A LETTER SENT TO A FRIEND Containing some Reflections upon a late Book Entitled, The Roman Church Vindicated, and M. S. Convicted of a false Witness against her.  
Wherein is declared, That the Pope may excommunicate and Depose Kings according to the Judgement of their greatest Doctors, Decrees and Practices of several Popes, and Canons of their most approved Councils;  
AND The Author convicted of most notorious Falsities. etc.  
By J.S. B.D.  
PRINTED In the Year 1675.   

SIR  
ABout three Months ago, I heard of an Answer to my Book, sent from Priest to Priest for their Assistance and Approbation, before 'twas committed to the Press. This News, seconded with the Victoria's of some Romanists, might well put such a Freshwater Soldier, as I am, into a sad pickle. But when the Book was published, and I had cast an eye upon the very first Page, where I found these comfortable Expressions: That the Eagles of their Church scorned such a Fly, and that the uncivilized Popish Priests would not vouchsafe to requite me with Ink and Paper; nay, that I was fallen into the hands of a poor homebred Countryman, who inherits his Mother's Compassionate Care for all that are in a longing Condition (as he perceived I was, and yet no Pope Joan,) and that can willingly part with a piece of his Heel to do them good. p. 2. I say, the perusal of these words so fare cheered me, that I could not but smile, when I had read a little further, and came to that general Stop which he put to my Ford, (most wittily alluding to my Name) with three or four false Quotations out of Luther, Whitaker, Stillingfleet etc. After this, I proceeded to the Body of his discourse, stuffed with various Citations, all which, though true and pertinent, make very little against me; Yet, having already discovered him to be a true Son of the Roman Church (one that will say any thing for the Honour of his Holy Mother) I resolved to examine those Authors, and see, whether they do really affirm what they are urged for, in the Places cited by him. This I have done with great care and diligence, and can assure you, that most of his Quotations are absolutely false, or wholly impertinent. But I'll come to particulars.  
In his first Chap. he endeavours to vindicate the Roman Church from all Treasonable Doctrines, in confuting this Position; That the Pope hath power to excommunicate and depose Kings, and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance to them. And for this the Canons of Councils, Decrees of Popes, and the Testimony of a few Doctors are urged by him.  
He gins with the Canons of several Councils viz. 4, 5, 6. and 10. of Toledo, the Council of Constance, Aquisgrane—. and very confidently tells his Reader, That these are a sufficient evide●ce of their Church's Judgement, and enough to convince me of my blindness, in asserting, That the Pope hath power to excommunicate and depose Kings. Were this Gentleman as dexterous in proving, as he is confident in affirming, certainly the Church of Rome never had a more worthy Champion.  
As to the Councils of Toledo three things may be offered, which not only weaken, but quite destroy the Authority of them.  
1. Where doth he find, that the Pope called these Councils, presided in them, and gave them his Blessing, I mean, Confirmed them. And you know without these, Especially the two Latter, they were no more than a few private Doctors; and consequently their Decrees not to be accounted the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. Besides, in the greatest of these Synods, we find not above 70 Bishops and Presbyters in and belonging to Spain. And that these, or at le●st their immediate Successors were none of the most profound Divines, is clear from the eight Council of Toledo, where Can. 4. they Decree, That Bishop● shall not marry; and urge these Scriptures 1 Pet. 1. 15. Be ye holy, as I am holy. and Col. 3. 5. Mortify your members, which are on the Earth. And yet these Scriptures are as much against the Marriage of Priests, as Rom. 8 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God, once urged by Pope Siricius. Epist. 4. And Can. 9 they Decree, That no man shall eat flesh in Lent, and give these most powerful Reasons. 1. Because the forty days of Lent, are the Tithes of all the days of the Year; and the Tithes should be consecrated to God. 2. Because, that Christ by fasting forty days, expiated the Sins of Mankind. If so, to what end did he suffer death? 3. Because 'tis convenient that Man, made of four Elements, for breaking the ten Precept of the Decalogue, should afflict his body four times ten days. By these Reasons you may judge of the Learning of that Age.  
2. These Places are not full to the point; for the Question is, Whether the Pope in certain Cases, may not depose Kings, and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance? And all that these Councils say, is, That whosoever shall go about by any means of Conspiracy, to violate the Oath of his Fidelity, which he hath taken for the preservation of his Country, or the King's life; or who shall attempt to lay violent Hands upon the King, or deprive him of his Kingly Power— let him be accursed in the sight of God. But when the Pope hath excommunicated and deposed a Prince, he ceases to be a Prince, his Subjects are absolved from their Oath, and may, if Commissioned by his Holiness, lay violent hands upon him.  
3. Most unfortunately hath he mentioned the 4 and 6 Council of Toledo. Had he read them, and understood the Histories of those Times, certainly he had passed them over. For in the 4. Council, those Bishops and Presbyters acknowledge Sisenan●us, or Sisnandus for their King, who had rebelled against Suintila, or Suinthila, their lawful Sovereign. Grimston History of Spain, lib. 5. p. 146. 147. Rodericus Histor. Hispan. lib. 2. p. 176. And as if this were not sufficient they denounce Curses against any that shall endeavour to disturb him, Can. 74. Not 47. as he found it quoted. Thus you see, he urgeth a vindication of Treason and Rebellion, to be the Doctrine of their Church for Loyalty and Obedience.  
And in the 6. Council of Toledo Can. 3. they Decree, That no man should be tolerated to dwell in the Kingdom of Spain, who did not profess▪ the Catholic Faith; and that Kings in all times to come, before they were placed in their Royal Seat, should be bound, by the Obligation of a Solemn Oath, to interpose their Authority, that this Act might be obeyed: Otherwise the King, refusing to put this Act in execution, shall be Anathema Maranatha in the sight of God, and become Fuel for the everlasting Fire; and likewise all that join with him. This plainly shows in what sense, and with what limitations the Canon he mentions, is to be understood; and consequently how little it makes for, nay, how much against his present purpose. Can we imagine these Doctors to Decree Loyalty and Rebellion with the same breath?  
And to as little purpose is the Council of Constance urged; for many of their Doctors (more likely to understand the sense of it, than a poor homebred Countryman) tell us, That 'tis to be understood of a private Person before Sentence is given. Suarez defence. Fidei Cathol. lib. 6. cap. 4. Azorius Instit. Moral. Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. Quaest. 10. Gregor. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disput. 5. Quaest. 8. Cardinal perron's Oration to the third Estate of France, with many others. And ●hat this is the sense of that Council, is sufficiently clear from her own words, which this Gentleman hath most prudently, but knavishly, passed over. The words are these; Non expectata sententia, vel mandato Judicis. So that all which the Council condemns, is, That Tyrants may be lawfully and deservedly killed by any of their Subjects, non expectata sententia etc. before the Judge hath passed Sentence, or given his Command for it: which is no more, than what those Doctors, which are most Zealous for the Pope's deposing faculty, do every where assert, and urge many arguments for. And if you desire to know, what was the occasion of this Decree, I must refer you to our learned King James in his Defence of the right of Kings p. 459— whose Historical Account my designed Brevity will not permit me to transcribe.  
In the next place (p. 29.) he tells his Reader, that the Council of Aquisgrane under Ludovicus Pius, and that of Rheims speak to the same purpose: But whether he means the first or second of Aquisgrane, both which were held under Ludovicus Pius: or the first, second, third, or fourth of Rheims, he, not out of an aversion from being too bulkish and tedious, but for other weighty reasons, very wisely leaves us to conjecture. The two Synods of Aquisgrane, and the first of Rheims I have met with in Surius, and cannot find any thing in them pertinent to his purpose.  
After these Councils he musters up (p. 34.) a few Doctors; Covarruvias, Navarre, Salmeron Aquinas— all which either affirm the contrary to what they are urged for, or faith nothing to the purpose. Covarruvias asserts, That the Pope hath truly a temporal Power over Emperors, so fare as it may be profitable and necessary to the Government of the Church, and use of the Spiritual Power. apud Bellarm. contra Barclaium p. 21. Navar. affirms That the Pope may depose Kings, that are negligent in governing their Subjects, whereby they are kept from the attainment of eternal life. Comment. ad Cap. Novit. de Judiciis Notab. 3. n. 99 Salmeron, in those Places cited by him, says nothing to the purpose, and elsewhere maintains the contrary, Tom. 13. lib. 1. part. 3. disput. 12. That if a King be an Heretic, or a favourer of Heretics, he may be justly deposed. Nay Bellarmin himself must speak for him, de Rom. Pontif. lib. 5 cap. 2, 3, 4. which discovers, that either this Gentleman never read Bellar. or doth not understand him. And as little to the purpose is Sylvesters Testimony. p. 41. That none are obliged to obey the Pope's Commands (even under pain of excommunication) when those that are so commanded, know his Commands to ●e unjust; unless he tell us (as indeed he seems to do) that Sylvester denied this doctrine: But this great Divine and learned Canonist is a zealous Asserter of it. The Pope may excommunicate an Emperor, that is worthy of Excommunication, and depose him that is worthy of deposition. Again, The Pope hath an universal Jurisdiction (over all Christian Kings and Princes) in Spirituals and temporals. Again, He can depose for a reasonable cause. In Summa. ve●bo. Papa. num. 11.  
