been judged, what shall become of Rome? For, Rome is the mother of spiritual fornications, and in her is found the blood of all that are slain on earth: The power of Rome crucified the Lord Jesus, it slew millions of the Martyrs of jesus under the heathen Emperors, it hath added to these millions the multitudes of those who have been slain under the beast with horns of a Lamb. 
Rev. 11.8.  And how loud is the cry of all this blood being united in one voice? Wherefore, let my counsel be acceptable to you, (I speak to the children of Rome, that they may be saved) Hear the voice of God's Spirit, Come out of her my people, before God hear the voice of this blood, and then ye be partakers of her judgements: 
Rev. 16.6. Rev. 17.6.  For she that is drunk with the blood of the Saints shall vomit it up again, and her own blood with it; she shall fall and never rise again, 
Rev. 18.21.  for the word of God hath spoken it. Wherefore, do not join with that idolatrous company of Mourners, which shall lament for her when they shall see the smoke of her burning; but be found among the heavenly company of Rejoycers, 
Rev. 19  which sing Alleluia, Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power unto the Lord our God. For, true & righteous are his judgements, for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, & hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.  
And thus the Man of sin, and all the enemies of Christ being made his footstool, we will hope that the kingdom of grace shall be speedily changed into the kingdom of glory. And for the hastening of that glory, we will pray for the speedy subduing of these enemies; For this glory being come, we shall by the King of glory and peace be translated into that peace, where we shall be free from the vexations of enmity. There shall be no controversies, emulations, factions, and schisms for Religion, but without controversy the great mystery of godliness shall appear unto us in a perfect discovery, light, & glory: Yea, there the Church shall be made capable of seeing the highest glory, and in this sight she shall be glorified: The Father and Fountain of glory shall shine into her, and in his light she shall see light, and by his light she shall be light; And he that filleth her with light, shall also fill her with joy; for the light of God's countenance is the joy of the soul, and yet with it will he pour into the soul the new wine of the kingdom, the oil of gladness issuing from his Spirit, which shall make up the joys of a consummate marriage, and fill the Spouse with ecstasies, and overflowings of joy unspeakable and glorious. And thus tasting how sweet the Lord is in the joys of a most fruitive union, these joys shall inflame her loves, and her loves shall kindle her joys; she shall taste and see God, who is the chief object of her love; she shall rejoice in seeing and tasting him whom she loveth, and she must needs fervently love him, in whom she finds and feels such exceeding joy. Thus shall she run in a circle of Love and Joy, and this circle of Love and Joy shall be for all eternity: for the same God, who is to her a Fountain of joy, shall be also to her a Well of life; and so shall she live, and love, and rejoice for ever. An eternal God shall be seen, tasted, loved, and enjoyed by an everliving Church in everlasting blessedness. Amen, Amen.    
FINIS.