From these Doctors he proceeds (p. 41.) to their Popes, and very gravely tells us; All those Popes, whom virtue confined to the Primitive Rule, have taught us Reverence and Loyalty to our temporal go●s by their own Example: and some of them have upon occasion committed their faithful Thoughts to Writing for the Instruction of Posterity. And here he instanceth first in Pope Innocent 3 - who being consulted in a temporal Affair by a Subject of 
* This Pope excommunicated & deposed the Emperor Otho, and ●●r King john.  France returned Answer, That he should make his Address to his King, who had no Superior in Temporal Causes. apud Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 3. But this is not only impertinent, but absolutely false; as any one may see, that will cast his eye upon Bellarmin.  
Well, but Pope Gregory the great will do his work, whom he brings in uttering these words: That though he was furnished with all temporal Power to have revenged the grievous Oppressions, wherewith the Princes of Lombardy afflicted the Church for thirty five year's; yet was he over swayed by the fear of God, to decline all violent defence, and recurre to that Apostolical Refuge of Prayers and tears, as the sole Means of the Churches Redress. Epist. 1. ad Sabian. diacon. Epist. 45. (43 it should have been) ad Phocam Imperator. But in the first there's not one Jota to the purpose: And in the second no mention that Prayers and Tears are the sole means of the Church's Redress.  
Then, to prove that the Roman Church never claimed or knew of any temporal Sword, or Prince-deposing Authority, he brings in Pope N●colas Caus. 33. Quaest. 2. Cap. Inter haec.  
But there he speaks of Husbands killing their adulterous Wives, and condemns it; for (saith he) Dei Ecclesia mundanis nunquam constringitur: Gladium non habet nisi spiritualem. And the Gloss hath these words: Gladium quoa executionem. Hoc ideo dico, quia Imperator habet illud a Papa. That is, The Church can only excommunicate Offenders; Temporal Punishments must be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate. Then he brings in Pope John 8. Caus. 16. Quaest. 3. cap. porro. But here we have not one word to the purpose; for that Pope only saith, That Clergymen may not put on Armour, and fight against their Enemies; since Prayers and Tears are their Armour. So the Gloss expounds it. Then comes in Pope Celestin 3. Extravagant. de Judiciis. Cap. Cum ab homine. But I cannot find any such Chap. or any such thing asserted by him. Thus far he hath not brought one true and pertinent Testimony either from their Doctors, Popes, or Councils. In his (p. 44) he tells us, That Lewis 12. in a Council at Tours, had the Resolution of all the French Bishops, that he might contemn the Pope's unjust Censures. And that the Doctors of Sorbon condemned this Position: That the Pope hath power to punish Princes with temporal Penalties, and cast them out of their Kingdoms p. 50—. And these viz. The determinations of a few French Bishops, and the Sorbonne Doctors, he makes the most fundamental Decrees and Doctrines of the Roman Church, p. 54. But to these I answer.  
1. In other Points, when we urge several Councils against them, their usual Plea is, that either they were but Provincial, or not confirmed by the Pope; and therefore no Doctrines of the Church: But here (according to this Gentleman) a few Bishops in France and Doctors of Sorbonne, have power to make most fundamental Decrees and Doctrines, without the Pope's Approbation, nay, against his express Will.  
2. We find the French Bishops, and Sorbonne Doctors asserting the contrary Doctrine. In the year 1589, the Leaguers propounded two Questions to the Doctors of Sorbon. 1. Whether the People of France may not be discharged from the Oath of Allegiance made to Henry 3? 2 Whether the People may with a safe Conscience take up Arms against him? And, after earnest Prayers, that the Spirit of God would direct them, a solemn Mass, and most diligent discussion of the 
‡ de Serres p. 870. * And that the greatest part of the Clergy of France were of the same judgement, will not be denied by any that hath looked into their Historians.  Points, they answer. 1. That Henry both by the Civil and Pontifical Law is fallen from his dignity. 2. That the People of France, may lawfully fight against him. 3. That these Decrees be sent to the Pope for his Confirmation. Boucher de justa Henrici 3. abdicatione. And accordingly a Letter was drawn up and sent to Rome, in which they most humbly beseech his Holiness for three things. 1. That they may be declared absolved from their Oath to Henry 3. 2. That he would decree the War just, which they had undertaken against that Oppressor of Public Religion and Liberty. 3. That in this necessary Work, he would assist them with his Prayers to God Almighty, and with a Jubilee of Indulgence, that others thereby might be provoked to join with them, Idem p. 393. To which the good old Gentleman returned a very gracious Answer, and for their greater encouragement issued out his Bull against King Henry, and all his Adherents Idem p. 403. And this Author tells us (p. 377) the Faculty of Sorbon had done no more, than what is incumbent on Lawyers, Confessors, Parish Priests, and Doctors, who ought to assert and vindicate the power and dignity of the Roman See. Upon the publishing of this Bull, the people were greatly encouraged in their Rebellion against their Sovereign whom they no more call King, but only Henry de Valois, Heretic Tyrant, and what not? Nay, they ●ut him out of the Canon, and declared it unlawful to pray for him in Public. Boucher. p. 380. And this Author (p. 418) informs us, That so wonderfully powerful was this Bull against Henry and his Adherents, that by a Miracle one at Venice (but offering to speak in behalf of the King) sunk presently down, and no sooner was carried home, but he died. And a little after, the same Doctors returned these Answers to certain 
de Serres. p. 894.  Queries in reference to Henry 4. their lawful King. 1. That all Catholics by Divine Law are forbid to admit any into the Throne, that is an Heretic, or a favourer of Heresy. 2. That those who favour the said Henry, are deserters of Religion, and continually in a mortal sin: so those, who for love to their Religion do oppose him, do very much merit both of God and Men. And as on the one hand, those who assist the King, will be Eternally damned; so on the other hand, 'tis most meet to conclude, that they, who are slain in this Cause against the said Henry, shall obtain an everlasting Reward, and be crowned with the Trophies of Martyrdom. See them at large in Mr. Foulis History of Romish Treasons etc. p. 566.  
But about 4 years after, when the King had vanquished the Leaguers, and entered Paris, those Sorbon Doctors change their Note, make void all former Decrees, and profess great Zeal and Loyalty to King Henry 4. Idem p. 591.  
And what was the Opinion of their Bishops— in Lewis 13. time, is clear from this following Story. Lewis 13. being come to his Majority, summoned the three Estates to meet: Two of them viz. the Clergy and Nobles, presently concluded, That the Council of Trent should be published, and received in France. But the third Estate made this Decree: That his Majesty shall be humbly desired, that it may be established by the three Estates for a fundamental Law; That, the King being acknowledged Head in his Dominions, holding his Crown and Authority only from God, there's no Power on Earth whatsoever, Spiritual or Temporal, that hath any Right over his Kingdom, either to depose our Kings, or dispense with, or absolve their Subjects from the Fidelity and Obedience, which they own to their Sovereign, for any cause or pretence whatsoever. This startles the Clergy who with the Nobles set themselves against the third Estate, with a Resolution to quash their Loyal Deecre. And to effect this, they desired Cardinal Perron (a man of great Eloquence and Learning) to discuss the Point in an Oration to the third Estate. This Cardinal (being attended with some Lords and Bishops, as Representatives of their respective Estates, and to signify that he spoke not only his own, but their Opinions too) went to them; where he made a very long 
* And the Pope gave him thanks for his Speech, if K. James may be credited. p. 383.  Speech to show the unreasonableness and absurdity of the foresaid Proposition; endeavouring to prove by Reason, that sometimes Kings should, and by Example, that sometimes they had been deposed. 
He affirmed that this was the current doctrine in France till the time of Calvin. And for the contrary doctrine viz. That Kings are not deposable by the Pope, He calls a Doctrine that bre●ds Shis●ns; a Gate that leads into all Heresy; and to be held in so high a degree of detestation, that rather than yield to it he and his fellow Bishops would choose to burn at a Stake.  Sir, By this you see, how Romish Doctors can alter their Judgements, and preach contrary Doctrines, according to the present Exigency of Affairs; This Cardinal Perron (saith our King James p. 386) was a Follower of Henry 4. even when deposed by the Pope; and in a certain Assembly holden at the Jacobins in Paris, he withstood the Pope's Nuntio to his face, when the said Nuntio laboured to make this Doctrine touching the Pope's temporal Sovereignty pass for an Article of Faith. But in this Speech to the third Estate, he confidently affirms, that whosoever maintains this Doctrine to be wicked, that Popes have power to depose Kings, they teach men to believe, that there hath not been any Church for many Ages past, and that the Church is the very Synagogue of Antichrist. Herein hath he very well acommoda●ed himself to the Times. ibid. And that ingenuous Confession of the Jesuits in Paris is observable. The Court of Parliament having censured Anto●ius Sanct●rellus his Book (which was printed at Rome by Permission of the Superiors, and Approbation of Vitel●scus General of the Jesuits) sent for these Gentlemen, and demanded, Whether they believed as their: General did, concerning this Book? They answered, that their General living at Rome, could not but approve that, which was agreeable to the Court of Rome. But being again demanded, what they believed? Answered, that they believed the clean contrary. Being again asked, And what would you do, if you were at Rome? Answered, as they do at Rome. Which made some of the Court say, Have these Men one Conscience at Rome, and another at Paris? God keep us from such Confessors.  
And, if we look back to Pope Innocent 4. his time, we shall find the Bishope, and other Clergymen of France, in a Council at Lions, declaring for the Pope's Authority to depose Emperors—. But more of this after wards. Thus you see, how Zealous even the French have been (when they saw it was convenient) in asserting the Pope's deposing faculty; and consequently the imprudence of our Adversary, in urging this Testimony of the French Bishops and Sorbonne Doctors.  
I will pass over the Petition of our English Catholics in King Charles 1. his Reign p. 59 in which they make Solemn protestations of Loyalty (for such Stuff will not pass with those, that know their Principles, or have read the Declaration made to King James, even when they were plotting his ruin in the Gunpowder Treason;) As also the great Brags he makes of their Loyalty in the late times of Rebellion p. 63. For I know you have read, The late Apology in behalf of the Papists, answered in behalf of the Royalists printed 1667. Who tells them, that in Ireland there were whole Armies of Irish and English, that sought against his Majesty, solely upon the account of their Religion. That in England some came in voluntarily to assist him, but many more of them were hunted into his Garrisons, by them that knew they would bring him little help, and much hatred. And of those that fought for him, so long only as his Fortune stood; when that once declined, a great part even of them fell from him. From that time forward, they that were always deemed Cavaliers, where were they? In all those weak Efforts (1647. 1656. 1659.) of gasping Loyalty, what did they? They complied, and flattered, and gave sugared words to the Rebels then, as they do to the Royalists now. They addressed their Petitions to the Supreme Authority of this Nation, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England. They affirmed, that they had generally taken, and punctually kept the Engagements. They promised, that if they might but enjoy their Religion, they would be the most quiet and useful Subjects of England. And this they proved by real Testimonies; which we have no pleasure in remembering, and they would have less in hearing of them. p. 14. Are not these Petitions and Professions most convincing demonstrations of Catholic Loyalty?  
And thus, Sir, you see, how unsuccesful this Gentleman hath been in his first Attempt; what pitiful Witnesses he hath brought to convict this Position of falsehood viz. That the Pope hath power to depose Kings, and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance.  
Before I pass to his next Chap. give me leave to produce such Testimonies, for your further satisfaction in this Point, as no Romanist can in reason and Conscience except against: And these are, the Opinions of their greatest Doctors, Decrees, and Practices of several Popes, and Canons of their most approved Councils.  
1. That the Pope hath power to excommunicate and depose Kings, and absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance, is most clear from the Opinions of their greatest Doctors. And here, Sir, I will refer you to Mr. Foulis (knowing you have the Book) who hath amassed together about three hundred Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Schoolmen, Canonists, Historians— that assert and maintain this Doctrine. History of Popish Treasons p. 41—. Some of these Authors I have (which I find faithfully quoted) and could add others to the Catalogue. I know this Gentleman ca● them Brethren of iniquity, p. 36. Idle wranglers, p. 47. aspiring Underlings, p. 56, seeming Members, p. 58. But let him show me, when and where they were condemned, what Index Expurgatorius has censured them. Nay, if he deal honestly, he cannot but confess, that these Authors are generally approved, and had in great admiration among them, that are the Guides of laymen's Consciences. But on the other hand, I find several, who have opposed this Doctrine, censured, and their Books condemned by the Church of Rome. Take a few Instances.  
Petrus de Vineis, who collected the Epistles of Frederick 2. Emperor of Germany, which contain a Defence of the Imperial Laws against the Pope's Usurpations. William Occam, and Marsilius of Milan, who defend the same Rights in behalf of the Emperor Lewis 4. Antonius de Rosellis of the Power and Authority of the Pope, who writ upon the same occasion in behalf of the Emperor Frederick 3. Cardinal Zabarel of of Schisms, which should be taken away by the Emperor's Authority. The Monarchy of Dantes, who affirms that the Emperor depends not upon the Pope, but holds his Empire from God. A Dispute betwixt the Clerk and the Soldier, containing a Defence of the Royal Laws of the Kings of France against the Pope's Usurpations. They have not spared Pope Pius 2. though he declared in his Bull, all that to be heretical, which he had written against the Pope's Authority, when he was called Aeneas Silvius. The Speech of Anthony Arnald in the Parliament of Paris against John Chastel, who attempted to murder the King. Congregat. 10. Roger widdrington's Apology against Bellarmin. Congreg. 12. And his Theological Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance. Congreg. 13. God and the King. Congreg. 16. The Explication of the Oath of Allegiance, called Zentum ad Catholicos Anglos. Congreg. 24. Scutum Regium, i. e. against all King-killers, and their Patrons. Congreg. 25. William Barclay of the Pope's Power. Congreg. 10. But most severe they are upon our King. James his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, Congreg. 8. This Book, they say, contains pernicious and execrable Heresies, contrary to the Truth and purity of the Holy Catholic Fa●th. And all Persons are prohibited to read or keep it, upon pain of Excommunication (from which they cannot be absolved but by the Pope) and the Mulct of a thousand Ducats. Some of these (with many more, which I have no time to mention) were censured by the Council of Trent; and others by the Pope, Cardinals, etc. authorized thereunto by that Council. Sess. 25. sub. sin.  
2. From the Decrees and Practices of their Popes. From their Decrees and Constitutions. Gregory 1. gave great Privileges to S. Medard in Soissons, with an express Order, That the King or Potentate should be degraded or deposed, that did violate them. This is urged by Suarez, Bellar. Azorius— for the Pope's Deposing Faculty. Baronius glories much in it. anno 593. n. 86. And Gregory 7. made use of it, to justify his Deposing of Henry 4. Emperor of Germany. Bellarmin con●ra Barcla●um p. 308. Becanus Controu. Angl. p. 128. Let all know, that they are absolved from their Fidelity and Allegiance to those, that are fallen into Heresy, notwithstanding all former Oaths and Promises made unto them. Decret. Gregor. Lib. 5. Tit. 7. cap 16. Boniface 8. decreed; That the Church hath two Swords, Spiritual and Temporal; that the Spiritual Power may institute and judge the Temporal, according to that of Jeremy; Behold, I set thee over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to root, out, and to pull down etc. And he declares it necessary to salvation, for every Humane Creature to be subject to the Roman Bishop. Extrav. Lib. 1. Tit. 8. Cap. 1. We observing (saith Gregory 7.) the Decrees and Constitutions of our Holy Predecessors, do absolve all from their obedience to Excommunicate Persons, whereunto they were formerly obliged by Oath or any other way; and do strictly charge them, that for the future they yield no Allegiance to them. Decret. 2. pars. Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. Cap. 4. And the like Decree we find in the next Chap. made by U●ban the second.  
To these I will add the Bull or Breve of Pope Paul 5. against our Oath of Allegiance; in which he declares. That they cannot, without most evident and grievous wronging of God's Honour, bind themselves by that Oath. And afterwards, That it cannot be taken with safety of the Catholic Faith, and of their souls health; since it containeth many things, that are plainly and directly contrary to Faith and Salvation. And Pope Urban 8. in his Bull sent to the Catholics in England 1626. calls it, That pernicious and unlawful Oath of Allegiance. And a little after tells them: That which our Predecessor Paul 5. with so great deliberation decreed, that ought ye altogether to observe as a Decree of Truth. And again, Sonner ought the Sword of the Mighty take from a Christian his Life, than his Faith: Implying, that a man loses his Faith, when he takes this Oath. And yet our King James hath told the World, How careful he was, that nothing should be contained in it, except the Profe●●ion of Natural Allegiance, and Civil and Temporal Obedience, with a promise to resist all contrary uncivil Violence. Monitory Preface to all Christian Monarches. p. 292. Thus I have cleared the Proposition from the Canons and Decrees of several Popes; which are confirmed by that much admired Council of Trent Sess. 25. Cap. 20. Wherefore it decrees and commands, that the Sacred Canons, and a●l General Councils, together with other Apostolical Sanctions, made in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons and Ecclesiastical Liberty, and against the Violators thereof (all which it renews by this present Decree) be precisely observed by all men. This, you see, comprehend, all their Canons, Decretals, Clementines, Extravagants, Bulls—. And they are sworn unto by every Priest at his Ordination, according to the Bull of Pope Pius 4. I vow and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. And all other things do I undoubtedly receive and confess, which are delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils etc. So help me God.  
And the Practices of several Popes have been agreeable to these Decrees and Constitutions.  
Gregory 2. rebelled against the Emperor Leo Isaurus, and made Rome and the Roman Duchy to do the same; because he prohibited the adoration of Images. Bellar de Roman. Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 8. Azorius Justit. Moral. Tom. 2. p. 1669. Sigonius Histor. de Regno Ital. p. 103.  
Gregory 3. with the Consent of the Roman Clergy, deprived Leo 3. Emperor of Constantinople; because he had taken Images out of Churches. Platina in vit. Gregor. Azorius Instit. Moral. Tom. 2. p. 1610.  
Pope Z●chary absolved the people of France from their Allegiance to Childerick their King, and deposed him. Bellar de Roman Pontif. lib. 5. cap 8. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1669. Perrons Oration to the third Estate of France. That Pope Zachary only consented to Childerick's deposition (as this Gentleman affirms p. 43.) is most false; which Bellarmin proves from the Annals of France, and the Testimony of Eginarthus, Aimonius, Rhegino, Lambertus Schaph●aburgensis, Sigebertus, H●rma●nus, Mar●a●us Scotus, etc. Contra Barclaium p. 318—.  
Steven 2. set on Pepin King of France, to expel the Exarches out of Italy, and obtained of him the Exarchat for himself, which belonged to th● Emperor of Co●stantinople, Platina.  
Leo 3. translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. c. 8. Boucher de justa Henrici 3. abdicatione p. 17. Perrons Oration.  
Gregory 7. excommunicated Henry 4. Emperor of Germany, and translated the Empire to Rodulph Duke of Saxony. Platina. in vit. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. c. 8. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1610. And give absolution of all their sins to those, that adhered to Rodulph, and opposed Henry. Baronius an. 1080. Sect. 12. The same Pope excommunicated and deposed Boleslaus 2. King of Poland. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1669. Boucher. p. 17.  
Urban 2. excommunicated and persecuted Henry 4. Emperor of Germany. Platina in vit. Urbani. The same Pope excommunicated and deposed Ph●lip 1. King of France. Bellar. Contra Barclaium p. 29. Matth. Paris an. 1095.  
Paschal 2. made the Son of Henry 4. Emperor of Germany, to take Arms against his Father, and deposed him in a Synod held at Mentz by the Pope's command for that purpose. Aventinus Annal lib. 5. And he commanded Robert Earl of Flanders to destroy the Clergy of Cambray and Liege; because they adhered to Henry 5. And he was to do it for the remission of all his sins. Bochel decret lib. 5. c. 6. de Pascal. & Leod.  
Adrian 4. excommunicated William King of Sicily, and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance to him. Platina in vit. Becanus Controvers. Angl. p. 107.  
Alexander 3. excommunicated Frederick 1. Emperor of Germany, and persuaded the Towns of Italy to rebel against him. Platina in vit. Alex. This Pope excommunicated William Duke of Apul●a, and engaged the foresaid Emperor to fight against him, to gain that Dukedom to the Chair of Rome. Platina ibid. And the same Pope excommunicated and deposed Frederick 2. Emperor of Germany Platina ibid.  
Celestin 3. gave Constantia a Nun to Henry 6. Emperor of Germany, and gave him for her Dowry the Kingdom of both the Sicily's, upon condition he should expel Tancred, who opposed his Election. Hereupon a bloody War arose between those two Princes. Platina in vita Celestina. And he excommunicated Phil. Augustus Boucher p. 210.  
Innocent. 3. excommunicated the Emperor Otho 4. and deprived him of the Empire. Platina in ejus vita. Bellar. de Sum. Pontif. lib. 5. c. 8. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1610. And the same Pope deprived our King John, and provoked his Subjects to rebel against him. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1669. and gave to Philip of France the remission of all his sins upon condition of invading and conquering England. Matth. Paris p. 232. Where the Story is thus related: The Pope by the Counsel of the Cardinals, Bishops, and other prudent men, gave a definitive Sentence, that the King should be deposed; And for the execution of that Sentence, the Pope writ to the most Potent King of the French, Philip, that for the remission of his sins, he should take that labour upon him.  
Honorius 3. and Gregory 9 excommunicated and deposed Frederick 2. Emperor of Germany, and raised several Rebellions against him. Platina in vit. Honor. & Greg. Matth. Paris in Henrici 3. Angl. vita.  
Innocent 4. excommunicated and depos▪ d the same Emperor, Platina in vit. Innocent. Bellar. lib 5. c. 8. And the same Pope excommunicated and deprived Conrade Emperor of Germany. Matth. Paris p. 825.  
Urban 4. prevailed with Charles Duke of Anjou to invade Sicily, and deprive Manfred the King. Onuphrius Annotat. in Platin. p 214.  
Gregory 10. promoted the Rebellion of Michael Palaeologus against Baldwin 2. Emperor of Constantinople, and gave him the Empire. Bozius de Jure status lib. 3. cap. p. 287—.  
Martin 4. deposed Peter King of Arragon, and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance to him. K. James his Works. p. 397. Becanus Controv. Angl. p. 107.  
Boniface 8. subjected Philip of France, and his Kingdom to the Emperor Albert. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1663. And Platina gives this Character of him: That he studied to give terror rather than Religion unto Emperors, Kings, Princes, and Nations; and laboured to give and take away Kingdoms according to his pleasure. In vit. Bonif.  
John 22 or 23. excommunicated Lewis 5. Emperor of Germany, and deprived him. Platina. And Benedict 12. did the same. Platina in vit. Joh. & Benedict. And the like was done by Clement 6. Platina. Azorius Tom. p. 1610. And he excommunicated all the Bishops, that adhered to him, and fixed Bulls on all the Church's doors to raise Rebellion against h●m.  
Julius' 2. excommunicated Lewis 12. of France, and gave his Kingdom to the first Conqueror. De Serres p. 560. He excommunicated the Venetians, and gave their Dominions to any, that would take them. He excommunicated the Duke of Ferrara, and invaded his Country by Arms. De Serres. And he excommunicated the King of Navarre, and gave his Kingdom to the King of Arragon, who thereupon invades and takes it. Azorius Tom. 2. p. 1670. Guicciardin lib. 11. p. 444. Onuphrius in ejus vita. 'Tis thought he was the death of two hundred thousand Christians in seven years' time.  
Pius 5. issued out a Sentence Declaratory against Q. Elizabeth of England; wherein her Subjects are declared absolved from the Oath of Allegiance, and every thing due unto her, and those that adhered to Her, are involved in the Anathema Sanders de Schismate Anglican●. lib. 3. p. 815. de Visib. Monarch. lib. 7. p. 706. Hereupon a Rebellion was designed. Sanders ibid. Felton who fixed this Declaratory Sentence of the Pope upon the Bishop of London's Gates, and suffered for it, is accounted a glorious Martyr. Sanders de Visib. Monarch. p. 710. And so is the Earl of Northumberland, who hereupon raised a Rebellion, and was executed for it at York. Sanders de Schism. Angl. p. 310.  
Sixtus 5. excommunicated Henry 3. of France, and all his Adherents. Cicarella in vita Sixti. Boucher. p. 403. This Pope excommunicated the King of Navarre, and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance, Cicarella ibid. And Gregory 14. sent great Sums of Money into France to pomote the Rebellion of the Leaguers. Cicarella in vit. Greg.  
Paul 5. excommunicated the Duke and Senate of Venice, and deprived them of their Privileges. Bzovius in vit. Pauli.  
Paul 3. issued out a thundering Bull against our Henry 8. in which he deprives him of his dominions. Onuphrius in ejus vita.  
To this Catalogue of excommunicated and deposed Princes, we might add Sanctius King of Portugal, who left his Kingdom by the Command of Innocent 4. Greg. Tholosanus de Repub. Lib. 26. cap. 4. Ladislaus King of Hungary deposed by Alexander 5. ibid. Ferdinand deprived of the Kingdom of Naples by Innocent 8. ibid. Georg. Pogebracius King of Bohemia deposed by Paul 2. ibid. Desiderius King of Lombardy excommunicated by Pope Adrian. Becanus Controu. Angl. p. 107. Rogerius King of Sicily excommunicated by Innocent 2. ibid.  
Here, Sir, you have above forty Emperors, Kings, and Princes excommunicated and deposed by Roman Bishops; and yet this Country-Gentleman hath the confidence to tell us p. 45. That the Popes are few that can be justly taxed with this overreach of due limits.  
3. I will now in the last place produce their most approved Councils for the further confirmation of this truth. If Practice may be admitted to speak in this Point (which with our Romanists is none of the weakest Arguments) we shall find that Princes may be lawfully deposed, and that confirmed by the Grandeur of such Meetings. Gregory 7. in a Synod at Rome, in which Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, and an infinite number of the Clergy were present, solemnly excommunicated and deposed Henry 4. Emperor of Germany. Baronius an. 1080. Sect. 16. And this Decree or Sentence was confirmed by gregory's Successors in several Councils. By Victor. 3. in a Council at Beneventum. Leo Ostiensis in Chronico Cassinensi lib. 3. c. 7●. By Urban 2. in a Synod at the same place, an 1091. Bertoldus Constantiensis. In another Synod at Placentia before an innumerable Multitude. an. 1095. And the same year in another at Claremont Matth. Paris add an. 1095. p. 22. By Paschal 2. in a general Council at Rome an. 1102. Abbas Vrspergensis. By Gelasius 2. in a Council at Cologne. Idem an. 1118. By Callistus 2. in a Council at Rheims, in which 400. Fathers were assembled. Abbas Vrsperg. Sugerius in Vita Ludovici Reg. Francon. Rogerius in Annal. Angl. All which we have attested by their great Bellarmin contra Barclaium p. 108—. Alexander 3. in a Synod at Claremont excommunicated Frederick 1. Emperor of Germany, Platina in vit. Alex. And Vrban 2. did the like to Philip of France in a Council held at the same place. Spondanus. p. 969. And Innocent 4. in a Council held at Lions, excommunicated Frederick 2. Emperor of Germany. and absolved his Subjects from all Homage and Fealty due unto him. And further declared, That if they for the future owned him for their Emperor, or any other assisted him, they were ipso facto involved in the same Curse. Sexti Decret. lib. 2. Tit. 14. cap. 2.  
I will pass by other Instances of this nature, and proceed to the Decrees of their General Councils, which justify such severe proceed against Kings and Princes. Gregory 7. in a Council at Rome with the consent of those Fathers made this Decree; That it was in the Pope's power to depose Emperors, and absolve Subjects from Obedience to their Princes. Baronius, an. 1076. Sect. 31. In the Lateran Council under Alexander 3. we find it decreed. That the Subjects of Princes favouring Heretics are absolved from their duty of Homage and Fealty, so long as those Princes Continue in such impiety. cap. 27. And in the next Lateran Council unde● Innocent 3. we have this most Loyal Constitution. cap 3. That if a Temporal Lord, being commanded and warned by the Church, should neglect to purge his Dominions of Heresy, he should first be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and the other Bishops of his Province; and if within a year he refuse to give satisfaction, let the Pope be informed of it, that he may declare his Vassals free from their Allegiance, and expose his Dominions to be seized on by Catholics, who, having thrust out the Heretics, might thence forward possess it without any Contradiction, and keep it in the true Faith: Yet let not this be prejudicial to the Principal Lord, on condition that he no way hinder this proceeding. And then they add, That the same Law is to be observed against those, who have no principal Lords. From these words Becanus infers three things, and indeed they are expressly contained in them. 1. That all Kings and Princes, whether Supreme or Subordinate, are obliged by Oath to use their utmost endeavours for the Extirpation of those Heretics, which are condemned by the Church; and particularly those, that deny Transubstantiation, which Doctrine was here first determined. 2. That if, being admonished by the Church, they neglect to do it, they are to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan, and o●h●r Bishops of the Province. 3. That if they obey not within a year, they are to be deprived of their Kingdoms and Countries, and their Subjects absolved from their Allegiance by the Pope. And therefore (saith he) all that acknowledge the Authority of this Lateran Council, aught to confess; That Kings and Princes may not only be excommunicated, but deposed by the Pope. But this Council is received by all Catholics; and there's good reason for it. 1. Because it was General. 2. Because 'twas approved by the Pope, and received with the common Consent of the whole World. 3. Because 'twas the greatest and most famous Council; For besides the Pope, there were present in it two Patriarches in person, and two by their Legates; seventy Archbishops, four hundred Bishops, eight hundred Abbats and Priors; besides the Legates of Emperors, etc. Controu. Angl. p. 110—. The Council of Constance also hath appeared as zealous for this deposing Doctrine; witness her Decree, Sess. 17. All that shall hinder their great Patron Sigismond from meeting with the King of Arragon, whosoever they be, though King, Prince, Duke, Earl—. they are besides Excommunication, deprived ipso facto of all their Secular Honour and Dignity. And in the Bull of Pope Martin 5. read and approved in the last Session of that Council, we find the same Doctrine asserted in these Words: All Professors of the Christian and Catholic Faith, the Emperor, Kings, Dukes, Princes— are required to expel all Heretics out of their Kingdoms, Provinces, etc. according to the Canon, Sicut ait etc. that is, the third Lateran Council, which hath been already mentioned. And the Penalty is expressed towards the end of this Bull viz. That all Persons favouring Heretics, though Kings or Queens, or Dukes, or whatever other worldly Dignity they are possessed of, be not only excommunicated, but deprived of such their worldly Goods and Dignities. What can be more fully expressed? and yet our Country Gentleman hath the Confidence (or rather the Impudence) to tell the World, That the Council of Constance hath condemned this King-deposing Doctrine. I will add but one Council more, but that which our Adversaries glory most in viz: that of Trent, which hath passed this Decree. Sess. 25. c. 19 If the Emperor, King, Duke, Prince — shall grant in their Dominions a place for Duelling, they shall be excommunicated and deprived of the Dominion of the City, Castle, or place where such a Duel hath been fought, if they were held in Fee from the Church. And that England is thus held since King John's Grant, all Catholics affirm. And thus, Sir, I have Produced other kind of Proofs for this Position: That the Pope in certain Cases may excommunicate and deprive Kings; than our Adversary hath, or can produce against it. 'Tis so fully and frequently determined by their Popes and Councils, that I do not see how any Man can be a sincere Papist, much less take Orders in that Church, and profess a disbelief of it. And this being so, I wish men would consider, what little Assurance a Protestant Prince can have of the Loyalty of his Catholic Subjects; since by their Religion they lawfully may, nay, in duty must (if an opportunity be presented) rise against him, fight with him, assassinate and murder him, when he's excommunicated by the Pope.  
This Gentleman in the next place endeavours to vindicate his Church from that bloody Complotment, the Gun-powder-Treason; telling us. 1. That only a few inconsiderable Persons, and Malcontents were engaged in it, or consenting to it; which is most notoriously false. 2. That Masses or Prayers were then offered for the good Success of the Catholic design, i. e. To obtain his Majesty's gracious release from those afflictions they had long groaned under. p. 65. A pitiful come off, and most groundless Suggestion; for what afflictions did they then groan under? King James hath long ago told the World. That whatsoever was her just and merciful Government (meaning Q. Elizabeth) over the Papists in her time, my Government over them since hath so fare exceeded hers, in Mercy and Clemency, as not only the Papists themselves grew to that height of Pride, in confidence of my mildness, as they did directly expect, and assuredly promise to themselves Liberty of Conscience, and equality with other of my Subjects in all things; but even a number of the best and faithfullest of my said Subjects, were cast in great fear and amazement of my Course and proceed. How many did I honour with Knighthood, of known and open Recusants? How indifferently did I give Audience and Access to bo●h ●ides, bestowing equally all favours and honours on both Professions?—. Apolog. p. 253.  
Thus you see, if we may take the word of a King, that Masses were not offered to obtain his Majesty's gracious release from sore afflictions. Besides, if this was the design, why were not the People acquainted with it? what danger could be supposed in telling them plainly, That Masses must be offered for a release from their afflictions? King James in his Monitory Preface to all Christian Monarches p. 291 informs them, That a great number of his Popish Subjects of all Ranks and Sexes, both men and Women, as well within as without the Kingdom, had a confused Notion, and an obscure knowledge, that some great thing was to be done in that Parliament for the Weal of the Church, although for secrecies cause, they were not acquainted with the particulars; and that certain Forms of Prayer had likewise been set down and used for the good success of that great Work. Their Priests usually concluded their Masses and Oblatory Sacrifices with their Prayers for the good success of the Catholic design. And these Verses were made and used by Garnet.  
Gentem auferte perfidam credentium de finibus,  
 Christo laudes debitas persolvamus alacriter.  
And others prayed thus: Prosper, Lord, their pains, that labour in thy Cause day and night; let Heresyvanish away like smoke, let their Memory perish with a Crack, like the ruin and fall of a broken House: Speed in King James p. 892. Thus though the Design itself was understood by Few (for it was neither safe nor necessary to impart it to many) yet the Papists generally knew, that there was a Design in hand. And though there were but a Score, in the Treason, yet there appeared Fourscore in the Rebellion: and it cannot be imagined, that so small a Number could expect, without any other Assistance, to have made any great advantage of surprising the Lady Elizabeth. And that great numbers of Roman Catholics beyond Seas were acquainted with this horrid Treason, hath been abundantly proved by Many: nay, that it was carried on with the Privity and Approbation of the Pope, is evident, both from Delrio disq. Mag. lib. 6. cap. 1. Sect. 2. and from what our Bishop Andrews hath asserted from the voluntary Confession of a Jesuit viz. That his Holiness had ordered three Bulls to be in readiness on the other side the Water, which were to be sent over, and published in several parts of this Nation, so soon as the Blow was given. Tort. Torti.  
May we not than most justly charge their Church with this matchless Treason? since such practices are agreeable to her Doctrines, and never any punishment inflicted by her on these Traitors. Nay, so far have they been from censuring these persons, that two Jesuits (principal Conspirators) were so kindly received at Rome, that one was made the Pope's Paenitentiary, and the othera Confessor in S. Peter's at Rome. And Widdrington assures us, that Garnets' Name was inserted into the English Martyrology; that his Bones were kept for Relics, and his Image set over Altars, as of a holy Martyr. Append. p. 150. Such Honour have Traitors in the Roman Church: and yet this Gentleman hath the Impudence to affirm, That She abhors and punishes such Traitors, as severely as any Protestant can wish. p. 67. When some in the late Times had proceeded to such a height of wickedness, as to take away the life of our Gracious Sovereign (which our Adversary is pleased to object against us, though 'tis more than probable, that they were the Contrivers and Promoters of it, from what I urged out of Dr. Du Moulin (which was never answered by any) and others have attested) how did the Church and Nation groan, and were impatient till they could vindicate the Honour of our Religion and Country, not only by an execution of Justice on the immediate Actors, but by declaring in Parliament against the Principles that led them to it. Let this Gentleman show us, that the like hath been done by the Court or Church of Rome against the Principles or Actors of this Gun-powder-Treason, and with my consent, it shall never more be objected against them. And thus, Sir, I have considered all that's material in his first Chap. except his bitter Invectives against Protestants, which I reserve for another place.  
I will wholly wave his second Chap. in which there's not one true and pertinent word, excepting Bellarmin's Assertion, That Jerusalem and not Rome, shall be the Seat of Antichrist; for which several Fathers are cited by him: But most of them are such, as he himself (de Scriptor. Eccles.) confesseth to be Spurious. Sir, if you please to compare this Chap. with the Second Chap. in my Book, you I see the Honesty of the Man, and find, that he hath not so much as mentioned (so fare is he from answering) what is most material in it. What is there quoted out of the Fathers, and their own Authors, I avouch to be true, and can give an Ocular demonstration of it, when he, or any other shall call upon me.  
Let us proceed to his third Chap. where (p. 101) he confidently affims, That we cannot know, which are the true Copy's of God's Word, without the testimony of their Church; and consequently cannot charge them with any Corruptions of Holy Scriptures. But the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath sufficiently proved. That without this Testimony, we may be assured, there are no material Corruptions either in the Original Hebrew of the Old, or Greek of the New Testament viz. By the diligent comparing the present Copy's with the most * Ancient M S S. by the observation of what Citations of Scripture are produced by those of 
The same Course we● Sixtus 5. and Clement 8. pretended to take in their Editions of the Vulgar Latin. Praef. ad Bibl. Sixt. & Clement  the Fathers, who lived when some of those Autographa were extant (as it is apparent some were in Tertullia's time, and some tell us, that the Authentic Apocalypse was preserved in the Church of Ephesus in Honorius his time) by the diligence of the Primitive Writers in taking notice of the least attempt for falsification or corruption of the Text; For when Martion began to clip & falsify the Text, Irenaeus presently takes notice of it, and gives him a sufficient rebuke for it: and so doth Tertullian and Epiphanius. So that whatever endeavours were made, they were presently discovered; as that of the Arrians by S. Ambrose, that of Tatianus his Monotessaron by Theodoret. Besides, it is observable, that among those multitudes of Various Lections in the New Testament, of which R. Stephen made a Collection out of sixteen M S S. of 2384. (which probably were occasioned by the general dispersion of Copies, and the multitudes of transcriptions by such as were either ignorant or careless) yet there are none which are material (as Bellarmin hath confessed the Verb. dei. lib. 2. cap. 2. 7.) so as to entrench upon the integrity and authority of the Copies, as a rule of Faith and Manners; they are but Racing of the Skin, no wounds of any vital Part. etc. Ration. Account p. 215— And Bellar. dares not say more of the Vulgar Latin. de V D. lib. 2. c. 11.  
But the Hebrew Doctors (saith this Gentleman p. 97. 98.) have corrupted the Old Testament, and the Greeks the New. But the first is absolutely denied by their great Bellarmin (to pass by others) and he urges five Arguments for it, the weakest of which our Adversary is not able to answer. de Verb. dei. lib. 2. cap. 2. And to the Tikkun Sopherim, produced by Porchetus, he answers, That the truth of it may be justly questioned; since there's no mention of it, but in the Thalmud, which is a most fabulous Book. And those Fathers, which were more Ancient than the Thalmud, make no mention of it. ibid. And to that Place, Cited out of Justin, he answers. That Justin doth not say, that the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Jews, but that of the 70 Interpreters. ibid. And concerning the Corruption of the New Testament, Bellarmin saith. That though Heretics have endeavoured to deprave it (which is all that our Adversaries Testimonies p. 98. do prove) yet Catholics were never wanting, who discovered and prevented those Corruptions. 
That is, Irenaeus, Origen. Basil, Ambrose, and Hierom.  de Verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 7. And so much is affirmed by the great S. Austin, who writing against the Manichees, saith. That with a deal of Impudence, or, to speak mildly, with much weakness, they charged the the Scriptures to be corrupted; and yet could not prove any corruption by any Copies that are extant. de Vtilit. Credend. cap. 3. And this Father lived almost 3 Centuries after Irenaeus, almost 2 Centuries after Orig●n, almost 1. Century after Basil and Ambrose, and about 30 years after Hierom. And if the Hebrew and Greek Copies are so corrupt, as this Gentleman pretends, why did their Infallible Master, Clement 8. correct the Vulgar Latin according to the Original, in above 2000 places (as Dr. James hath observed) when the contrary Reading was established by Sixtus 5. Praef. ad Bibl. Clem. And he might have added several thousands more, but consulto immutata relicta sunt ad offensionem p●pulorum vitandam, they were purposely omitted, lest the People should take offence at them. ibid.  
Have not we then the greatest reason, to rely on the Originals, when the Pope himself appeals to them, and reforms by them? for certainly the Hebrew and Greek are as obvious to us as them.  
Besides, we are advised by the Ancients to go unto the Hebrew and Greek Fountains. As the purity of the Books of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew, so the purity of the Books of the New Testament must be examined by the Rule of the Greek Text. S. Hierom Epist. ad Lucinium. Men whose natural Language is Latin, have need of two other Tongues for the knowledge of the Holy Scripture, the Hebrew and the Greek; that they may have recourse to the precedent (Hebrew and Greek) Copies, when the infinite variety of the Latin Interpreters brings some doubt. S. Austin lib. 2. de Doctrine. Christ. cap. 11. To these Amandus Polanus hath added several both of the Greek and Latin Fathers Symphonia. Cathol. lib. 1. Nay we are obliged to this by their Pontifical Law:  veterum librorum fides de Hebraeis voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum veritas Graeci sermonis normam desiderat. Decret. pars 1. dist. 9 c. 6.  
In the next place he endeavours to confute those petty Instances (as he calls them) I urged against their Vulgar Latin. p. 105—.  
To the first viz. Gen. 3. 15. which the Vulgar Latin reads, Ipsa conteret. She shall bruise thy head (contrary to the Hebrew Sept. Chald. Paraph. &c.) He answers, that Victor, Alcimus, Avitus, S, Chrysost. S. Ambrose, read it so. But the first, though Ancient, was not a Writer of any Note; and Bellarmin gives this Character of him, That he was more addicted to the study of Rhetoric, than Divinity, and the Holy Scriptures. De Script. Eccles. p. 124. The second and third viz. Alcimus and Avitus, I never heard of before, and Challenge this Gentleman to produce them, or any Authentic Writer, that makes mention of them. I suppose he means Avitus Alcimus, urged by Bellarmin De V. D. who is an Author as obscure as the former.  
That S. Chrysostom reads it so, is false. Indeed Philipus Montanus, who translated Chrysostom, renders it, Ipsa, but he hath placed a Note in the Margin, that plainly shows the truer reading to be Ipse. And so much is intimated in his Preface in Tom. 1. p. 8. and confessed by Pamelius, Annot. in lib. 2. Cyprian Testim. adversus Judaeos n. 51. S. Austin Ambrose, Gregory, and Beda have not only followed a corrupt Translation of this Verse, but also given us an Exposition different, even from all both Popish and Protestant Commentators, and contrary to the plain scope of the place.  
I could add as a further Proof of this Corruption, the Testimony of Irenaeus adversus Haeres. lib. 3. cap. 38. and lib. 4. cap. 78. S. Cyprian lib 2. Testim. adv. Judaeos. S. Hierom Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. Pope Leo Serm. 2. de Nativ. dom. who lived in the 5 Century. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 426. who lived in the same Century. And Lucas Brugensis assures us, that almost all the Fathers read Ipse. Annot. 1. Nay, many Papists have acknowledged this Corruption. Melchior Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 15. Andradius Defers. Trident. lib. 4. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan in Gen. c. 3. Brixianus—.  
Obj. 'Tis false saith (this Gentleman) the Vulgar Latin reads so absolutely; for some Editions have (it) for (she.) p. 107.  
Ans. If by Vulgar Latin, he means that of Sixtus 5. and Clement 8. which is the only authorised Edition, 'tis most false, that any read (it.)  
But it is time to consider what he answers to Gen. 4. 13. Heb. 13. 16. And here he tells us. 1. That Primasius (S. Augustine's Scholar) used the word (merit) in this very Text; as also Cyprian and others. 2. That the same Greek Word is thus translated by us, Heb. 10. 29. 3. That if we confire this Word to the most rigid sense viz. to obtain, procure — the Church will require no other merit. But. 1. This Gentleman doth not inform us, where Primasius, Cyprian and others use the word (merit) in this Text; and I am as backward to believe him, as that Primasius was S. Augustine's Scholar, who lived about 100 years after Austin, according to Bellarmin's computation. de Script. Eccles. p. 179. & 246. 2. 'Tis most false, that the same Greek Word is thus translated by us Heb. 10. 29. And 3. As false, that the Roman Church by (merit) understands no more than to obtain, procure—. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. can. 32.  
The other four Instances he passeth over, affirming p. 108. that they are confuted by Bellar. lib. 2. De V. D. whereas two of them are not so much as mentioned by Bellarmin. May we not justly wonder, that a man who professeth Christianity, nay, to be a Member of so excellent a Church, should dare to assert such notorious Falsities?  
From the Scriptures he proceeds to the Fathers p. 109. where he tells us. 1. That the Fathers have suffered infinite Corruptions by ignorant Transcribers, and the avarice of Booksellers. 2. That divers Fathers have writ erroneously, even in things of importance. 3. That some of them have been corrupted by Heretics, in those very things wherein they erred not. And then infers, That I must acknowledge, that the Roman Church in correcting those Original or Accidental Errors, executes her Office, acts a Careful part, and manifests herself the true Mother of God's Children p. 111. And a little after assures his Reader, That the sum of my Accusation is, that the Roman Church took these corrupt Fathers in hand, to make them speak suitably to her Doctrines.  
Sir, you have already, seen what little reason we have to take this Gentleman's Word, and here no more is offered by him to ground our belief upon. We have charged their Church with the Alteration of several places in the Ancient Fathers; let this Gentleman prove those places to have been corrupted either by Heretics, or Transcribers, and we'll beg her pardon, and call them from henceforth Charitable Corrections. At present, we cannot but think it strange, that the Fathers should be so often printed by the Roman Church, with so much professed care and faithfulness (expressed in their Prefaces) and for so long pass for Authentic without one Syllable of any Corruption; and yet in this last Century, when Protestant's began to read them, and urged from them so many express Testimonies against their Novel Doctrines; they should be charged with so many Corruptions by Heretics and Transcribers. Here we must either condemn her former negligence, or suspect her present honesty: and whether of the two is obvious to any man.  
But we cannot (saith he) suspect the Ancient Fathers to be corrupted by their Church, to multiply Witnesses for Popery; for those very Fahers, whose Sayings or Corruptions She corrects, afford plentiful Proofs of the Roman Church's Faith from those sound parts, which are not called in Question either by the Catholic or the Protestant Church: witness Perron, Bellar. etc. p. 116.  
If all the Fathers be so express for Popery, why then have their most eminent Doctors urged so many spurious Treatises (according to their own Confessions) and falsely alleged others? Let any Person look into Coccius, Bellarmin, Canisius &c. (who trade most with the Fathers) and examine how many of those places are convicted of Forgery by Baronius, Bellar. Erasmus, Sixtus Senensis, Possevin etc. and he must either deny what this Gentleman hath so confidently affirmed; or grant, that these great Champions and profound Scholars had been little conversant in the Fathers. For take those spurious Treatises our, and their large Folio's would dwindle into little Quarto's.  
'Tis time to leave this, and pass to his next Chap. where he lays down these three Propositions, which contain (and he might have added confirm) the contracted Venom and Quintessence of all my objected Cases. p. 137—.  
1. That the Church of Rome hath universally degenerated from her wholesome and Primitive use, and faithful dispensation of that most important Sacrament of Penance, seeing that contrary to the express sense of Antiquity she daily and every where allows her Priests to admits evidently impenitent, wilfully and uncorrected, and daily relapsing sinners, and all sorts without exception, to the Sacred benefit of Absolution, and Communion: Not one Confessarius in ten Thousand daring once in twenty years to make use of the retaining part of his power, for fear of incurring the shameful Censure of singularity.  
2. That the Primitive Practice of large and severe Injunctions is unwarrantably perverted into that fatal indulging of a five Pater's, or a Rosaries Penance. A Custom woefully experienced, to beget in sinners a damnable presumption, that God's mercy is at the beck of the Courteous Confessor.  
3. That the universally established Doctrine and use of Indulgences do expressly thwart the Primitive sense and Practice of that Juridical Part, lull God's People into a presumptuous security, and evacuate the Apostles Counsel, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Now in vindication of his Holy Mother, three things are urged by him.  
1. That Pope Alexander 7. in the General Congregation at Rome, an. 1659. declared, That the Doctrines held forth by those Casuists, I mentioned, are false, erroneous, scandalous, dangerous— p. 129.  
I confess this is as plausably urged, as any thing I have met with in his whole Book; yet there's little in it, when all things are well considered. There had been for some years sharp Contests between the Jansenists and Jesuits in France, and how Pope Alexander 7. stood affected towards the latter, is clear from his severe Censures of several Books, that were written against them. In the Year 1657. he condemned the Provincial Letters. Congreg. 66. Sommaires des Declarations des Curez de Paris Congreg. 69. Jesuitarum Atheismus detectus. Congreg. 84. Alphonsi de Vargas Toletani Relatio ad Principes Christianos de Stratagem. & Sophismat. Politicis Societatis Jesus— Congreg. 85. etc. But this would not do the work; for the devout sort of Catholics (to use their own Words) were scandalised at those Doctrines of the Jesuits, and Heretics made their advantages of them: Therefore the Pope an. 1665. (not 1659. as our Adversary affirms) censured certain Propositions, delivered by those Casuists, which were most insisted on by their Adversaries, and offensive to some devout Catholics. We see now what 'twas, that put the Pope upon this Censure viz. the present State of Affairs in France, and not any dislike of the Doctrines; for had they been really displeasing to his Holiness. 1. He would have condemned the Authors of them, and prohibited their Books; which was not done. 2. He would not have been so severe upon those Doctors, that writ against them.  
2. He urgeth the severe Penances, imposed by the Primitive Church upon notorious Offenders; of which he gives us (p. 146-) an Instructive Index (to use his own expression) extracted out of Gratian etc. And then assures his Reader, that these are enough to confront the Minister's pretended List, and acquaint us with the careful and strict Proceed of those best Ages of the Catholic Church. p150.  
But what is this to the present Church of Rome, which (as he told us before) hath universally degenerated from her wholesome and primitive use, and faithful dispensation of that most important Sacrament of Penance. The Roman Church, whilst a Virgin was as severe, as now she is become remiss: and what the Whore obtains for twelve pence, the honest Virgin had scarce granted for a Penance of twelve years. It was not then, as now at Rome, where Dispensations and Pardons are presently got at a small rate, according to their Taxa Cancellariae Apostolicae. This Gentleman seems to question, whether such a Book was ever printed, and allowed by their Church. I thought this was sufficiently cleared from the pregnant Testimonies of their own Writers, which he neither hath, nor can object against. And for his further satisfaction, I will produce the Book, when he, or any other shall call upon me.  But suppose (saith he p. 151.) the World had seen, or the Pope allowed a Book of that Model, yet I am so just, as to clear the Church of that imputation; and to acknowledge, that not only some Sorbonists, but even the Inquisitors of Rome, have stigmatised it. 
Certainly this Gentleman deserves to be stigmatised for an impudent Lyar. 1. I affirm (saith he) that some Sorbonists have condemned this Book. But where doth he find any mentioned by me, except Espencaeus, whose pious Censure the Roman Church is so far from approving, that the Spanish Inquisitors have commanded it to be blotted out in their Expurgatory Index p. 60. 2. I acknowledge (saith he) that the Inquisitors of Rome have stigmatised it, This is as true as the former; for my words are these. And 'tis worthy of our Observation, that though the Inquisitors of Rome have placed the Taxa Cancel. Apostol, in their Expurgatory Index, yet they except nothing against the Book, printed by the Romanists, but that only, which was lately put forth with Banks his Annotations, or which have been corrupted by Heretics.  
Obj. But why (saith this Gentleman) should I quarrel with them for this, since our Spiritual-Swordmen, or Lay-Absolvers do with approbation extract whole Estates out of the People's sins?  
Ans. What may be done in the dark by some needy and covetous Persons, I know not; but that such Practices are allowed by the Laws of England, is most false. And let this Gentleman make good his Charge against these Spiritual Swordmen (as he calls them) and I dare undertake, that our Reverend Judges will make them Public Examples. Other Answers I could return to this Objection, which for Brevity's sake I will pass over.  
3. To the last his Answer is, That he doth not apprehend, that their Church●s Doctrine and Sense of Indulgences, truly understood, can offer any scandal to the impartial Peruser. p. 155. Sir, if you please to cast an eye upon the incomparable Dr. Stillingfleet, and the Learned Dr. Brevint, who have lately discussed this Point, you'll see what little truth there is in this Gentleman's Assertion, concerning Papal Indulgences.  
I now leave this, and pass on to his next Chap. where 1. He tells his Reader, that I have picked up 3 or 4 of the least Authentic, or rather doubtful Miracles, never as yet made use of by any Catholic Controvertist. p. 166. That these Miracles are more than doubtful, I take to be a great Truth But that they were never made use of by any Catholic Controvertist, is most false; for some of them are urged by Bellarmin to confirm their Doctrines. De Imagine. lib. 2. cap. 12. de Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. c. 8. To pass by others. 2. He brings a Gordian List of undoubted Miracles in proof of several points of Catholic Faith. p. 167. But alas! the Authors he mentions, are either confessedly Spurious, as 
x Bellar. de Script. Eccles. p. 116. Ludovicus Vives in August.  Athanasius de Passione Imag. Christi. S. Austin de Civit. dei lib. 22. c. 8. etc. or notoriously fabulous, as Gregorius Turonensis, Paulus Diaconus, Paschasius, S Gregory, Beda etc. or most falsely quoted, as I shall show anon, Sir, if you desire further satisfaction in this Point, be pleased to read the forementioned Authors viz. Dr. Brevint and Stillingfleet, where you'll find the Question truly stated, and enough to put any ●ober Man out of conceit with Romish Miracles.  
Nothing now remains, but that I give you a further account of this Gentleman's unworthy dealing in these false and slanderous Assertions, which make up a considerable Part of his Book. As  
That the Roman Church hath taught Protestants all they know of Christianity, Luther in Gal. p. 292. Wh●taker Controu. 2. Q. 5. c. 14. False. 
p. 2.   
That all Christians are free from the Obligation of the Mo●al Law, Luth. in Gal. p. 46. 42. 49. 144. Calvin Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. lib. 3. 
p. 11.  c. 19 n. 2. & 4. All false.  
That the Church took it very ill, that Pope Gregory dealt so with the Emperor. Aquinas 22. Quaest. 12 Art. 2. False. 
p. 40.   
That Vincentius in his Speculum Histor. lib. 15. c. 84. checked that Fac● of Pope Gregory. Most False.  
That the Catholic Bishops in England with their Clergy declared to Q. Eliz. that it is not warrantable either by the Laws of God or Man, 
p. 57  to act against the allegiance, they own to their Prince. Holinshead Vol. 3. p. 1358—. That Parry's Fact was condemned by them. Holinshead Vol. 3. p. 1385. and 1387. False.  
That not above 13 Laymen and 4 Jesuits were either Actors in, or privy to the Gunpowder Treason. Baker p. 593. False. 
p. 64.   
That this Plot was the Treasurer's device, Osborn Man of K. James. False.  
That Popish Princes punished the Albigenses for their rebellious Doctrines against Princes. Illyricus Catal. Test. Ver. p. 735. and 755. And 
p. 73.  for their actual Bebellions Osiander Epitome. Cent. 16. p. 715. For which Bishop Jewel disowns them in the defence of his Apology. p. 48. All most False.  
That Luther, Calvin, and other Principal Reformers are called the 
p. 76.  Flower of all precedent Doctors and Fathers; more knowing then all their Predecessors, yea, than the Apostles themselves. Luther in Serm. de evers. Hierusal. p. 271. Beza Praef. in Nou. Test. The first Messengers of Truth. Jewel Apol. part 4. c. 4. divis. 2. and Defence of Apol. p. 426. All false  
That among Christians no Man ought to be Superior to another; that 
p. 77.  none but Christ is Ruler over them. Luth. de seculari potest. Tom. 9 That he will disturb the Public Peace, and even confound and destroy the Prince himself. Luth. Loc. Communes Class. 4. c. 30. That we are exempted from all Human Laws by the Christian Liberty, given us in Baptism. cap. de baptismo. All false.  
That notorious Rebellions, and barbarous Cruelties immediately followed 
p. 78.  upon these Doctrines by Protestants. Sleidan H●st. lib. 22. p. 345. Osiand. Cent. 16. p. 115. False.  
That Earthly Princes divest themselves of their power, when they oppose themselves against God; and therefore 'tis fit a Man should spit in their faces than obey them, when they grow so saucy. Instit. lib. 4. c. 20. and Comment in Daniel cap. 2. v. 39 cap. 6. v. 2. 25. All false.  
That Protestants advanced their wicked Principles in every Country 
p. 79.  to an execution of the most horrid practices of insolent Rebellion and Bloodshed & Cruelty. In France for thirty years together. Osiand. Cent. 16. p. 115 735. 599. Sutcliff Ans. to a Supplic. Libel. p. 194. Hist. of the Civil Wars in France. In Germany Sleidan lib. 18. p. 263. In Swethland Chitraeus Chron. p. 74. 75. In Holland Osiander Cent. 16. p. 801. 803. That they deposed Ph●lip K. of Spain from his Dominions in the Low-Countries. Osiarder Cent. 16. p. 941. 805. That they violently excluded Sigismond K. of Sweden from his Crown. Osiand. Cent. 16. p. 1115. and the Emperor from divers of his Rights in Germany. All false.  
That Luther affirms, That neither Austin, nor Ambrose, nor any 
p. 90.  Doctor, Di●ine— since the Apostles times, had so excellently instructed and confirmed men's Consciences, as he himself had done. Luth in lib. ad ducem Georg. And that Calvin saith, That all the Ancient Fathers for 1300 years had been blindly led with Error. Instit. lib. 3. c. 5. All false.  
That whether Antichrist hath his seat at Rome or Jerusalem, yet even 
p. 92.  then, neither the Church, nor Pope of Rome shall be Antichrist, but both be persecuted by him, and persevere still visible and eminent. S. Austin de Civit. dei lib. 20 c. 8. & in Psal. 70. Calvin Instit. lib. 4. c. 2. n. 12. All most false.  
That there was no visible Church, but the Popish Church for 1260 
p. 95.  years before Luther. Napper upon the Revel. p. 145. Perkins upon the Creed. p. 400. and in his Reformed Catholic p. 307. All false.  
That the Hebrew Doctors have corrupted the Scriptures. Calvin Instit. 
p. 97.  lib. 1. c. 13. n. 9 False. That S. Hierom thought it not safe to recur to those Hebrew Copies, where the Septuagint differs from them. In Epist. ad Gal. cap. 3. False.  
That the first Reformers, and their Successors have entirely condemned 
p. 117.  and rejected the Fathers, both in general and particular, as blind, ignorant, and full of Errors. Luther de servo Arbitrio. p. 434. Calvin in Heb. c. 7. v. 9 Instit. lib. 4. c. 12. n. 19 & 30. Humsred, de vita Jeweli p. 212. Fulkes Retentive against Bristol. p. 55. Wotton defence of Perk us p. 491. Whitaker contra duraeum lib. 6. p. 423. All false.  
That the ten Commandments belong not to Christians. Luther Serm. 
p. 124.  de Mose, and approved by Whitaker contra duraeum lib. 8. Sect. 91. Luther in Gal. cap. p. 227. That it is Heresy to require good works to Salvation. Luth. Serm. de piscat. Petri p. 154 All false in this Gentleman's sense; for they constantly affirm, that the ten Commandments belong to Christians as a Rule of life, and that good works are necessary to salvation.  
That the Church of England doth acknowledge in her Marginal Notes 
p. 164.  upon Joh. 14. 12. That Believers in every Age have power to work Miracles. False.  
That infinite Miracles have been wrought by the Relics of Saints. 
p. 168.  Whitaker contra duraeum lib. 10 p. 866. False.  
That the real Presence is confirmed by many Miracles, acknowledged 
p. 169.  by Dr. Humphrey in his Jesuitism p. 2. rat. 5. p. 626. and Centurists. Cent. 4. col. 431. And that famous one in the Town of Knoblock an. 1510. is related as a certain truth by Osiander ●ent. 16. cap. 14. p. 28. All most false.  
That several Miracles are confessed by the C●n●urists, to prove the 
p. 170.  Mass to be a true Sacrifice, Purgatory and Prayer for the dead. Cent. 6. Col. 819. & Cent. 7. Col. 577. All most false.  
That the Miracles wrought by S. Oswald, and others are approved by 
p. 179.  Holinshead in his Chron. Vol. 1. p. 115. 170. False.  
That the formentioned Miracles, and many others of the seventh Age, 
p. 180.  are acknowledged by the Centurists Cent. 7. cap. 10. Col. 533. and Osiander Epitome. Cent. 7. False.  
That many undoubted Miracles were wrought in the 8. 9 10. and 11. Ages in confirmation of the use of Images, the Veneration of holy Relics, Invocation of Saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, offered for the Living and the Dead. Osiander Epit. Cent. 8. p. 47. and 92. Item p. 24. 25. The Centurists Cent. 8. cap. 13. Cent. 9 cap. 13. Osiander Epit. Cent. 9 p. 63. All most false.  
That the Miracles of S. Dunstan are recorded and approved by Holinshead Vol. 1. 165. and others in the same Age by the Conturists Cent. 10. cap. 13. and Osiander Epit. Cent. 10. p. 125. All most false.  
That the Miracles wrought in the Eleventh Age by S. Ansolm, O●●●o. 
p. 181.  and others, in confirmation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Invocation of Saints, are confessed by Osiander Epit. Cent. 9 10. 11. p. 213. False.  
That infinite Miracles were done by Malachias in the twelveth Age, whereof some were seen and acknowledged by many hundreds of People. Holinshead Chron. p. 55. False.  
That many Miracles were done by S. Bernard, and acknowledged by the 
p. 182.  Centurists Cent. 12. col. 1634. 1635. 1649. and Osiander Cent. 12. lib. 4. cap. 6. p. 310. And that these moved Whitaker to give him the just Character of a true Saint. De Eccles. p. 369. All most false.  
He further tells us, That signal Miracles were wrought in the thirteenth Age by S. Dominick, and S. Francis, even while they were preaching against the Albigensian Errors, whom Satan had seduced to deny those known Doctrines of God's Church viz. Purgatory, Prayers for the dead, Confession, Extreme Unction, the Pope's Authority, Images, Traditions— And in the next page assures us, That the Miracles wrought in the 15 th'. Age, are admired and reverenced by Protestants themselves But for both these we must take his bare word; and how can he in reason expect this from us, who stands convicted of above a hundred notorious Lies?  
Perhaps here you'll say, That the Printer has mistaken many of the Quotations; and therefore we cannot in justice charge them on the Author: Or that he hath taken them upon the Credit of other Writers.  
But to the first I answer. 1. That the Printer cannot be charged with any mistake in reference to many, nay most of the Quotations, I have mentioned. 2. That about two Months ago I writ to this Gentleman (and have great assurance that my Letter came to his Hands) and desired him, that, if there were any Erratas in the Citations, he would be pleased to send me a corrected Book, and it should be faithfully returned: But to this day I never heard from him.  
And to the second Plea viz. That he hath taken these Citations upon the Credit of other Writers (which I believe to be a great truth) I answer, That to take things upon trust in Controversial Points, argues much weakness and imprudence; but to do this, and not give his Reader the least intimation of it, argues great unfaithfulness and dishonesty, that will not admit of any Excuse. And to evidence his great Proficiency in this Catholic Virtue, I could give you many other Instances; but for Brevity's sake I'll mention but one, which you may find p. 190. and will appear most notorious upon your comparing of it with p. 127. of my Book. Here he confidently tells the World, that all that the Bishops of Bononia (as they are alleged in the last page but one of my Book) do affirm i●, That private men's constructions of the Bible have raised great storms and differences, and that the Doctrines preached by Christians (or the Romish Church) se●m contrary to those contained in the Bible. But the advice of those Bishops to the Pope was related by me in these words: Let that little suffice, which is wont to be read in the Mass; and more than that let no Mortal, be allowed to read, For so long as men were content with that little, your affairs succeeded according to desire; but quite otherways since so much of the Scriptures was publicly read. In short, this is the Book, which above all others, hath raised these storms and ten pests. And truly, if any one read that Book (the Scriptures) and observe the Customs and Practices of our Church, will see that there is no agreement betwixt them, and that the Doctrine, which we preach, is altogether different from, and sometimes contrary to that contained in the Bible. Now can any Man pick out of these Words, or will any one, but a frontless Romanist, affirm, that the sense of them is, That private men's constructions of the Bible have raised great storms and differences, etc. I grant, we are to put the most favourable construction upon another's Words and Actions; Yet I take that Caution in their Canon-Law to be extravagant, viz. That if a P●p●st see one of their Priests k●ssing a Woman, he's bid to believe, that the Priest is only giving her good Counsel: For though Charity be can did and ingenuous, yet 'tis not blind and blockish. And that their Charity must have these debasing Qualifications, who endeavour to excuse this Gentleman, is obvious to any. I have found him guilty of about an hundred and fifty false Quotations, and observed near half that number, that are wholly impertinent, besides many that I have not time to examine. Sir, if these Roman Factors dare publish such notorious Falsities to the World, we may easily guests what pretty Stories they tell their deluded Proselytes in secret. Let us commiserate their Condition, who have committed their Souls to the Conduct of these Spiritual Mountchancks, and admire Gods discriminating Mercy, who hath delivered us from their Fatal delusions.  
Sir I am Your most Obliged and faithful Servant I. S.